text: Traditional vs Modern: It's Freakin' Obvious | Page 2 | Talk Tennis
  Traditional vs Modern: It's Freakin' Obvious
  Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by TimothyO, Dec 29, 2012.
  tim you are wrong
  arche how was the coaching session today?
  TimothyO, Dec 31, 2012
  I read the posts where yandel said he made fun of or ridiculed oscar for sport.
  I think it is because oscar didn't credit yandel with saying the ball slowed down 50 percent on the bounce. Or oscar stole the idea from him.
  In the posts in question he didn't specify the ideas that Oscar was to have stolen from him. He did say explicitly that he was stalking Oscar because of insults from the 90s and appropriating Yendell's work without credit (a charge of plagiarism).
  JohnYandell, Dec 31, 2012
  You should look up sarcasm and irony in the dictionary. They are part of my hobby. Not everyone is as earnest as you timmy, thank god.
  I'm sorry they deleted the posts. And if you think that was grounds for legal action, I know a few lawyers who would like to bill you...that's one of the dumbest things you've posted yet and that is making a significant claim.
  No, John is just really envious and bitter. He openly admitted that he stalks Oscar as a "hobby".
  He explained that he does so because he beieves that Oscar insulted him 20 years ago and stole his work.
  That's not only immature, it's sick.
  You admitted to stalking another industry professional due to perceived insults from 20 years ago and because you believed that he stole your work.
  Maybe if you spent as much time on your business as you do stalking people online you would be successful too.
  You're getting sort of scary Johny,
  Again, your advice is excellent. You probably have an mba. However what you call stalking I call fun target practice.
  And really you should refrain from references to genitalia in a public forum.
  Target practice? Do you intend to take your obsession even further?
  Hopefully Oscar has decent security.
  Did you behave this way toward Kim Shanley? Is that why you got booted from Tennis One? Any restraining orders against you?
  Wow you really want to know the details of my life, even things that happened 10 years ago. That is so flattering.
  And again, please refrain from genitalia references in the future. It is compromising your image here.
  arche3, Dec 31, 2012
  I played with my son today for 2 hours. Ran BH drills and volley and oh, serve practice for him. Played a few quick games. His serve is coming along nicely.
  That's a long time to hold as grudge. Happy new year Tim. Let's Hope the new year brings some great tennis.
  Povl Carstensen, Dec 31, 2012
  Of course modern tennis exists, in the meaning "contemporary". And of course it is related with with tennis of earlier. As long as its played by humans with a racket it will have common traits. I dont like attempts at monopolizing the word modern. And I dont like personal vendettas, especially if they loose the point of the subject at hand.
  10 years to hold a grudge, that's nothing! ... Now quickly do you think I am or was or have been fully serious?
  Except the hard analysis of technique--now that is deadly serious. Much of the rest makes theatre of the absurd look like Norman Rockwell. Tim double your security patrols!
  My only vendetta is for the truth. Your comments are most sensical.
  TennisCJC, Jan 1, 2013
  oldschoolrules said: ↑
  Okay - got that off my chest Now, the problem with approaches like Oscar's is how it tries to teach amateurs to "play like the pros" when most rec players do not have the strength or skill to ever be able to generate the amount of racquet-head speed that the pros hit with - whether they are pulling/jerking across or hitting through the ball toward the target. As such, instead of producing a heavy, penetrating topspin forehand the student ends up with spinny, lower paced rally ball that sits up a little too much. This kind of approach to the game ignores the fact that it is still necessary to teach/learn how to hit through the ball while moving forward in order to reach a more advanced level of play. It is absurd to suggest that at the professional level (whether ATP or WTA) or the highest amateur levels that players do not still, at least on occasion, hit through the ball with forward momentum/movement.
  I enjoyed your analysis and agree that Borg, Vilas, Arias, Solomon and a few others were playing the modern game back in the 70s and early 80s.
  But, I disagree that rec players and beginners don't have the strength or skill to learn using Oscar's method. I am not a certified pro but taught my adult kids mostly based on Oscar's progressions. They found it easier and the results were better. Waiting on the ball with both hands on the racket, touching the bottom of the ball, and pulling up and across to finish with the hand touching the opposite shoulder helped them both learn the forehand. My daughter remarked "this new stroke is a lot easier". I don't see any issue with teaching the MTM basics to beginners and don't think it has any limit at the top end of the skill level either.
  5263, Jan 1, 2013
  I was wondering where the post went where I quoted Jy admitting his hobby agenda
  related to Oscar.
  I pointed out how it was a rare confession with clear insight to his motives,
  and also included Jy's ironic perspective that
  Modern does not exists, but while it does not exist, he says
  it contains many mistakes. Is it just me that finds that hard to understand?
  How does something that does not exist, contain these errors?
  Usually people take one mistaken view of the other, but he somehow has
  taken both views :???:
  Thankfully I saved quote; expecting that Jy would seek to have it removed
  once he realized his admissions.
  But, I disagree that rec players and beginners don't have the strength or skill to learn using Oscar's method. I am not a certified pro but taught my adult kids mostly based on Oscar's progressions. They found it easier and the results were better.
  Excellent point here. Speed & strength of pros, along with their timing, is a big part of
  what leads to their superior performance and results, but has nothing to do with
  use of the same technique.
  That would be sort of like saying folks at the local gym can do curls with the
  same form as Pro bodybuilders due to strength, when actually just like in tennis,
  using many of the same "techniques" can be very helpful.
  Pros play the simplest and easiest way because the speed & power of the game demand it for efficient execution.
  JohnYandell, Jan 1, 2013
  At this point we can pretty much take any of your statements, and the opposite will be the truth.
  The fact is that the analysis in that thread I started basically eviscerates not modern tennis per se, but your so-called modern methodology.
  Your strategy is then not to counter those criticisms as that would be impossible using facts and logic. Your strategy in the classic strategy of the cult follower is to make up outright lies about what I actually post.
  Does modern tennis exist? If anyone really thinks I said no, I would love it if you would read the first post in that thread and let 5263 know what my answers is. He still won't acknowledge it of course, but maybe it would clarify things for people on this board who stay open minded.
  And as for removing threads or comments, again it's just another lie in the big lie theory. The more lies you tell the harder it is to keep track of them much less waste time refuting them. I've never asked anything to be removed. I don't think you and your fellow worshipers can say the same.
  And remember guys when he responds read his post and just figure out the opposite.
  Your strategy is then not to counter those criticisms as that would be impossible using facts and logic.
  Your strategy in the classic strategy of the cult follower is to make up outright lies about what I actually post.
  Anyone can see how you must stoop to your name calling of cult and worship
  since you have no real point.
  Are you now saying that you agree that there is something known to many as
  Modern Tennis Methodology?
  Hey didn't you hear? I thought you copied every post word for word into your diary.
  Arche now refers to Oscar as the Messiah as well.
  As for the name of the doctrine of the church, I can no longer bring myself to utter it. You post it enough for everyone worldwide.
  Pretty shrewd tactic to make a post like this, which will likely draw a report
  and get this thread, critical of you removed.
  You've just positively admitted defeat on the issues. Look at your last 10 posts. Nothing but catty snipes at myself and JW.
  Who is gonna file that report? You? Remember truth = the opposite of your posts.
  Look at your last 10 posts. Nothing but catty snipes at myself and JW.
  Guess that is true if you ignore the important pts and questions like how your
  classic unit turn with a surfboard man relates to your new description, which
  sounds much more like stalking than the classic unit turn in your book.
  I guess if you just recycle the old name with your newer technique, then you
  have somehow bridged your old instruction with your constant updates version? :???:
  luvforty, Jan 1, 2013
  I have a little story to tell -
  after repeated requests from the kids, I took them to petsmart to buy a couple of gerbils.
  the store clerk, a nice guy, told us that he needed to test if the 2 of them can get along.
  the moment he put the 2 gerbils in the same shipping box, both started ppi$$ing really hard to claim territory. Afterwards, they went on to scratch and bite each other violently.
  this went on for 15 minutes and there was no sign of peace.
  Finally we had to change plan, only brought one of them home.
  after repeated requests from the kids, I took them to petsmart to buy a couple of gerbils. .
  Are you surprised there is more than one perspective on this?
  IMO the contrasting points made on here are quite useful for those learning.
  Jy has plenty of useful frames to use from his video study and Oscar does a
  great job with how strokes feel. Discussion from varying view points can be
  Luv forty,
  yes I would not want to be in box with...well a few people on this board.
  Great idea! Discussion of issues. When do you propose to start with that?
  Hey I'm all for it. I'd just ask that you not describe MTM stroke methods, as
  that is not your area.
  I refer to classic, as was my area before for many years, but I don't ever seek
  to refer to what Jy teaches. I don't even know if you have a set way.
  I do refer to your book, as I find it an excellent reference for classic strokes.
  Not describe mtm strokes? Really? That's gonna limit discussion don't you think?
  Well I honestly don't know what to do about it. Unfortunately you don't address
  them correctly, so it leads to confusion.
  Maybe you can focus on how you would teach and approach it.
  oldschoolrules, Jan 1, 2013
  I apologize for my traditional v. modern commentary morphing into the debate over teaching methods - it really wasn't intentional. I just wanted to say that there is no bright line one can point to between the techniques used in today's game and the one employed by players 40 years ago. But with regard to my criticism of Oscar and MTM, I was only trying to point out that I believe their approach to generally be too narrow and, ultimately, of limited use. Now, I'm mainly talking about his ideas on groundstroke mechanics - I actually like his pieces on movement/footwork and much of the early prep via stalking/unit turn stuff - but the forehand/backhand methods he stresses, i.e. pulling across/falling back, as the fundamentals, while arguably useful at some juncture, should be relegated to later in a student's development or at least until after they learn to make solid contact with and hit through the ball. It is only after one understands the basics of "square" racquet to ball contact does it make sense to so heavily emphasize the use of spin. Otherwise they can never really grasp the importance of be able to employ varying degrees of spin depending on court position, opponents, score, etc. I have, in fact, seen a few kids practice and play who appear to have been taught solely via MTM (or similar approach) and while they were very consistent from the backcourt, they struggled at least on the forehand side dealing with both low skidding balls and those landing well short of the baseline. Additionally, they did not have the ability to "up the ante" and either step in to and flatten out their shot or the strength to significantly increase the spin rate of their ball enough to turn their regular stroke into a winner when they had the advantage of an open court. In short, I got the impression there had been no attempt to teach them anything but Oscar's up and across with as much racquet head speed as possible, leaving them helpless against an opponent who clearly saw that way of hitting the ball as merely one of many available options.
  I've seen a lot of Oscar's stuff, videos, books, posts etc. I think I understand the main points well. I don't think his approach accurately describes pro tennis and isn't conducive to good tennis at all levels.
  So far as I am concerned you can say the same about my beliefs. I can certainly agree to disagree. But that seems to be the problem. Unlike other coaches with whom I have discussed and debated, there is an insistence that a revolution is necessary promlugating this system, that other coaches aren't producing results, and the reason is they don't teach mtm. And then there are the claims of influence that have been challenged in some cases by the very people who were supposedly influenced.
  That's different than just saying here is what I think and I think it's good. Coaching isn't a matter of orthodoxy and this is why you guys run into so much conflict on this board as well as in the larger coaching community.
  No one has a monopoly on truth and the best coaches are always learning and evolving. That's what I aspire to myself and have dedicated my work to achieving. If I were you guys I'd be all over the high speed archives testing my theories against the actual reality of the pro game.
  I have, in fact, seen a few kids practice and play who appear to have been taught solely via MTM (or similar approach) and while they were very consistent from the backcourt, they struggled at least on the forehand side dealing with both low skidding balls and those landing well short of the baseline. Additionally, they did not have the ability to "up the ante" and either step in to and flatten out their shot
  I have reason to doubt broad general comments this that are based on a person
  thinking someone might have been solely taught......etc...
  but even if it were true, it would only relate to that player and their instructor,
  since MTM covers all those situations strongly and I would expect a well coached
  player with MTM to be the BEST at attacking short balls effectively.
  I've seen a lot of Oscar's stuff, videos, books, posts etc. I think I understand
  the main points well. I don't think his approach accurately describes pro tennis
  and isn't conducive to good tennis at all levels.
  Coaching isn't a matter of orthodoxy and this is why you guys run into so much
  conflict on this board as well as in the larger coaching community.
  I appreciate the nice tone of this post and there is a lot of good stuff to discuss here.
  I agree you are familiar with MTM, but that is not the same as functioning
  knowledge. Each comment you make about it shows you don't have that.
  I'm quite familiar with many aircraft, but not allowed to
  fly them without approved training and demonstrating a working useful
  knowledge of them. I can't come from outside and say those aircraft don't fly right
  when they are working well for others. It's on me if I can't fly them up to
  standards. I can only say from what I know of them, they are not for me.
  Just like some jets, I have many hours in both MTM and Classic, with both of them
  working well as a player and instructor. Even though I probably have 3 times
  the hours in classic, Modern comes way more natural and functional in my
  Now I'm not saying you are classic, since you have clearly evolved quite a
  bit from your early classic days; so I'm not putting what you do now in any
  kind of box to comment on. I expect it would be a moving target anyway,
  due your constant study and evolution. I don't presume to make bold statements
  about what you are doing now and don't think you should do it with MTM for
  Traditional coaching has very much been about orthodoxy over the years, and
  that is what we are working to change. MTM just offers a basic & general
  approach to strokes with tons of room for individual style.
  sureshs, Jan 2, 2013
  Here is something I heard from a surfing coach last week about his philosophy of teaching:
  Foundation + Flexibility
  Teach the sound fundamentals of surfing (or else you could be limited to 1 minute of Stand Up Paddling before toppling over, like me) and give the flexibility to each student to evolve his own style.
  I can imagine a tennis coach adopting this as a mission statement and trademarking "F&F Coaching."
  Interestingly, the Surfing Channel program I was watching was showing a pro surf event on the Oahu North Shore, and two ex-surfers who were commentating ended up arguing whether a certain surfer was showing off his own style, or was it just the regular orthodox teaching that he was following!
  5263, Jan 2, 2013
  I think this is an excellent philosophy.
  CoachingMastery, Jan 2, 2013
  Not that I want to get involved in this discussion per se, this is my--and has been my--contention for decades. (And what led to my writing Tennis Mastery and my idea of an "Advanced Foundation"...
  You can teach 1000 player exactly the same methodology and no two players will play exactly the same after a period of time.
  The main issue I have with ANY philosophy is the idea of foundation. If the foundation is indeed flawed for 1000 players, they will still all play different, but most all will also fall far short of reaching their true "playing potential."
  Playing potential is defined by the athleticism, desire, opportunity, and "education" that a player is offered or is blessed with. Education is this idea of foundation. I've seen thousands of players who had the other three elements but either were self taught poorly or were given a poor foundation by ignorant or ineffective pros or coaches. Thus, these otherwise potentially great players hacked, dinked, pushed, or otherwise used minimal technique which was all they knew.
  I have found that nearly 100% of my players which I offer my own form of MTM or whatever iconic name you want to give it, (I call mine an "advanced foundation"), that prescribes the elements of ALL top-level strokes with the understanding that all players will indeed EVOLVE this foundation, reach extremely high levels of skilled play. With an advanced foundation, this evolotionary component is almost always complementary to the foundation because it is self-or naturally--curing. However, the foundation elements are in many cases not a natural occuring aspect. For example,continental grips on serves and
  volleys, topspin strokes, and some footwork patterns don't initially feel comfortable or competent for many.
  However, these are the very elements that make up an advanced foundation for any player and must be MADE to feel comfortable and competent through training.
  Some pros avoid that which is uncomfortable in fear of losing the player. But this is the worst thing that a pro can do because once a player begins to play tennis using any particular pattern, they will not want to change because now it not only feels uncomfortable, but now they feel like they will LOSE with this new technique. Thus, they revert back over and over and over.
  John and Oscar both have concepts I'm fully in favor of...ideas that I've used in my own teaching to help convey my "advanced foundation". THAT is the value of both pros to me. Hopefully, both of them--and many others--have used some of my own ideas within their teaching to convey their own methods or idea. While I know John doesn't necessarily agree with all my own points of view, I think he agrees that I know what I'm talking about. Oscar too. I believe both pros know what they are talking about...however, each interpret both approaches--and subsequent ideologies--with a level of subjective--and in many cases, objective--overviews.
  I personally try to avoid argumentative injunctions here, in favor of trying to gain from--or convey to--any readers here a positive or contributing comment or idea and not try to attack someone for thier position.
  Believe me, I've not agreed with everyone here in some cases. But, I want to keep an open mind more, and try to gain from each person rather than simply disagree.
  That said, I understand why people disagree with each other here...very easy to do. And, certainly, within such a forum, it is easy to attack or be attacked. One thing at the very least, everyone should recognize, is that John, Oscar, and myself included, we use our real names here, knowing that others can indeed attack us in the cloak of a fake user name.
  Some may attack me for these sentiments. However, I hope that instead, people who may disagree with me will objectively offer ideas that support such disagreement...something that I can gain from and others too, who read these posts.