what's your religion ? ;-P
Ok, I've seen a couple of information from Macci.
All he says seems to be pretty much the same as what Oscar teaches.
The difference is not so much in what is done technically but on the "how" achieve the body motion.
I still believe Oscar's method is an excellent way to learn tennis, mainly if aiming to compete. It keeps things very simple so we don't focus on our technical game in a match but are able to lead our strategy to win.
But your strokes may look different from Oscar's in very subtil ways. In my opinion, that's where the full accurate analysis of Macci is effective. But still, the message has to be understood by the player and Oscar's tricks keeps the explanations at a level for everyone, where other teachers are using elaborated tennis vocabulary.
One interesting point is underlined by tennisplayer.net. J. Yandell mentions he asked the pros what they do and relates they can't describe their motion. Moreover they don't train it. Teachers made exercises to focus on whatever had to be correct and the players give their best to achieve the duty.
The good thing is, if the coach knows all the details, he must transfert his knowledge to the player keeping it simple & understable. Therefore the player can still aim to win only thinking on "what to do" instead on "how to do".
Yet another long speech to keep jenny impressed ;oP
CJTennis and danquest, please keep up the dialog!
I am a baseball fan by heart (played some through high school and still coach my middle child in Little League.) I have been a tennis enthusiast since 1968. I enjoy watching and playing tennis with my three (3) children, son17, son 11 and daughter 8.
I joined to get advice on tennis tournaments for my children to participate in, but I was intrigued by the dialog between CJTennis and danquest. I tend to side with CJTennis about the Wegner method, but I cannot argue with danuest about the importance of fundamentals (no matter what the sport.) What I like about Wegner is the way he "invites" people into the sport of tennis. He has a common sense, non-threatening approach. I agree with danquest,, though, that players cannot rely on pure athleticism, but must be willing to learn the fundamentals. I think sports like baseball, tennis and bowling have lost some appeal to young athletes, because those sports are not as much "fun" to learn as sports like soccer, where participants in their first practice are running around an open field, chasing after a ball (and each other). I like the Wegner method, because he makes learning tennis fun (like bumpers instead of gutters does for bowling and T-ball instead of pitchers does for baseball.) The Wegner method teaches us (old and young alike) to get to the tennis ball and hit it, rather than concerning ourselves with "form". Don't get me wrong, I understand how important mechanics are in any sport, but if the participant does not enjoy the sport to begin with, than he or she will not continue to participate. Bowling has drawn in more participants with bumpers and rails (keeping the ball on the lane is fun), baseball has drawn in more participate with T-ball and coaches pitch (keeping the ball in play is fun.) Wegner's method has and will continue to draw in more tennis players, because it makes hitting the ball fun. But as with any sport, once the player enjoys it, he or she wants to become better. Then, a coach can improve the player's skills with mechanics. Forget "KISS" and remember "KIF" (Keep It Fun!) No sense adding the fourth "S", because none of us on this Thread are "Stupid".
I am happy to become a part of your community!