Need help fixing forehand technique

Archosaurus said:

Yes. The key point here is that they're not actually unaware. They're aware of their actions in a way that's far more beneficial to actually playing the game than just knowing them in theory. It'd be incorrect to think they have a bad MI + A: it's just really crappy when on paper.

Click to expand...

as a coach i am interested in a MI that others can benefit from and as detailed A as possible. a MI and A that only benefits them is worthless to me.

izra said:

as a coach i am interested in a MI that others can benefit from and as detailed A as possible. a MI and A that only benefits them is worthless to me.

Click to expand...

I think you're misunderstanding the concept of mental image and awareness. They're individual on a player to player basis, and vary due to physical differences, equipment differences, differences in what kind of playstyle they want to achieve, differences in technical skill etc.

An example of MI + A would be the complete basement beginner who is trying to learn to topspin. He will probably hit the ball with the angle open and close it on the contact. He heard that you need to brush upwards, and he is brushing upwards, but he's not exactly imparting spin onto the ball.

His MI is that you need to brush upwards and his A is that he is brushing upwards, but they're not actually helping him achieve his goal of topspin. He is practicing in a wrong way.

A better MI would be one that lets him understand that he needs to close the angle first, and a better A would be one that lets him understand that he is not actually putting too much spin on the ball because of his blade angle. He will then close the angle and do the cycle again.

The way you CAN apply MI + A to all your students is to formulate an accurate method of "Problem -> Solution" based on common problems. When a coach just tells a student to do something and it works immediately, they've probably identified the student's MI and A accurately, and given them a more fitting combination.

wait... so you're telling me that as a coach i should identify the problem and show people how to solve it?

izra said:

wait... so you're telling me that as a coach i should identify the problem and show people how to solve it?

Click to expand...

Yes. That's why having a coach teach you is so good. They do the MI + A part for you, and you just listen until you do it right.

wow, fascinating...

I don't know what you expected.

To get more value out of the thought, think of a player who is trying to learn something on his own. What kind of wrong awareness could he have? What kind of wrong mental image?

you should have realized by now i'm winding you up. identifying a problem and finding a solution is basically 100% of what a coach does. the MI + A concept as you put it is a basic one, but it is nowhere near being the only one. i sometimes like to play around with my students by not providing them with a MI, rather i just tell them "okay, now do exactly what you just did but try doing it in a ____ way" and wait for them to see the result. this way they form their own MI and it sticks better than me trying to explain it from scratch.

izra said:

sure can. NL has some great advice both in general and here. it's just my opinion based on personal experience that my method will get most people to where they want to be sooner. of course i think my method is the best or else i wouldn't be preaching it. doesn't mean there's anything wrong with NL's method though. doesn't even mean that i'm right. i just go with whatever i find works the best and that can always change. if it didn't change i could never improve as a coach.

Click to expand...

Asked what style of Kung Fu Bruce Lee did, one time his answer was: "My style is no style."

When people ask me what kind of yoga I teach, I try to explain that I teach people. Yoga may be the subject matter. But teaching is actually a process of problem solving around the issue of what will help each separate person. To do this you have to be creative. Sometimes you have to switch gears and change what subject matter you are going to cover even what system you are going to teach from within.

If someone who has gotten to a place where shifting coaching methods won't mess them up, shifting gears and switching up what approaches you use with someone, can sometimes make them learn more and faster.

Sometimes people get locked into formulas and systems. Going with a system for a while can be really useful. But then breaking out of the system and completely using a different approach is also useful.

Hey, Carl, I use all kinds of methods to teach people. I just never fail to emphasise the importance of experimentation when giving the brain a fuller picture of what is happening. I don't think izra and I disagree at all. Our different degrees of emphasis might simply be a mental bias which doesn't amount to much in practice. After all, I have been bashing my students on the head this past week about lifting the ball off the table by swinging upwards with open paddles. I have told them that they must either try to dominate the ball with force or dominate it with spin. Most of them try to use slow touch and weak spin, which is the worst combination in the world.

It's also fun to hear a teaching genius teach us to teach. That made my day.

NextLevel said:

It's also fun to her a teaching genius teach us to teach. That made my day.

Click to expand...

who are you referring to here ? Carl or Archo ?

ttmonster said:

who are you referring to here ? Carl or Archo ?

Click to expand...

If I told you, I would have to kill you.

And before you do, I will ask you the eternal question .... Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

NextLevel said:

If I told you, I would have to kill you.

Click to expand...

NL, you probably missed the part where I said that I'm just basically reciting the method Ross mentioned in his book.

Please don't make fun of every single thing I do: especially if I've not actually said anything myself. You're essentially laughing at an idea by an actual professional coach and delegating it to the level of theoretical banter just because I said it.

ttmonster said:

And before you do, I will ask you the eternal question .... Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

Click to expand...

We kill people to show that you may get killed for killing people. Deterrent not equivalent.

Archosaurus said:

NL, you probably missed the part where I said that I'm just basically reciting the method Ross mentioned in his book.

Please don't make fun of every single thing I do: especially if I've not actually said anything myself. You're essentially laughing at an idea by an actual professional coach and delegating it to the level of theoretical banter just because I said it.

Click to expand...

It's easy to describe what other people do. Contrary to some popular wisdom, we can say exactly the same thing and mean something different. This applies here as well.

izra said:

wait... so you're telling me that as a coach i should identify the problem and show people how to solve it?

Click to expand...

This and what follows is some pretty good stuff. That process of getting someone to sort something out for themselves is good teaching whereas Archie's idea of just doing the work for the person.....well, I think how you let this unfold was quite well done.

ttmonster, NL's expression is an American joke comparing the (mock) seriousness to a CIA or secret agency telling someone an important national secret.

He basically meant he isn't gunna tell.

But we can talk about figurative killing anything we want. Myself, if you haven't notice, I seem to prefer to talk about jokers jumping off perfectly good functioning bridges for no good reason.

Der_Echte said:

ttmonster, NL's expression is an American joke comparing the (mock) seriousness to a CIA or secret agency telling someone an important national secret.

He basically meant he isn't gunna tell.

But we can talk about figurative killing anything we want. Myself, if you haven't notice, I seem to prefer to talk about jokers jumping off perfectly good functioning bridges for no good reason.

Click to expand...

And this was the results of that last member tournament:

I understood the joke Der_Echte, I was just to try to play along albeit with consequences beyond my control , as always

Der_Echte said:

ttmonster, NL's expression is an American joke comparing the (mock) seriousness to a CIA or secret agency telling someone an important national secret.

He basically meant he isn't gunna tell.

But we can talk about figurative killing anything we want. Myself, if you haven't notice, I seem to prefer to talk about jokers jumping off perfectly good functioning bridges for no good reason.

Click to expand...

It's Carl's Fault...