Announcement

**hockeyscout** · 11-02-2014, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by gzhpcu View Post

Talk about doggedness hockeyscout...

Runs in the family ... DNA.

**johnyandell** · 11-02-2014, 01:19 PM

HS,

Refresh my memory is the post above based on the analysis of some clip?

**hockeyscout** · 11-03-2014, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by johnyandell View Post

HS,

Refresh my memory is the post above based on the analysis of some clip?

Yup. Its somewhere in the thread.

**hockeyscout** · 11-04-2014, 05:15 PM

Hello:

First off 10splayer, look I commend you. I can see you have read a few books, took some USTA courses and visited tennisplayer. I am sure you have had a bit of success, and got a few kids to D1 schools. And, that's just great. Good for you.

**tennis_chiro** · 11-04-2014, 07:33 PM

Couple of Questions for HockeyScout

HS,

I appreciate there is an awful lot I do not know. I wish I could afford to do the FMS seminar in San Diego this weekend, but I can't. It looks like interesting stuff. I wonder if there are any books you could recommend that would offer a better understanding of the principles of FMS and the underlying philosophy. Better yet, with all the certifications you've obtained in movement science, it would be great if you gave us your top five books to look at to get some sense of what it is all about.

But I also wonder what you think of some of the players of the past and what kind of movement skills they had. I'm not sure Nastase had movement skills as good as Djokovic or Murray, but strictly subjectively, he was the best mover I ever saw on a tennis court and seemingly completely natural. Along those lines, where would you rank Rosewall or Laver? Borg or even Connors who tennis classicists consider to have had great footwork? Have you seen tapes of Gonzales moving. I know there is limited footage of him available in his early years, but there is some and quite a bit more from the late 60's and early 70's. You mentioned moving like a cat; I don't think anyone's movement has ever been compared more to a cat's than Gonzales'; whether or not the analogy is really fair is another question. If this FMS doesn't rate the movement of Gonzales and Nastase as superior, I would have to seriously question the principles on which it is based.

Tennis is very different in that you must separate upper and lower body (legs going as fast as they can even as the upper body/hands stay as calm as possible and measure the incoming ball) and then harness the power of the lower body to generate real power.

don

**bobbyswift** · 11-04-2014, 09:23 PM

The functional movement screen is from Grey Cook. I have sent may clients to him and the trainer who works with me is certified from him. He has a book that covers a lot of the movement screen. Athletic Body in Balance. We have tested our athletes with this system for years. HS has been posting about movement however I have sent my clients 2 top 120 ranked ATP pros to an Olympic track coach Chuck Debus who felt his work had basically no effect for tennis players. After 6 months no improvement that was apparent. Chuck has trained more gold medalists than just about any USA track coach.

**bobbyswift** · 11-04-2014, 09:26 PM

Mark Kovaks of the Usta also feels that tennis is not a running sport. He is a good resource for tennis athletic training in the USA.

**hockeyscout** · 11-04-2014, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by tennis_chiro View Post

HS,

I appreciate there is an awful lot I do not know. I wish I could afford to do the FMS seminar in San Diego this weekend, but I can't. It looks like interesting stuff. I wonder if there are any books you could recommend that would offer a better understanding of the principles of FMS and the underlying philosophy. Better yet, with all the certifications you've obtained in movement science, it would be great if you gave us your top five books to look at to get some sense of what it is all about.

But I also wonder what you think of some of the players of the past and what kind of movement skills they had. I'm not sure Nastase had movement skills as good as Djokovic or Murray, but strictly subjectively, he was the best mover I ever saw on a tennis court and seemingly completely natural. Along those lines, where would you rank Rosewall or Laver? Borg or even Connors who tennis classicists consider to have had great footwork? Have you seen tapes of Gonzales moving. I know there is limited footage of him available in his early years, but there is some and quite a bit more from the late 60's and early 70's. You mentioned moving like a cat; I don't think anyone's movement has ever been compared more to a cat's than Gonzales'; whether or not the analogy is really fair is another question. If this FMS doesn't rate the movement of Gonzales and Nastase as superior, I would have to seriously question the principles on which it is based.

Tennis is very different in that you must separate upper and lower body (legs going as fast as they can even as the upper body/hands stay as calm as possible and measure the incoming ball) and then harness the power of the lower body to generate real power.

don

Man, its flipping complicated, FMS. Neat stuff.

As for runners, I love Connors. That guy was durable as hell. That's what I want. DURABILITY! His footwork, transitions, pivots, change of direction and elliptical running patterns were as good as they get, especially off the backhand wing.

**hockeyscout** · 11-04-2014, 10:22 PM