Merry Xmas from Oscar Wegner

[bottle]

But I don't see the big contradiction, and I remember a lot of early videos of Oscar where his racket was low but far to the outside, which means his elbow was away from his body, too. One of the things I don't like about tennis instruction is that when somebody keeps emphasizing some feature of a tennis stroke, other, equally important features don't get emphasized enough.

[stotty]

Great point...

One of the things I don't like about tennis instruction is that when somebody keeps emphasizing some feature of a tennis stroke, other, equally important features don't get emphasized enough.

Now this is a very valid point. This is the downside of stripping down shots using biomechanics as oppose to the less scientific approach (yet equally as valuable and valid) of someone like don_budge. The scientific approach always over focuses. Shots have to be looked at as a whole...and tennis is sometimes ineffable. Giving kids an overall shape of a forehand to look at is often better than breaking things down into parts...imagery is a great coaching tool.

[don_budge]

Reinventing the wheel...

I finally forced myself to watch the entire video but I still must admit that it was very difficult to concentrate for the duration. What a bunch of psycho babble...

I had this image come into my mind of two black tribesmen in Africa in the absolute middle of nowhere, deep in the heart of darkness...one of them was a stooge to the other who was claiming that he had invented the wheel. He was jealously ranting about some other fellow in the next village who he thought to be a competitor. This conversation was taking place at the absolute same time that this retarded video was being put together. Parallel universes.

I have a question for anybody...who cares?

[jeffreycounts]

Now this is a very valid point. This is the downside of stripping down shots using biomechanics as oppose to the less scientific approach (yet equally as valuable and valid) of someone like don_budge. The scientific approach always over focuses. Shots have to be looked at as a whole...and tennis is sometimes ineffable. Giving kids an overall shape of a forehand to look at is often better than breaking things down into parts...imagery is a great coaching tool.

Interestingly John has always argued for the power of visual learning. That ineffable, uncanny ability of the body to directly respond to what it sees. That's why his first book was called "Visual Tennis" and it's why he shot The Winning Edge. But even visual learning is grounded in science - just google "mirror neurons" to see why it works.

I think ultimately what we want is a visual, feel based approach that comes directly from a solid biomechanical or observational analysis. "Applied science" is a term I like. Let the researchers do the heavy lifting and then translate their findings into teachable, "feel based", visualized movements.

John is the true scientific pioneer here by first capturing observational tennis data in the form of a huge stroke archives, and then using that data to carefully compare, contrast, and draw conclusions about what these guys are doing. For some reason we seem to trust these principles of science elsewhere in our lives - our health, the technology we use, the weather, but not when it comes to a sport like tennis.

Back to Oscar. Oscar actually started off comparing the forehand to a push forward, which was great. If you push forward and upward you get that great extension position John talks about. But somewhere along the way he changed directions. Literally. And it's very unfortunate because it completely contradicts what John, or anyone else who has access to a stroke archives, sees.

[DougEng]

Jeff Count's comments

Interestingly John has always argued for the power of visual learning. That ineffable, uncanny ability of the body to directly respond to what it sees. That's why his first book was called "Visual Tennis" and it's why he shot The Winning Edge. But even visual learning is grounded in science - just google "mirror neurons" to see why it works.

I think ultimately what we want is a visual, feel based approach that comes directly from a solid biomechanical or observational analysis. "Applied science" is a term I like. Let the researchers do the heavy lifting and then translate their findings into teachable, "feel based", visualized movements.

John is the true scientific pioneer here by first capturing observational tennis data in the form of a huge stroke archives, and then using that data to carefully compare, contrast, and draw conclusions about what these guys are doing. For some reason we seem to trust these principles of science elsewhere in our lives - our health, the technology we use, the weather, but not when it comes to a sport like tennis.

Back to Oscar. Oscar actually started off comparing the forehand to a push forward, which was great. If you push forward and upward you get that great extension position John talks about. But somewhere along the way he changed directions. Literally. And it's very unfortunate because it completely contradicts what John, or anyone else who has access to a stroke archives, sees.

Nice points, Jeff! I mentioned that earlier about John; just that Oscar mentioned that how come John never mentioned the dynamic slot that Brian Gordon mentioned. To be fair, most good coaches have some intuitive sense of it. We just didn't put it into words. Then Brian put it quite elegantly into 3 types of forehands. As we know John is astute and pointed out Federer has something like 26-27 forehands. Vic Braden gave a quite similar number which is a compliment to John since it was done independently and Vic is a legend and understands tennis as well as anyone. Just to clarify what I mentioned about John's style. As Jeff mentions, John likes to be visual; hence he allows coaches to find out what's meaningful in analysis. I didn't put that as eloquently.

Vic Braden actually is the pioneer of video analysis. As you may know, he didn't know what to do with the 20,000 hrs of videos (something like that) but ESPN offered to archive all of it. John was the first to make video analysis (particularly high speed) accessible on the internet as primary focus (there are other video analysis sites even earlier but none were as comprehensive or dedicated). That started as the Advanced Tennis Research Project.

And of course, Oscar's wrap around technique is used by many players but as many people suggest, it's less than ideal. Unfortunately too many people focus on the follow-through since it's quite explicit, hence the wrap-up and poor extension. As Jeff and I mentioned earlier, Oscar really was into find and push the ball. Doesn't matter how you conceptualize it as long as good fundamentals are taught. I'm not sure how complementary his "push" and "pull across" are.
As Jeff mentions it's an unusual way of looking at it. As far back as 1990 or 1991 when I first met Oscar, that's how he did it. And I run into him maybe once every 3 years (in NY) and he loves to talk. Of course, many pros love to sell themselves.

Happy New Year!
Doug

[DougEng]

Now this is a very valid point. This is the downside of stripping down shots using biomechanics as oppose to the less scientific approach (yet equally as valuable and valid) of someone like don_budge. The scientific approach always over focuses. Shots have to be looked at as a whole...and tennis is sometimes ineffable. Giving kids an overall shape of a forehand to look at is often better than breaking things down into parts...imagery is a great coaching tool.

Interesting view, Slotty. I understand what you might be referring too but I disagree somewhat on your take on science. The scientific approach might appear to over focus only because it takes 1,000 words to equal a picture. So if someone writes 2,000 words, often to be valuable from a scientific or educational point, it needs to focus on something. Today's tennisplayer.net reader/viewer is often fairly educated in tennis technique, as yourself. If you write a vague article in 2,000 word on groundstrokes, it probably won't say much unless it's for a beginner.

That aside, it doesn't mean the scientific approach break down strokes anymore than non-scientific. I'm not sure if either breaks down strokes more than the other. Rather, however, I do find that coaches who are less versed in sport science often focus on the wrong things. For example, many coaches still focus on follow-through on the forehand and serve. Or they emphasize punching the volley. Or they refer to incorrect extension on the serve (showing the contact point the wrong way which is common). Some of the worst lessons I've seen are due to ignorance of science (or something like tennisplayer.net or any other progressive tennis educational site). For example, a coach might have a student step in and hit 300 crosscourt forehands off dead ball feeds for 30 minutes. A real case in point (I won't mention the coach's name since he is well-respected, although now retired) was after a lecture of mine on the serve, the coach proceeded to show several students (aspiring high school to college players) how to come around the ball to create spin. Basically carving around the ball (e.g, racquet covering 90-120˚ arc around the ball). Of course, that's impossible and I was surprised (out of respect, I said nothing to correct the coach since it was his moment). Often science is misunderstood and misinterpreted. On the other hand, science can be slow to advance what might seem obvious. A scientific view might focus on a topic such as kinetic chain which would imply loading and proper use of the body sequentially and synergistically is more important than breaking down a stroke. Sport science would not agree with the student hitting 300 crosscourt forehands for 30 minutes. It defies any notion of deliberate practice or tennis as an open-skilled sport. Incorporating open stances, spin moves, down-the-lines, inside-outs, approach shot decision-making are vital for developing adaptable skills.

In addition, sport science allows the coach to understand how to optimize
an athlete's ability. A well-versed coach would understand why a player fails to extend or why he lacks power. In any case, teaching/coaching is a art and a science. Doing one without the other won't work. And of course, your input (and from all readers) whether in agreement or not is always valuable. Always important to hear and discuss.

Best,
Doug

[DougEng]

Okay. As a result of jryle1's (Jono's) post, I went back and re-watched the supposedly strange video, this time not just for the technical provocations which always make any interchange with Oscar so much fun, but to look for whatever drove a considerable number of people even nuttier than usual.

Guess what? The psychological provocation isn't there. Not if the person being provoked harbors the slightest bit of sophistication.

All tennis pros self-promote. If they don't, they don't get business. Me, I'm terrible at it. Maybe ten people read my first tennis book. And I expect maybe seven people to read my second tennis book which I expect to go up in the Kindle Store in the coming week.

See: I'm not even telling the title. Nor my authorial name. Because I'm lousy at self-promotion. So you won't read my new book, Jono-- ono, ono (and you probably wouldn't like it anyway).

Well, the main lesson from Tennis Player's beginning-- in its main sections and on one of its promotion pages, if not in its forum pages-- is that one picture is worth a thousand words.

So I'll attach one picture to this post, to try and explain that feature of Oscar's technical substance which shocked you so much.

If you noticed my previous post in this thread, you probably thought since I said Percy Boomer was my guy, that Oscar was not my guy. But both guys are saying the same thing. And so is the attached picture.

The reason that Goliath's death throes have begun is that the rock hit his forehead very hard and even bit through his flesh because of so much spin.

Forget Christmas, everybody. It's over. May you find good centripetality in the coming year.

Note: I certainly hope, Jono, that you have found the present post very strange.

lol, Bottle. You are not alone. Ten people who read your first book! You might have passed Vince Spadea's autobiography (when asked if he read it, James Blake replied, "If you read it, you must have been one of the ten books he sold"). You should let us know which book you wrote. Please do (I have several manuscripts/books here from quite a few authors since I am sometimes asked to read/proofread). I'm no Einstein at self-promotion either. I wrote a book/manual over the summer with a very well-respected name (who contributed here). But hardly anyone knows. Recently I was on Tennis Channel but I'm more embarrassed to watch it (I still have not, and I actually hate watching myself play or teach on video). And something else fantastic...but I won't discuss it after formal press release (my students don't know, just a few friends/colleagues). So much for promoting oneself.

I'll actually remove facebook friends if they over-promote themselves or some product. And I criticized a friend for overcharging for lessons (even if students are willing to pay). For me, tennis is more a service to customers. I believe you only charge for a product if you can deliver. I've never been a club pro who has to sell oneself and I can understand that many pros need to. Quite honestly, I've rarely had to do the club pro typical route. It reminds me of Andy Brandi and Harold Solomon speaking in at the USPTA Florida Convention a few years ago. They mentioned they believe in discipline and work ethic and if the student doesn't have the self-motivation or jumps when the coach barks (in my words, how I interpret what they implied), they'll let the student go from the academy (Harold Solomon Institute). A quite unassuming Juan Nunez (who you may know worked with many top WTA pros) posed the question, "but you have the luxury of doing that. What about most pros who need to take in as many students as they can?" Unfortunately, there are a few used car salesmen in our business but also many honest pros who need to bring home the bacon. There's always the need to market oneself, even you and me.

[bottle]

Thanks for this post. My e-book, which will be in the Kindle Store, is INNER SLINGSHOT: THE KEY TO MODERN TENNIS, by John Escher. I just completed the final "proofing." Anybody who finds a typo gets to kill me. I just need to slow down my partner Hope for an hour or a week to help develop the right number of pixels, etc. for the cover.

You know, my interactions with Oscar were really positive and great. So why am I supposed to go instead with some miserable professional spat that he and John Yandell shared over a decade ago? My experience was by email, as was my wonderful exchange with Doug King, which was set up by Jeff Counts, and for which I have never properly thanked him. Thank you so much, Jeff!

I reviewed Oscar's second book. And I really think that people should study all of his work before they start with their hasty (and to my mind intemperate) generalities about him.

Now (and here we go): In the present thread only the comments about technique interest me. And nobody other than you and me said much about how circularity can multiply racket head speed-- you when discussing the body possibly coming up or going backward.

To me, that interesting discussion is about, along with everything else then happening, shifting the fulcrum of any circular motion. Should the sudden shift be backward or sideward or upward or downward? Arthur Ashe felt that too big a forehand might land the right-hander on his shoulder someplace off to the left: A sound observation, to my mind.

I detect tiredness throughout this thread, psychological attrition at work. Are Oscar's circularity ideas really dated? Then Newton's are even more dated.

The perennial criticism of Oscar that somebody somewhere sometime saw some juniors with cramped forehands seems pathetic and weak. Were these juniors even Oscar's juniors? And why is he to blame? We've known why satellites circling the earth go so fast for a long time.

As student, not teacher, I want to know every possible way to hit a tennis ball. Then I'll decide, not anybody else, what I'll do next, thanks.

And I distrust the influence of Robert Lansdorp just a little bit. A great guy, a great coach who hates "the academic ball." He may be the greatest expert on earth on the subject of the flat, penetrating shot, but is he the number one expert on heavy topspin?

How about the Spanish coaches? Or Chris Lewit? Where does Lewit fit in? Believes in scissoring the arm like Oscar for sure. But nobody wants to beat up on HIM.

I would suggest that if people don't like what Oscar is saying in the video which is the subject of this thread, they simply turn off the sound and watch his sign language and the cohesiveness of his visual message.

They might learn something before returning, say, to the subject of inside out swing.

Note: I'm very interested in the late contact points advocated in Oscar's first book. If you're using a circular stroke with a far back contact point, are you not hitting through the ball a bit? Also, I remember Oscar saying once that he loves hard, fast shots-- those would be the ones hit way out in front-- IF they stay in the court.

[DougEng]

Thoughts on Oscar

Thanks for this post. My e-book, which will be in the Kindle Store, is INTERNAL SLINGSHOT: THE KEY TO MODERN TENNIS, by John Escher. I just completed the final "proofing." Anybody who finds a typo gets to kill me. I just need to slow down my partner Hope for an hour or a week to help develop the right number of pixels, etc. for the cover.

You know, my interactions with Oscar were really positive and great. So why am I supposed to go instead with some miserable professional spat that he and John Yandell shared over a decade ago? My experience was by email, as was my wonderful exchange with Doug King, which was set up by Jeff Counts, and for which I have never properly thanked him. Thank you so much, Jeff!

I reviewed Oscar's second book. And I really think that people should study all of his work before they start with their hasty (and to my mind intemperate) generalities about him.

Now (and here we go): In the present thread only the comments about technique interest me. And nobody other than you and me said much about how circularity can multiply racket head speed-- you when discussing the body possibly coming up or going backward.

To me, that interesting discussion is about, along with everything else then happening, shifting the fulcrum of any circular motion. Should the sudden shift be backward or sideward or upward or downward? Arthur Ashe felt that too big a forehand might land the right-hander on his shoulder someplace off to the left: A sound observation, to my mind.

I detect tiredness throughout this thread, psychological attrition at work. Are Oscar's circularity ideas really dated? Then Newton's are even more dated.

The perennial criticism of Oscar that somebody somewhere sometime saw some juniors with cramped forehands seems pathetic and weak. Were these juniors even Oscar's juniors? And why is he to blame? We've known why satellites circling the earth go so fast for a long time.

As student, not teacher, I want to know every possible way to hit a tennis ball. Then I'll decide, not anybody else, what I'll do next, thanks.

And I distrust the influence of Robert Lansdorp just a little bit. A great guy, a great coach who hates "the academic ball." He may be the greatest expert on earth on the subject of the flat, penetrating shot, but is he the number one expert on heavy topspin?

How about the Spanish coaches? Or Chris Lewit? Where does Lewit fit in? Believes in scissoring the arm like Oscar for sure. But nobody wants to beat up on HIM.

I would suggest that if people don't like what Oscar is saying in the video which is the subject of this thread, they simply turn off the sound and watch his sign language and the cohesiveness of his visual message.

They might learn something before returning, say, to the subject of inside out swing.

Note: I'm very interested in the late contact points advocated in Oscar's first book. If you're using a circular stroke with a far back contact point, are you not hitting through the ball a bit? Also, I remember Oscar saying once that he loves hard, fast shots-- those would be the ones hit way out in front-- IF they stay in the court.

Good points! Oscar was very big on the wrap-around (a bit around the neck). So that's a bit dated considering how different the swings are today. The essence of Oscar, anyhow, is simplify and feel. Newton isn't dated. However, dated doesn't mean unplayed. Everyone has an old pair of blue jeans. Many club players hit flat and slice primarily. Lots of juniors have cramp strokes. Lots of very good players have very long swings (between Gordon's Type 1 and 2). As Vic Braden might say, everything is always there. Hardly anything is invented today, just whether it gets popular. It's a matter like the hemline of the skirt. Up one year, down the next. Much of depends on the trendy success of top players, equipment, surfaces, etc.

[stotty]

Science

Interesting view, Slotty. I understand what you might be referring too but I disagree somewhat on your take on science. The scientific approach might appear to over focus only because it takes 1,000 words to equal a picture. So if someone writes 2,000 words, often to be valuable from a scientific or educational point, it needs to focus on something. Today's tennisplayer.net reader/viewer is often fairly educated in tennis technique, as yourself. If you write a vague article in 2,000 word on groundstrokes, it probably won't say much unless it's for a beginner.

That aside, it doesn't mean the scientific approach break down strokes anymore than non-scientific. I'm not sure if either breaks down strokes more than the other. Rather, however, I do find that coaches who are less versed in sport science often focus on the wrong things. For example, many coaches still focus on follow-through on the forehand and serve. Or they emphasize punching the volley. Or they refer to incorrect extension on the serve (showing the contact point the wrong way which is common). Some of the worst lessons I've seen are due to ignorance of science (or something like tennisplayer.net or any other progressive tennis educational site). For example, a coach might have a student step in and hit 300 crosscourt forehands off dead ball feeds for 30 minutes. A real case in point (I won't mention the coach's name since he is well-respected, although now retired) was after a lecture of mine on the serve, the coach proceeded to show several students (aspiring high school to college players) how to come around the ball to create spin. Basically carving around the ball (e.g, racquet covering 90-120˚ arc around the ball). Of course, that's impossible and I was surprised (out of respect, I said nothing to correct the coach since it was his moment). Often science is misunderstood and misinterpreted. On the other hand, science can be slow to advance what might seem obvious. A scientific view might focus on a topic such as kinetic chain which would imply loading and proper use of the body sequentially and synergistically is more important than breaking down a stroke. Sport science would not agree with the student hitting 300 crosscourt forehands for 30 minutes. It defies any notion of deliberate practice or tennis as an open-skilled sport. Incorporating open stances, spin moves, down-the-lines, inside-outs, approach shot decision-making are vital for developing adaptable skills.

In addition, sport science allows the coach to understand how to optimize
an athlete's ability. A well-versed coach would understand why a player fails to extend or why he lacks power. In any case, teaching/coaching is a art and a science. Doing one without the other won't work. And of course, your input (and from all readers) whether in agreement or not is always valuable. Always important to hear and discuss.

Best,
Doug

Thanks for your response to my post, Doug.

I understand the science side of tennis is revealing and valuable. It's also a little confusing at times, which is why some coaches shy away from it. As John Yandell responded in another one of my threads, the language science uses is powerful stuff in itself. BG's work is outstanding and I can fully understand why coaches need to become fully versed and familiar with biomechanics. I've come to the conclusion the next step for myself as a coach to study more the science side of things.

Despite what I have said, science can be a sledge hammer to crack a nut at times. And it's conveying the science/biomechanics to students that takes the real skill. We can all read, learn, be knowledgeable...imparting it to our students is the tricky part.

I value your input a great deal on the forum. I imagine you are a formidable coach on all fronts. Keep posting...I'll always be there darn quick to read 'em.

[jryle1]

Okay. As a result of jryle1's (Jono's) post, I went back and re-watched the supposedly strange video, this time not just for the technical provocations which always make any interchange with Oscar so much fun, but to look for whatever drove a considerable number of people even nuttier than usual.

Guess what? The psychological provocation isn't there. Not if the person being provoked harbors the slightest bit of sophistication.

All tennis pros self-promote. If they don't, they don't get business. Me, I'm terrible at it. Maybe ten people read my first tennis book. And I expect maybe seven people to read my second tennis book which I expect to go up in the Kindle Store in the coming week.

See: I'm not even telling the title. Nor my authorial name. Because I'm lousy at self-promotion. So you won't read my new book, Jono-- ono, ono (and you probably wouldn't like it anyway).

Well, the main lesson from Tennis Player's beginning-- in its main sections and on one of its promotion pages, if not in its forum pages-- is that one picture is worth a thousand words.

So I'll attach one picture to this post, to try and explain that feature of Oscar's technical substance which shocked you so much.

If you noticed my previous post in this thread, you probably thought since I said Percy Boomer was my guy, that Oscar was not my guy. But both guys are saying the same thing. And so is the attached picture.

The reason that Goliath's death throes have begun is that the rock hit his forehead very hard and even bit through his flesh because of so much spin.

Forget Christmas, everybody. It's over. May you find good centripetality in the coming year.

Note: I certainly hope, Jono, that you have found the present post very strange.

After re-reading my first post, I must admit that I was very wrong, and as I accused, very arrogant of me to be so pugnacious in my dislike of the video. One of my greatest flaws is that I never re-read my "work", whether it be in exams or simple posts on message boards. I must admit that I was a bit over the top in terms of criticizing Oscar and I'm very glad that you posted that picture bottle because it's an interesting one.

I did say that my take on technique may be greatly biased and indeed, it appears to have been. I made a judgment based on my own perceptions of what happens through seeing work produced by contributors on this forum as well as studying the videos myself. It was wrong of me to jump down Oscar's throat for saying what he believes happens in the stroke. My 2nd mistake was making a judgment without learning and studying two halves of the story. To every story there is at least two different points of view, if not more and it I was too quick to jump to conclusions without even reading and studying Oscar's work.

I apologise for the above.

My main aim in tennis is to learn as much as possible about the game from all different sources, including my own studies and to try and combine the best of everything. I think that's what nearly all coaches try to do or should try to do. In regards to your ebooks, I would most certainly not turn my nose up at them and who knows, I may like them, I may not like them but I certainly wouldn't say straight out that I wouldn't like them because they may not agree with what I believe in.

I think it's important to be open minded as a tennis coach and not to take things too personally if other people disagree with your beliefs. That's where the fun begins anyway I guess with the colourful debates.

I certainly hope I haven't made too many enemies with my hasty response and I'm very glad due to my hastiness. I've spent the last 4-5 days in London with my family for a mini holiday and one of my pet hates is slow walkers and at this time it appears the streets of London are crawling with them because it is so busy yet I always have this image of Obi-Wan from Star Wars saying "Patience", and am constantly reminded that "Patience is a virtue".

Jono.

[10splayer]

Well, I'll go on record as saying i do not like much of his instruction. Forget the fact, I find him to be totally incapable of giving credit to others and woefully self serving.....

Much of the disagreement pertains to the forehand. A few principles i absolutely detest are, (in no particular order)


1 To wait till the ball bounces before preparing....I think he refers to this as stalking..There are alot of different backswing shapes, but the most important reference point is that the hands are at the top of the backswing by the time the ball bounces...No if, ands, or buts....Even in his video demonstrations, I find incomplete turns, no real structure to the backswing, and in general, a real "armsy" look to the shot. Having said that, I do agree that the racquet face should be closed.(i think he is a proponent of that)


2. The whole "across" action is WAY too overstated, and further, IMO, taught out of sequence..That is, taught first and foremost.. I am a firm believer in learning to move thru the ball first (good extension), and then learn to break off the swing (later).. I have found, that this is not a hard thing to do, once good extension is acquired. The Wegnerites don't seem to either understand this, or refuse to believe this method has any merit. I've seen guys like Lansdorp, Macci, etc mocked by these yahoos. What a joke.


3.Ironically, even though they proclaim to be the pioneers of modern tennis, I find the whole "break the elbow, up over the shoulder finish" to be quite dated. I've been showing kids how to use the low finish, and how it tends to increase spin rates, for years...One thing for sure, there are many more forehands (at least with good players) that finish below the shoulder, than over it..

[johnyandell]

I couldn't have said it better myself. The big irony is the part about how poorly his work really corresponds to the pros while he trumpets it as modern tennis...

[DougEng]

Thanks for your response to my post, Doug.

I understand the science side of tennis is revealing and valuable. It's also a little confusing at times, which is why some coaches shy away from it. As John Yandell responded in another one of my threads, the language science uses is powerful stuff in itself. BG's work is outstanding and I can fully understand why coaches need to become fully versed and familiar with biomechanics. I've come to the conclusion the next step for myself as a coach to study more the science side of things.

Despite what I have said, science can be a sledge hammer to crack a nut at times. And it's conveying the science/biomechanics to students that takes the real skill. We can all read, learn, be knowledgeable...imparting it to our students is the tricky part.

I value your input a great deal on the forum. I imagine you are a formidable coach on all fronts. Keep posting...I'll always be there darn quick to read 'em.

Good points. As an educator (and applied sport scientist), I think it's most important to make science understandable. Since there is so much research now, depth in science is often more original than breadth. So perhaps a scientist might sometimes look at the bark on a tree for hours and not realize there is a forest. On the other hand, that focus is what makes people excellent at what they do today. One doesn't become a top-notch musician by doing forty other things. But it can make the musician a dull person. Same for tennis.

I also mentioned some stuff from a psychology/pedagogy viewpoint as learning/teaching theory is also a science (and an art). So it accompanies biomechanics, physics, sports medicine, exercise physiology as sport science.

In addition, there's qualitative research and quantitative research. And then highly complex mathematical modeling which some biomechanists may use.
In the end, tennis is a game and whatever scientific principles can be absorbed by the player is what matters.

Best,
Doug

[bottle]

Re # 26 by jryle1

Thanks for your post, jryle1, the best of all in this thread, in my view, and I include my own contributions in that assessment.

Staying open to ideas in tennis-- to all ideas-- is the way to go. It's the long view, in so many cases, that has become extinct.

Like you, I'm capable of agonized reappraisal (in fact some would say I do it far too much). I'm sorry if I implied that anyone in this thread was a nut. I sort of agree with some of what the other guys say, e.g., 10splayer: "The whole across action is...overstated" and an "armsy look to the shot" (Wegner demonstrated forehand).

In the long view though we've all seen or tried the service exercise with pliable loaded socks swung around the body.

Isn't David's slingshot (on the cover of my book INNER SLINGSHOT) like that? I mean, his sling or strap isn't stiff like a tennis racket but must have gotten taut to propel the rock into Goliath's head.

As I consider Percy Boomer, little known but possibly the greatest of all golf writers, I realize that this "tautness" is what centripetality vs. centrifugality (with neither in my dictionary) is about.

And Oscar in his books and demonstrations is pretty good on the subject-- better than most-- e.g., he talks about a stone tied to the end of a cord which a right-hander can get going in one direction before tugging left.

What does the stone do? Accelerates. And how many tennis instructors are really out to impart any secrets of acceleration to their students?

In Percy Boomer, the downward swing to the outside seems to get countered by small muscular action from feet and ankles.

In a Donald Budge backhand or a Pancho Segura two-handed forehand their easy swing seems to be countered by a small bit of rowing or maybe just bracing with the back.

If it were Bill Nye the science guy instead of Oscar Wegner speaking, the tennis pros in this thread would probably think, "Cool," or "How brilliant!" That's why I retain some skepticism.

An idea is an idea is an idea in tennis or anyplace else.

Where it comes from doesn't matter. No one owns it. Some application might be patented but not the idea itself. It belongs to everybody.

The opinion that Oscar is wedded to over the shoulder finishes and not ever giving credit to others is totally bogus and easy to disprove.

But is Oscar on trial? And why? For what? By whom?