Oscar Wegner on the forehand from scratch

[westcoast777]

Why do coaches bother to argue?
No tool to evaluate the argument/determine who is correct = no grounds to argue.

[stotty]

Arguing

Why do coaches bother to argue?
No tool to evaluate the argument/determine who is correct = no grounds to argue.

Westcoast, you could apply this all experts who argue among themselves within any field of work. The fact is few arguments in life come with a set of tools to prove a point...and anything that can be argued can usually be counter-argued...something politicians know only too well.

I've never heard of a top player yet who was brought up using Oscar's methods to the point where he/she has said, "This is the reason why I am a top player". True, development coaches are always given the least credit, but nonetheless, you'd think if a handful of players had been developed under Oscar's regime, they might have piped up and said something.

I know Guga is touted as being a product of Oscar...does anyone know how authentic this claim is?

[bottle]

Authentic if quotation from Guga himself is to be believed. But of course Guga had other teachers. And he was the product of all of them. Richard Williams credited Oscar's quickie videos when the sisters were little girls for giving him important ideas, too. ASK Richard Williams if you want the evidence. ASK Guga, too although it's all in public record.

I am so tired of Oscar bashing. It's gone on for decades now. I guess this is how nitwits eventually prevail. Through enervation on the part of any opposition.

Oh sorry, "nits" and "twits" are British lingo. And you know, Stotty, that I have respect for you. But I have respect for Oscar, too. What he has done is incredible. (And I'm an English teacher and his English is very good.)

[gsheiner]

Bottle,

Perhaps I used terms incorrectly.

When I mentioned extension, I meant it in the way that John uses it -that is the hitting structure moving away from the body during the hit so that the elbow is significantly in front of the body at the end of contact. This can be done with no movement of the structure or with wipering etc.

I believe that a great stroke combines multiple sources of power and spin. I was just commenting that I'm hitting the ball much better by focusing on core rotation and extension of the hitting structure as much as possible.

Like yourself, I experiment and I did spend a good deal of time trying to catch the ball and then wiper it. I rarely missed but didn't hit as penetrating as shot. Since I fancy myself as an attack player, this style of rally ball didn't suit my game or tactics.

Think of Sampras without the flat forehand -- I'm not sure a heavy topspin forehand would have suited his tactics as well.

When I see djoko crush forehands in super slow motion in the archives , his trunk rotation and extension are incredible. Granted at times he's pure wiper.

Like yourself, I am only reporting the results of my experiments with the results of match play, as well as my feel, as outcome variables.

[bottle]

Good. And I did wonder how you meant extension. To add to the complexity of any discussion about "hitting through" (or perhaps to restore essential complexity), there's always the matter of how much body weight is going through the ball.

One extreme of tennis has almost surgical incisions down, or up, or across the ball with not much "hit-through" in an army sense at all. What makes the difference then in depth, weight and pace is how much body goes through the shot just when it's being hit.

At another extreme of tennis is Oscar's summing of rotational forces for maximum spin. And when there is maximum spin, I believe, there also can occur intrinsic pace (from the spin itself) which classical thinkers may have been ignorant or half-ignorant of or maybe never tried to count on.

Anyway, I'm inclined to side with Oscar any time this perennial debate, more about personalities, recurs. I've heard him take shots at people but never to the extent that people, i.e., the "herd," and I do use that term on purpose, take cheap shots at him.

[gsheiner]

Bottle,

Don't get me wrong. I like what I've seen of Oscar, and think that the best strokes somehow combine multiple different techniques. He has clearly contributed to the debate.

[John Yandell]

Hey bottle sometime you can ask the people at USPTA and Tennis Channel what they think of Oscar...there have been plenty of shots taken from his side believe me... And strange I wouldn't expect you to be defending scientology

But all that is just stuff. WC has a point. I don't think arguments can be settled unless someone wants to. The point of the dialogue is just to put out your version of the things--sometimes in sharp contrast to others--and then let people decide for themselves.

[bottle]

I don't defend scientology. But I do defend human performance. Even at Tennis Channel Arlene Santana's decision, or was it that of her publicist, to divide her hair into two separate ropes which come down to her...

[don_budge]

The Nature of the Beast...

Why do coaches bother to argue?
No tool to evaluate the argument/determine who is correct = no grounds to argue.

It's only the nature of the beast...westcoast777. Just keep in mind when having any given discussion that it is important to not give in to sinking to the level of your adversary...if things get to be adversarial...and they haven't here...yet.

On the other hand, here's another thing to keep in mind...and I quote from a movie called "The Coca Cola Kid", one of the characters makes the statement, "there is always three sides to any given argument...yours, mine and the right side". If you are inclined to use your noodle and not to be a stranger to critical thinking...much can be gained in terms of understanding, by trying to clearly understand all sides to any given argument. This should be right up your alley given your brain's tendency to operate out of either side given the activity. Now the equation looks like...yours + mine = the right side.

Then there was Simon and Garfunkel or was it Bob Dylan?...it was a lyric in a song...it went something like, "we all see the same thing but from different points of view".

This particular conversation I think is very fascinating...I can only hope there is more of it, much more. I like the tone. It sounds like...gentlemen biting their tongues a bit. It's interesting. The fact that Oscar Wegner is controversial makes it interesting. I must confess...that I know nothing of him except from the videos, and I might add that I don't feel that I need to either.

[don_budge]

The Wrist of the Beginner...

Interesting nine minute video on teaching the forehand. Brilliantly simple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv2UdzaV9HQ&feature=related

1. Catch ball and throw back to instructor with follow through position.

2. Student to hit back ball to instructor with hand using follow through position.

3. With racquet, index finger inside throat of racquet.

4. Push ball over net with racquet to instructor, with finish in follow through position.

5. To hit right, angle racquet right. To hit left, angle racquet left.

6. Stroke ball while moving backwards and forwards...for arm independency.

7. Stroke ball while moving backwards and forwards...while aiming for instructors hand.

8. For rhythm...count to five with the bounce of the ball on count of one.

9. For footwork...walking around the cone and holding follow through position while walking back into position.

10. Gentle rallying.

"Simplicity makes it powerful." -Oscar Wegner

One of the most difficult things to convince a beginner student in either tennis or golf is the function and proper use of the wrist. A majority of beginners feel that the way to get power into their swing is to snap the wrist as they are making contact with the ball. Those of us enlightened beings know that this is the kiss of death. Besides the foundation of the swing should not be power...it should be about control.

By slowing down the process and even using the orange ball for advanced players it is easier to identify the little quirks and anomalies that are present in student technique. Small important details such as the position of the wrist as they begin their swing can be isolated and expanded upon. By using this simple method and employing these progressions I have become convinced that there is some real value in this method to be explored and employed into my teaching model.

Using this process I have experienced a level of success previously unknown to me when working with all levels of students...particularly, but not limited to, young beginner students. To get them to understand from the get go that the wrist is a passive tool is a tremendous beginning. To get them to set up correctly and get them to finish correctly is a huge hurdle to clear. I diverge somewhat from Oscar with the finish of the stroke...preferring a more abbreviated follow through as Yandell describes it. Once they get the "picture" it is rather impressive to see students of average ability making a nice classic follow through with a nice catch at the end. Later on they can explore bigger swings with more glorious flourishes...by building upon a simpler structure with a solid foundation.

[tennisplayer]

I hope I'm not opening up a new can of worms here, but this question has been on my mind for a while. Is the follow through something that's:

1. Determined as a consequence of a shot, and the player only worries about making proper contact?

or

2. Totally intentional, where the player explicitly guides the racquet to its final position?

or

3. Visualized at the start of a stroke, and then the body/brain makes it happen automatically (or should I say "automagically")?

After years of believing (1) and then (2), what I really find myself doing is (3). Maybe doing a lot of (2) in the beginning stages leads to (3) eventually. What do you folks believe is happening?

Thanks in advance.

Edit: I didn't mean to imply that (3) works perfectly for me - I am still searching for answers, otherwise I would not be posting here!

[tennis_chiro]

Training wheels??

I hope I'm not opening up a new can of worms here, but this question has been on my mind for a while. Is the follow through something that's:

1. Determined as a consequence of a shot, and the player only worries about making proper contact?

or

2. Totally intentional, where the player explicitly guides the racquet to its final position?

or

3. Visualized at the start of a stroke, and then the body/brain makes it happen automatically (or should I say "automagically")?

After years of believing (1) and then (2), what I really find myself doing is (3). Maybe doing a lot of (2) in the beginning stages leads to (3) eventually. What do you folks believe is happening?

Thanks in advance.

Edit: I didn't mean to imply that (3) works perfectly for me - I am still searching for answers, otherwise I would not be posting here!

Sometimes when a kid is learning to ride a bike, their parents put training wheels on the bike to assist them with balance and avoid losing their balance. If the kid stays in balance the training wheels have little effect, and the child can develop some feel for balance; but the child can't ride as freely as without the training wheels; the training wheels keep the rider in balance at the extremes. When the child learns a little better balance, the training wheels are removed, but the rider still has to stay in balance; the penalty for losing that balance is a little greater; instead of just bumping against the restriction of the training wheels, they might actually fall down.

The follow-through is a great learning device because it is something the player can check after the stroke is completed. We are usually a little too busy during the stroke to check what the swing is doing, but immediately after the swing the follow-through gives evidence of whether or not it was a good swing. In a controlled/practice situation, you can force a technical feature of a swing by manipulating the follow-through. Sometimes you can use this "forced stroke" to get the player the feel of what the "correct" stroke should be. Ultimately, you want the player to get out of the left brain and let the right brain reproduce the correct stroke. The sooner you can do that the better, but "The Talent Code" would seem to suggest we have to do a little chunking and repetition until we lay down enough myelin to reproduce that correct stroke "automatically" (no such thing!). Eventually, I want to see the player finishing with the correct follow-through without thinking about it. Eventually they would not think about the follow-through at all except when they might be questioning what they might have done right or wrong to hit a particular good or bad shot. As an instructor, it is a great way to monitor what your pupil is doing because the stroke itself often happens just too fast.

So eventually, your #1 is the correct answer, but to get to that point, you are going to have to go through a lot of #2 and #3, unless you are the rare genius who just produces a good stroke automagically from the very beginning.

don

[tennisplayer]

Good answer, Don. Suffice it to say that I am not that rare genius... but I think I am getting closer to doing it the right way, option (1) above. Thanks!