Myth of Feds weak BH

[nabrug]

Please elaborate on the distinction between FH2 and FH1 w/ straight arm, which you say Philipousis uses.

What are your thoughts about this? Do you think Nadal and Philipousis use the same technique? Can you hit like Philipousis? Or like Nadal? Experiences?

[oliensis]

Please don't be coy. I simply asked, if you would elaborate on distinctions that you see as important. "FH1" "FH2" and "FH2a" are not intrinsically descriptive terms. Yet you seem to use them with great certainty and confidence, without having (as far as I can find) ever clarified sufficiently the differences.

You also have claimed that one or more of these techniques has a much larger hitting zone than the others, which makes it a more effective technique. So, I just want you to define your terms.

I don't need a dialectics lesson, so please reply didactically.

What are your thoughts about this? Do you think Nadal and Philipousis use the same technique? Can you hit like Philipousis? Or like Nadal? Experiences?

[nabrug]

Please don't be coy. I simply asked, if you would elaborate on distinctions that you see as important. "FH1" "FH2" and "FH2a" are not intrinsically descriptive terms. Yet you seem to use them with great certainty and confidence, without having (as far as I can find) ever clarified sufficiently the differences.

You also have claimed that one or more of these techniques has a much larger hitting zone than the others, which makes it a more effective technique. So, I just want you to define your terms.

I don't need a dialectics lesson, so please reply didactically.

Sorry I made an error. My message should have been like this.

What are your thoughts about this? (Do you think Nadal and Philipousis use the same technique? Can you hit like Philipousis? Or like Nadal? Experiences?)

I am interested in your thoughts. I do not want to give you a lesson.

[crosscourt]

Nabrug

I may not be following you, but is the gist of the distinction you are drawing that the racket moves in a straighter line in one type of shot and in more of an arc (around the body) in the other type of shot?

cc

[nabrug]

Nabrug

I may not be following you, but is the gist of the distinction you are drawing that the racket moves in a straighter line in one type of shot and in more of an arc (around the body) in the other type of shot?

cc

No that is a caracteristic.

The essence is not in the obvious things you can see. And that is still the big point I want to make. You can't see the essence of a technique. First it is all about feeling.

The feeling, the essence of Fh1 is really different than Fh2.

Nico.

[crosscourt]

Can you explain then what the feeling is? It is hard for me to follow you if I can't see this thing.

cc

[oliensis]

Narburg,
Nobody has any idea what you're talking about, primarily because you refuse to talk about it!

The essence of something (anything) is not a feeling. The essence is the essence, the feeling of the essence is how we (to use Kant's terminology) encounter it "phenomenally" in kinetic terms. But the same "essence" (noumenal event) can also be encountered visually...and since we're operating in a linguistic and visual environment (message board and videos), talking about the visuals is the best methodology we can use to communicate right now.

If, in fact, you do have some idea what you're talking about, please talk about it! Otherwise, as Wittgenstein says, "That which cannot be spoken about must be passed over in silence."

[airforce1]

Yes,
a compare and contrast would be very helpful.
It is clear that you are seeing something interesting here that most of us are not used to breaking out as a clear sub area.

Maybe we can focus on the FH essentials to start with for what separates the FH1, FH2 and FH2a?
Clearly it is not as simple as the straight arm, as u say Philipousis hit a fh1?

then later we can move on to the BH.

[nabrug]

I replied (post #14 of this thread) to post #12 of CrossCourt about the straight arm in the Bh. To explain that it is part of the Bh2 technique of Federer.

I gave more information about ball trajectories etc.. I explained that they also use it on the Bh side. But in my opinion I gave you the most important information how Nadal is using the two techniques tactically. About the reception area etc..

Now I want to know how Federer is using it tactically. And I just discovered how he does it with the Bh return.

If I think it is worth while (if I think they are facts in stead of being my opinion) I write about my discoveries. If you do not want to read them it is okay. If you want to talk about my discoveries it is fine as well. All the discoveries can be verified.

Maybe it is frustrating that you can not really verify my story because you can not produce the strokes yourself. But than I ask you would you have preferred to not know this all? If you don’t want to know it than don’t read my posts.

Nico Mol.

[oliensis]

Well, Post #14 is pasted below. The only thing you've said about XH1 & XH2 is that the 2s are hit w/ straight arm. But all Fed's backhands are hit w/ straight arm (no double bend to speak of).

But then you say that "Flip" hits FH1 w/ straight arm. Boi-oi-oi-oing!

So, the dif between the 2 techniques is the striaght arm, except that you can hit FH1 w/ striaght arm...which, as far as your description goes, eliminates the only elabaroted difference.

Do you not see why no-one knows what you're talkinga about?

I sincerely doubt that you have "discovered" the differnt techniques...no more so than Columbus discovered America...lots of people knew about it before. But you have, again, failed to define your terms. That's all I'm asking you to do. Define w/ some modicum of clarity. But you either refuse or cannot do so, as far as I can tell.

If you define your terms I would be eager to learn what I can. But if you won't define your terms, then this is a waste of time.

Federer is using two techniques on the Bh and on the Fh. I call them Fh1/Fh2 and Bh1/Bh2. Fh1 is the normal technique. Fh2 is the technique with the straigt arm (see recent article). Federer is using the straight armed technique also on the Bh side. That is why you see the arm getting away more. Good observing though because on the backhand side it is much harder to see.

By the way you do not loose leverage if you use Bh2 technique. Because of the technique you loose a little power. You gain what you say a lot more angles with curved ball trajectories. The greatest advantage is that your strike zone will increase with at least 400%.

Nico Mol.

[airforce1]

Well, Post #14 is pasted below. The only thing you've said about XH1 & XH2 is that the 2s are hit w/ straight arm. But all Fed's backhands are hit w/ straight arm (no double bend to speak of).

But then you say that "Flip" hits FH1 w/ straight arm. Boi-oi-oi-oing!

So, the dif between the 2 techniques is the striaght arm, except that you can hit FH1 w/ striaght arm...which, as far as your description goes, eliminates the only elabaroted difference.

Do you not see why no-one knows what you're talkinga about?

I sincerely doubt that you have "discovered" the differnt techniques...no more so than Columbus discovered America...lots of people knew about it before. But you have, again, failed to define your terms. That's all I'm asking you to do. Define w/ some modicum of clarity. But you either refuse or cannot do so, as far as I can tell.

If you define your terms I would be eager to learn what I can. But if you won't define your terms, then this is a waste of time.

must be a language barrier here.
I thought a simple compare and contrast on the FH might be helpful, but either he doesn't understand or chooses not to??

[oliensis]

Or we're in the presence of a misunderstood genius.

[uspta4201423750]

toss height

Hey, any thoughts about tricks to help someone get used to a higher toss with more knee bend?
Harry Kingsley

[airforce1]

Hey, any thoughts about tricks to help someone get used to a higher toss with more knee bend?
Harry Kingsley

I have my players make 3 tosses in a row that meet specs before they ever hit a serve. Every time. every practice, every warm up for a match, and sometimes just around the house.
The idea is to reinforce the chosen toss at every opportunity.
Don't know if this helps for what you are seeking.

[airforce1]

I replied (post #14 of this thread) to post #12 of CrossCourt about the straight arm in the Bh. To explain that it is part of the Bh2 technique of Federer.

I gave more information about ball trajectories etc.. I explained that they also use it on the Bh side. But in my opinion I gave you the most important information how Nadal is using the two techniques tactically. About the reception area etc..

Now I want to know how Federer is using it tactically. And I just discovered how he does it with the Bh return.

If I think it is worth while (if I think they are facts in stead of being my opinion) I write about my discoveries. If you do not want to read them it is okay. If you want to talk about my discoveries it is fine as well. All the discoveries can be verified.

Maybe it is frustrating that you can not really verify my story because you can not produce the strokes yourself. But than I ask you would you have preferred to not know this all? If you don’t want to know it than don’t read my posts.

Nico Mol.

Hope I wasn't too blunt above. You do really have my curiosity up on your method of classifying strokes.