The Framework: An Introduction

[johnyandell]

Let's discuss Tim Mayotte's article, "The Framework: An Introduction"!

[klacr]

This article may be the real gem in this issue. But then again, there are so many this month.

Tim Mayotte's experience as a top player and a top coach give the reader so much appreciation for his insights. The "framework" is truly that! Let's hope that Tim can begin to infiltrate the mind and habits of other coaches out there with this unique but practical way of evaluating, training and developing players to reach their full potential. And maybe if they are smart enough, a national tennis federation may adopt this "Framework" as a developmental pathway for all of its players.
Great work Tim. Thanks for sharing and looking forward to more contributions on tennisplayer.net from you.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[bottle]

I don't know. I have reservations about all huge tennis systems that try to figure everything out and tie it together. I remember a book co-authored by Martina Navratilova and Rick Elstein called TENNIS KINETICS. It was ostensibly about kinetic chain but really just chose that term because it was fashionable. The book was more about footwork from first step through recovery just as Tim Mayotte outlines here. Then Navratilova undermined the big supposed connection between the two things when she declared that when she hits a ball she never thinks about kinetic chain. The main trouble was that there really wasn't a connection between kinetic chain and the cycle of footwork the authors wanted their readers to perform. The two things were different subjects even though great footwork can get the weight on the correct foot just at the correct time for the generation of great force. Is that a subject that can be taught? Maybe, but what happens if the student's eyes glaze over in the process?

I see tennis instruction as more like language instruction. One goes slower, not faster, as one breaks down sentences into phrases and even smaller units so that one can then put them together and not think in such a miniscule way. But a theory about the overall language is the last thing any student needs. Some principles of grammar, yes, but only as they apply to the given phrase or question, say, "How do I get around the corner (um die Ecke)."

To me, the acquisition of tennis or language skills is something that just happens, often in another part of the bailiwick than the one the person is concentrating on right then. One makes sudden, unexpected and dramatic connections as the tennis teacher don_budge repeatedly emphasizes.. But the sudden connection happens or does not happen ("connecting the dots," don_budge calls it). No one can make it happen and certainly not through prediction. The process of true education-- in any subject-- is more haphazard than the scholars of education (the "educationists," most horrid of all words) try to make it.

One learns most by following one's own dream and current interest or fascination, and anyone who wittingly or unwittingly kills those things is a murderer.

[stotty]

I don't know. I have reservations about all huge tennis systems that try to figure everything out and tie it together. I remember a book co-authored by Martina Navratilova and Rick Elstein called TENNIS KINETICS. It was ostensibly about kinetic chain but really just chose that term because it was fashionable. The book was more about footwork from first step through recovery just as Tim Mayotte outlines here. Then Navratilova undermined the big supposed connection between the two things when she declared that when she hits a ball she never thinks about kinetic chain. The main trouble was that there really wasn't a connection between kinetic chain and the cycle of footwork the authors wanted their readers to perform. The two things were different subjects even though great footwork can get the weight on the correct foot just at the correct time for the generation of great force. Is that a subject that can be taught? Maybe, but what happens if the student's eyes glaze over in the process?

I see tennis instruction as more like language instruction. One goes slower, not faster, as one breaks down sentences into phrases and even smaller units so that one can then put them together and not think in such a miniscule way. But a theory about the overall language is the last thing any student needs. Some principles of grammar, yes, but only as they apply to the given phrase or question, say, "How do I get around the corner (um die Ecke)."

To me, the acquisition of tennis or language skills is something that just happens, often in another part of the bailiwick than the one the person is concentrating on right then. One makes sudden, unexpected and dramatic connections as the tennis teacher don_budge repeatedly emphasizes.. But the sudden connection happens or does not happen ("connecting the dots," don_budge calls it). No one can make it happen and certainly not through prediction. The process of true education-- in any subject-- is more haphazard than the scholars of education (the "educationists," most horrid of all words) try to make it.

One learns most by following one's own dream and current interest or fascination, and anyone who wittingly or unwittingly kills those things is a murderer.

Superb post...and all true.

I just love, however, the idea of linking technique to footwork. I think it's one of the things most missing in British tennis instruction...linking technique with footwork that is. We tend to obsess with technique like it's the holy grail.

The below is so true, but substitute some for most in the case of Brit tennis players.

A clean open stance backhand going back. But unlike Novak, some players cannot create the same mastery in all directions.

Jim Courier made an an interesting observation about Andy Murray that I had never noticed. On clay, Murray will run out for a wide ball then make a slide after contact. Most players slide to a ball then hit it. So Murray has the concept back to front.

Federer moves perfectly for every situation and probably never had to be taught. I suspect Nastase was the same. But, yes, linking movement with technique is absolutely the way to go. I am convinced of that.

[tsmayotte]

Slotty, great response. You are right to be skeptical of systems that claim to explain all. I don't try to explain everything but only
offer a beginning place. That is why I call it the Framework. I thought of calling it the "Skeleton" but I liked the current title better.
Part of me wanted to push through the current separation of strokes and movement. I would love to hear more from you as subsequent
chapters come on line.
Tim

[tpa]

it is important to see approaches to teaching explained. However, the combination of stroke and movement dependent action has been proposed for many years by certain coaches and is nothing new! The unsung genius of this approach is one Dr. Glenn Sheiner practicing in Toronto. A bio mechanical expert in many sports Dr. Sheiner has been privately touted his sophisticated approach for years. Movement patterns and stroke efficacy are his main focus. I am one of his students and as a Level 3 National Coach with Tennis Canada and a USPTA 1 ( I put my membership on hold as I teach in Toronto) I can humbly testify to his methods. I participate in a Tennis Canada Development center and use many of his techniques to enhance "legitimate" ITF juniors. Dr. Sheiner is light years ahead of the pack ( yet is quiet about his insights, as his main focus is healing the sick!} I would encourage Mr. Mayotte to seek him out .

respectfully

Robert Bregman Ph.D. Level 3 National coach

[johnyandell]

Robert,
Interesting. I know Glenn was/is a subscriber for many years. Maybe you guys need to do your own series.

[bottle]

Good Footwork Has Everything to Do with How Well You Hit the Ball

So don't hop 20 times on one foot while trying to get there.

[tsmayotte]

Robert, Thanks so much for your help and thoughts. I never thought that my thoughts were new in any way, yet I could find so little out there
to react to. As John suggested you and Dr Sheiner should do your own series. I will seek him out. I am sure he would (you as well)
could deepen my understanding.

A couple thoughts as to how I imagined I could add to the discussion. As a former top ten player who came frustratingly close to
winning Wimbledon I understand in the most urgent and visceral way the value of getting these elements of movement and technique
to work well together. I can still sense how I felt stuck physically (and mentally) as I struggled to work on the elements that needed improvement.
For instance I knew first hand how both my forehand and movement to that side was sub par but I had no idea how to view the issue or improve it.
Those memories drive me to help current players by pushing me to be as exact as possible in my descriptions and teaching. Plus I have enjoyed improving my forehand and movement in recent years.

Second, I have found much of the great work by Ph'd's to be written in a language so sophisticated that I could not integrate it into my
life as a teacher. I suspect other coaches feel the same way. My hope was to find a simple "Framework" accessible to coaches of all
levels. This is important for many reasons. This combination of movement and technique must be available to beginning coaches and novice
players, not just performance coaches and legitimate ITF players. I work with beginners extensively and have found this model to animate my teaching of them and of new teachers. Its a simplified model but one I hope can act as a frame for more nuanced information.

Lastly, I just hoped to get a debate like we are having going. We need it.
Thanks so much for all the great work you do!!
Tim

[GMann]

Hi John. I hope you're doing well. I know that it's been a while. For some reason, I can't seem to get the full article that is on your site that Tim Mayotte authored about "The Framework." Please let me know if you have any advice as to how I can access it. Best regards, GMann (Gordon)

[johnyandell]

It's there. Suspect you may not have been logged in?

[johnyandell]

Url:

https://www.tennisplayer.net/members/famouscoach/tim_mayotte/the_framework_a_model/

[GMann]

Thanks John! I got it.

[GMann]

Hi John. Thanks again for helping me access the Tim Mayotte article. Mr. Mayotte makes reference to a "series of articles" but I don't see any others on the site. Are you anticipating that you will be publishing additional articles by him in the upcoming months?

[johnyandell]

There are two more here:

https://www.tennisplayer.net/members/famouscoach/?