Should you have an open or closed stance? | Tennis Tips with Patrick Mouratogou

[bowt]

This stuff seems completely wack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXlUfbZvOf8

I have never seen an article about how you should position your feet based on what your dominant eye is...

Alot of Patricks stuff seems to be very strange

[stroke]

This stuff seems completely wack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXlUfbZvOf8

I have never seen an article about how you should position your feet based on what your dominant eye is...

Alot of Patricks stuff seems to be very strange

He reminds me a bit of the US CDC regarding Covid guidelines.

[stotty]

He's definitely bonkers if you ask me. He's creating a problem where there isn't one. If an aspiring junior wants to become a great player, learn to play off all the stances and everything between would be my advice.

[seano]

I've certainly been questioning some of Mouratogou's teachings, especially about the role of the wrist. If he's teaching it for purely relaxation reasons (I would phrase it differently), that's one thing but he wants to use it as a power source, not good. I appreciate the logic of eye dominance but to only hit open stance for now on, is way too much.

Sean

[arturohernandez]

I've certainly been questioning some of Mouratogou's teachings, especially about the role of the wrist. If he's teaching it for purely relaxation reasons (I would phrase it differently), that's one thing but he wants to use it as a power source, not good. I appreciate the logic of eye dominance but to only hit open stance for now on, is way too much.

Sean

I agree with all you guys but...

I had a pro who told me to hit closed stance which I hated. Another pro which I really admired told me to hit open stance. Later I found out from my uncle a tennis pro in Mexico that eye dominance and foot dominance seem to be big themes in tennis in Spain and Europe. I have been hitting more open stance with my forehand and it has improved. I am a righty with right eye dominance so I have to point my head forward to catch the ball with my dominant eye. My backhand I hit more closed stance and can see the ball with no problem.

Of course, there are no absolutes.

I think Moratoglou is very inspiring and he is a very good coach. But for technical stuff, I would put my player in other hands. Just dial up Uncle Toni and see who he knows or any of the premiere Spanish coaches. Or Brian and John together.

None of these really good coaches have twitter, instagram or a YouTube channel. They don't need the advertising. Kind of like the Millionaire next door. If you have money, there is no need to flaunt it.

I count myself as lucky to have read Visual Tennis and ended up here with all of you guys!

[stotty]

Dug this up on Wikipedia:

Ocular dominance, sometimes called eye preference or eyedness,[1] is the tendency to prefer visual input from one eye to the other.[2] It is somewhat analogous to the laterality of right- or left-handedness; however, the side of the dominant eye and the dominant hand do not always match.[3] This is because both hemispheres control both eyes, but each one takes charge of a different half of the field of vision, and therefore a different half of both retinas. There is thus no direct analogy between "handedness" and "eyedness" as lateral phenomena.

Approximately 70% of the population are right-eye dominant and 29% left-eye dominant.[1][5][6][7] Dominance does appear to change depending upon direction of gaze[2][8] due to image size changes on the retinas.[9] There also appears to be a higher prevalence of left-eye dominance in those with Williams–Beuren syndrome,[10] and possibly in migraine sufferers as well.[11] Eye dominance has been categorized as "weak" or "strong";[12] highly profound cases are sometimes caused by amblyopia or strabismus.

In those with anisometropic myopia (different amounts of nearsightedness between the two eyes), the dominant eye has typically been found to be the one with more myopia.[13] As far as regards subjects with normal binocular vision, the widespread notion that the individual's better-sighted eye would tend to be the dominant eye has been challenged as lacking empirical basis.[14]

Dominance can change and may switch between the eyes depending on the task and physical condition of the subject (i.e. fatigue).

In normal binocular vision there is an effect of parallax, and therefore the dominant eye is the one that is primarily relied on for precise positional information. This may be extremely important in sports which require aim, such as archery, darts or shooting sports.

It has been asserted that cross-dominance (in which the dominant eye is on one side and the dominant hand is on the other) is advantageous in sports requiring side-on stances (e.g. baseball, cricket, golf);however, studies within the last 20 years have shown this not to be the case. In a 1998 study of professional baseball players, hand–ocular dominance patterns did not show an effect on batting average or ERA.[16] Similarly, in 2005, a South African study found that "cricketers were not more likely to have crossed dominance" than the normal population.

[doctorhl]

This thread is a good example of knowledgeable people reviewing information on an emerging topic based on research and real world coaching/ teaching experience while still remaining open to opposing views. This open minded and humble attitude to inquiry undergirded by a reputable knowledge base puts this forum and the website creator and selected contributors miles ahead of other websites.

[doctorhl]

He's definitely bonkers if you ask me. He's creating a problem where there isn't one. If an aspiring junior wants to become a great player, learn to play off all the stances and everything between would be my advice.

Agree Stotty! Although I think there is value for examining eye dominance, it’s value for tennis( and many other sports) has not been validated yet. This is an example of where a good tennis research director for a government sport ministry can screen and parcel out only STRONG tennis research for busy coaches/ teachers and then let them assess its value in the real world. Kovacs serves in that role I believe for U.S. tennis( USTA). Who serves in that role for for Great Britain? What about the ITF? Do coaches value their input? A credible tennis research director can help the tennis community not get too sucked down into the wild WEB. Sorry...... I kind of derailed the scope of this thread!

[dimbleby69]

This topic brings back to mind Chris Lewit's article on Jofre Porta. There's a paragraph on 'Laterality'. Here's a quote:

"Laterality means the way the brain is wired in relationship to eye-dominance. I plan to go into this concept more deeply in an upcoming article, but for now let's just say that the stronger groundstroke side for most players is related to laterality--and understanding this is important in many aspects of development."

Did CL go into it more deeply anywhere? I can't remember it if he did, or where it appeared. I do seem to remember something about the importance of the non-dominant eye....

regards
Rob

[johnyandell]

I will ask Chris to pick up the topic!

[johnyandell]

Well as for the eyes--Venus could have been left eye dominant...but a study I did with USTA showed closed stance backhand dominated in pro tennis. Some of those guys must have been left eye dominant. The closed stance generated more body turn. That probably trumps the eye thing...

[doctorhl]

Well as for the eyes--Venus could have been left eye dominant...but a study I did with USTA showed closed stance backhand dominated in pro tennis. Some of those guys must have been left eye dominant. The closed stance generated more body turn. That probably trumps the eye thing...

Excellent information. Keeps people from going down rabbit holes.

[johnyandell]

Oh there are plenty of people down plenty of rabbit holes.