New School Or Old School

[stickman]

John for some reason every person talks about how PLAYERS NOW, PLAYERS NOW, are so much better and faster and bigger! And how they would dominate the old school tennis players.

#1 The racket technology is so much better.
#2 The strings grip the ball so much better.
#3 Better althlets.

Which all might be true, but i dont buy it , if you think about it its actually more of an advantage to play classic now more that ever.

#1 With the good strings it would alow for a player with a less conservitive grip to come over the ball better! I.E. Rodger Federe
#2 Better althlets means more speed / quickness , could close faster on the net and impose there game.
#3 Whats harder to hit a big top spin forehand that you can set up for , OR a laser down the line with an althlet like nadal flying in behind it nockin off vollys.

I play with 18 to 30 year old kids who think they can do it all, just like every other kid in america, who play competive tennis.

So what do you think? Could a johnny mac impose his game? I read you helped him with his serve and it only took a few pictures and some recording!!
You cant teach hand eye! And natural ability!

In my opinion top five would be a guarentee!!! If you could play then you could play now. Period...

[johnyandell]

Of course there is no way to answer these kinds of questions.

Ed Atkinson believes the older players were better. Not sure that's true but we are going to put up some incredible segments from an avant garde bio pic a friend of mine made about Pancho Gonzales. He beat Laver at MSG the year Rod won the Slam for the second time. Rod was 30 ish, Pancho was 41.

As to style of play. Yes most accomplished players are probably slaves to conventional wisdom. But you know what? If there was a way to win by going to the net more and having more conservative grips in the pro game, there are players who would do it. Winning not philosophy is what dictates playing style.

It's just not quite as easy as you make it sound in your post. My opinion is that a new level of athlete--like the 6'7" swingman guys in pro basketball may come into the game. They'll be taller with higher natural contact heights with conservative grips, explosive moving forward and have big wing spans.

They might lead to a change.

[airforce1]

Shane Battier is my dream tennis prospect.

Height: 6-8 / 2,03
Weight: 220 lbs. / 99,8 kg.
College: Duke

This guy is so good at the technical aspects of his game and does all the little things right, all while making grades at Duke!

Not to mention how this big guy can move.

[jeffreycounts]

John for some reason every person talks about how PLAYERS NOW, PLAYERS NOW, are so much better and faster and bigger! And how they would dominate the old school tennis players.

#1 The racket technology is so much better.
#2 The strings grip the ball so much better.
#3 Better althlets.

Which all might be true, but i dont buy it , if you think about it its actually more of an advantage to play classic now more that ever.

#1 With the good strings it would alow for a player with a less conservitive grip to come over the ball better! I.E. Rodger Federe
#2 Better althlets means more speed / quickness , could close faster on the net and impose there game.
#3 Whats harder to hit a big top spin forehand that you can set up for , OR a laser down the line with an althlet like nadal flying in behind it nockin off vollys.

I play with 18 to 30 year old kids who think they can do it all, just like every other kid in america, who play competive tennis.

So what do you think? Could a johnny mac impose his game? I read you helped him with his serve and it only took a few pictures and some recording!!
You cant teach hand eye! And natural ability!

In my opinion top five would be a guarentee!!! If you could play then you could play now. Period...

You missed #4:

#4: Better technique using the entire body.

Today's windshield wiper forehand uses more of the body - torso rotation, shoulder drive, and rotation of the arm to generate A LOT more pace. If you look at Johnny Mac's forehand, you can see how he doesn't get his core into the shot, the way today's players do. Combine this change in technique with todays rackets and strings, and I would guess that players today are hitting the ball 50% to 60% harder than the Connors/McEnroe era.

This change in technique on the forehands - which uses the entire body in a much more powerful way - really rewards bigger and stronger athletes. Roddick, Nadal, Djokovic - these guys are tall and powerful athletes - which translates into bigger hitting. Back in the 70s, when less of the body was used in the forehand, I don't think physical size and strength was as important.

Federer isn't a giant, but his incredible timing allows him to use rotational movements and explosiveness to generate tremendous pace. Sanzia Mirza is another fairly small player who hits big due to wonderful timing and sequencing. But again, when the forehand was more of a "front to back" motion, like it was in the 70s, this kind of timing and sequencing wouldn't have mattered.

The strokes that haven't changed, in my opinion, are the serve and volleys. That's why Sampras could probably play Wimbledon this year and do fine. That's why Johnny Mac can still play well on the seniors tour. But from the back court, a Connors or McEnroe's old school technique would just get murdered today. Even Sampras' great forehand wouldn't hold up too well to today's wiper forehands.

Just my 2 cents.

[sejsel]

You missed #4:

#4: Better technique using the entire body.

Today's windshield wiper forehand uses more of the body - torso rotation, shoulder drive, and rotation of the arm to generate A LOT more pace. If you look at Johnny Mac's forehand, you can see how he doesn't get his core into the shot, the way today's players do. Combine this change in technique with todays rackets and strings, and I would guess that players today are hitting the ball 50% to 60% harder than the Connors/McEnroe era.

This change in technique on the forehands - which uses the entire body in a much more powerful way - really rewards bigger and stronger athletes. Roddick, Nadal, Djokovic - these guys are tall and powerful athletes - which translates into bigger hitting. Back in the 70s, when less of the body was used in the forehand, I don't think physical size and strength was as important.

Federer isn't a giant, but his incredible timing allows him to use rotational movements and explosiveness to generate tremendous pace. Sanzia Mirza is another fairly small player who hits big due to wonderful timing and sequencing. But again, when the forehand was more of a "front to back" motion, like it was in the 70s, this kind of timing and sequencing wouldn't have mattered.

The strokes that haven't changed, in my opinion, are the serve and volleys. That's why Sampras could probably play Wimbledon this year and do fine. That's why Johnny Mac can still play well on the seniors tour. But from the back court, a Connors or McEnroe's old school technique would just get murdered today. Even Sampras' great forehand wouldn't hold up too well to today's wiper forehands.

Just my 2 cents.

Jeffrey, with all due respect, since I am very familiar with your work on tennis stroke analysis, I would be more carefull in issuing some of the statements above.
Pete's forehand would hold up every inch to today's forehands, since he had better linear component in the stroke than anyone else, and he "leads in" the stroke with the elbow - I haven't seen anyone doing it like him today. Big body parts outweigh smaller ones in terms of generating momentum - bigger amplitude at least theoretically or potentially gives bigger force as a result transferred to the ball.
Of course, strokes are far more complex than this, (sequencing, timing, coordination of the components in the bio-mechanical chain) but I would be more than happy to provide you with complete footage of Pete's 3 matches in Asia vs. Federer - if you have not seen them already, just tell me what you see on the subject of forehands in those matches.
I believe that Pete played some practice matches prior to that vs. Roddick, and beat Andy, who reportedly was sincerely pi..ed about losing. Reports also say that he dominated guys (other active pros) from the backcourt with his forehands. And at times in Asia, his forehand was clearly (pace-wise) heavier stroke than Fed's.
Someone on the forum wrote about forehand of Pancho, Rosewall, Trabert and others being measured for speed of the ball, and Pancho hit 114 or 112 mph. , closely followed by others.
Body and torso rotation, wiper follow-through on the forehand are evident today, and of course the level of play has moved on from the days of Gonzales and Rosewall.
It is immensely important that body (torso) rotation is adopted in one's technique, that is a must.
John Yandell puts it perfectly - turn your torso and let the racquet and arm just get along with it.
Follow through is just a consequence of what one does prior to that, - in words of late Tim Gullikson - it doesn't necessarily has to be explicitly taught (yet, it has to be very well understood), and if you did everything mechanically right prior to follow through, there is almost a degree of certainty that it will itself be correct as well. But it has to be taught and corrected at times in order to eliminate some irregularities or flaws if such exist in stroke execution.
Wiper is not something new, it has been there all along, it's just more pronounced today - grips, swing speeds and angular speeds of the racquet head, contact point (it's height), etc. are all playing some part in it.

I've seen an exhibition match - I think 1990 or 1991 - Becker in his prime time vs. Connors.
Boris had some trouble handling the pace of Jimbo's forehand hitting forehand on forehand with him.

I just have that nagging feeling that guys today are focusing a bit too much on some components of the execution of the stroke causing us to see much more brushing on the ball rather than hitting through it - and everytning that can be deduced from this observation in terms of mechanics of the stroke and the speed of the incoming ball oponnent has to meet as a result.
I personally would never choose, for example, Tursunov forehand as a basic model rather than Pete's forehand. But, I would be more than happy to be able to implement some components of Tursunovs or Federers execution as an icing on the cake in adopting or teaching the stroke(s).

[sejsel]

You missed #4:

#4: Better technique using the entire body.

Today's windshield wiper forehand uses more of the body - torso rotation, shoulder drive, and rotation of the arm to generate A LOT more pace. If you look at Johnny Mac's forehand, you can see how he doesn't get his core into the shot, the way today's players do. Combine this change in technique with todays rackets and strings, and I would guess that players today are hitting the ball 50% to 60% harder than the Connors/McEnroe era.

This change in technique on the forehands - which uses the entire body in a much more powerful way - really rewards bigger and stronger athletes. Roddick, Nadal, Djokovic - these guys are tall and powerful athletes - which translates into bigger hitting. Back in the 70s, when less of the body was used in the forehand, I don't think physical size and strength was as important.

Federer isn't a giant, but his incredible timing allows him to use rotational movements and explosiveness to generate tremendous pace. Sanzia Mirza is another fairly small player who hits big due to wonderful timing and sequencing. But again, when the forehand was more of a "front to back" motion, like it was in the 70s, this kind of timing and sequencing wouldn't have mattered.

The strokes that haven't changed, in my opinion, are the serve and volleys. That's why Sampras could probably play Wimbledon this year and do fine. That's why Johnny Mac can still play well on the seniors tour. But from the back court, a Connors or McEnroe's old school technique would just get murdered today. Even Sampras' great forehand wouldn't hold up too well to today's wiper forehands.

Just my 2 cents.

Just a follow-up on what I wrote earlier:
In the mid '90s, a 3d biomechanical comparative study was conducted (Vic Braden + russian-named guy as an expert together with Braden) on Pete's and Jim Courier forehand. Conclusion was - Courier forehand - slightly more suited for clay court tennis, Pete's forehand overall a better model.
Pete was ending the stroke on average 0,8 meters propelled further forward into the court towards the net than Jim - 0,8 meter is eternity in pro tennis in terms of (not) being passed at the net.
Look where people end their follow through and body positions in ending the strokes today.

[jeffreycounts]

Jeffrey, with all due respect, since I am very familiar with your work on tennis stroke analysis, I would be more carefull in issuing some of the statements above.
Pete's forehand would hold up every inch to today's forehands, since he had better linear component in the stroke than anyone else, and he "leads in" the stroke with the elbow - I haven't seen anyone doing it like him today. Big body parts outweigh smaller ones in terms of generating momentum - bigger amplitude at least theoretically or potentially gives bigger force as a result transferred to the ball.
Of course, strokes are far more complex than this, (sequencing, timing, coordination of the components in the bio-mechanical chain) but I would be more than happy to provide you with complete footage of Pete's 3 matches in Asia vs. Federer - if you have not seen them already, just tell me what you see on the subject of forehands in those matches.
I believe that Pete played some practice matches prior to that vs. Roddick, and beat Andy, who reportedly was sincerely pi..ed about losing. Reports also say that he dominated guys (other active pros) from the backcourt with his forehands. And at times in Asia, his forehand was clearly (pace-wise) heavier stroke than Fed's.
Someone on the forum wrote about forehand of Pancho, Rosewall, Trabert and others being measured for speed of the ball, and Pancho hit 114 or 112 mph. , closely followed by others.
Body and torso rotation, wiper follow-through on the forehand are evident today, and of course the level of play has moved on from the days of Gonzales and Rosewall.
It is immensely important that body (torso) rotation is adopted in one's technique, that is a must.
John Yandell puts it perfectly - turn your torso and let the racquet and arm just get along with it.
Follow through is just a consequence of what one does prior to that, - in words of late Tim Gullikson - it doesn't necessarily has to be explicitly taught (yet, it has to be very well understood), and if you did everything mechanically right prior to follow through, there is almost a degree of certainty that it will itself be correct as well. But it has to be taught and corrected at times in order to eliminate some irregularities or flaws if such exist in stroke execution.
Wiper is not something new, it has been there all along, it's just more pronounced today - grips, swing speeds and angular speeds of the racquet head, contact point (it's height), etc. are all playing some part in it.

I've seen an exhibition match - I think 1990 or 1991 - Becker in his prime time vs. Connors.
Boris had some trouble handling the pace of Jimbo's forehand hitting forehand on forehand with him.

I just have that nagging feeling that guys today are focusing a bit too much on some components of the execution of the stroke causing us to see much more brushing on the ball rather than hitting through it - and everytning that can be deduced from this observation in terms of mechanics of the stroke and the speed of the incoming ball oponnent has to meet as a result.
I personally would never choose, for example, Tursunov forehand as a basic model rather than Pete's forehand. But, I would be more than happy to be able to implement some components of Tursunovs or Federers execution as an icing on the cake in adopting or teaching the stroke(s).

I agree with almost everything here. First of all, I am continuously amazed at footage of older players that show technique we think of as "modern" -wiper finishes, torso rotation, etc.

Second, hitting through the ball certainly is a must and Pete is great at this.

I think the pulling motions are more exaggerated today and I personally believe this is possible due to the light frames. You can't pull the racket so easily with a heavy wood frame. Nadal, who is perhaps the greatest "puller" of the racket, has a frame that barely weighs anything. I cannot see him hitting his forehand with a wood racket. Or with one of those heavy metal things Connors used to play with.

The only part I will quibble with is the idea that the follow through is a consequence. My personal belief is that the wiper forehand engages the shoulder more effectively (see my article on the wiper forehand) where the shoulder hinges forward as it also lifts and rotates the entire double bend hitting structure. This is a muscular move through contact that leads to heavier harder balls. I have seen player after player look good coming into contact, but they stop short (thinking the follow through will "take care of itself" rather than purposefully drive through, up and then over with the entire double bend.

One more thing about Sampras. I love his forehand. I think it's a great model for anyone - especially people developing a forehand from scratch. But in terms of today's top hitters, I think he hits the ball late. Djokovic, Federer, Nadal all can take the ball much earlier. Combine this with the faster arm rotation from the fuller wiper and you get a bigger forehand. So just because Pete hits through the ball better perhaps, the later contact and the lack of explosion from a full wiper rotation of the arm are drawbacks.

Federer's forehand is just so much better to me. More explosive. More variety. Faster rotation. Much earlier contact point. But then again I think Federer's forehand is the greatest stroke I've ever seen, so not really a fair comparison.

[airforce1]

But then again I think Federer's forehand is the greatest stroke I've ever seen, so not really a fair comparison.

especially when he's not forcing it.

[sejsel]

hit harder - faster ball?

Explosive hit in itself, as an isolated element, is not a fulproof guarantee that a ball is coming faster off the racquet towards the oponnent.
Frew McMillan commented once - "his forehand looks as being hit harder ( I think on Agassi), whereas Sampras ball is faster"...

We have to ask ourselves - why - in the light of previous discussion(s).

Does putting more "work" on the ball necessarily means faster ball, or heavier? (whatever heavy or heavier can be defined as - John Yandell, read this and come into discussion!)

Wiper does engage shoulder and double bend hitting aparatus in good fashion, but wiper can appear as a consequence of the "pulling", forward, explosive motion of the elbow, which in its turn has to pull shoulder forward as well, all of it always a sign of good extension. And in the end, wiper confirms a necessary (spinning) component or work exercised on the ball necessary to keep it in the play after such violent acceleration, as well as being a natural ending of something often addressed as a whipping motion on the forehand.

Sounds contradictory again, but think again, elbow-lead forehand, bigger amplitude, more relaxed motion of the swing versus twitching...
There is much more to be written about this...
What kind of heaviness is the most lethal one on the forehand or from the backcourt?
Who's forehand is more difficullt to handle?
Even pro's were divided on this.
Safin and Kuerten said that meeting Pete's forehand was so much tougher since there was nothing to be done about it when it was on, he just murders you with one shot.
Federer, on the other hand got votes of some other players, being described as more suffocating in his work on the opponent.
Think what this is saying in technical terms...
I'll elaborate more on this later on, now being busy as I am, I have to leave for now...
Hope that more people will get engaged in the discussion soon...

[airforce1]

Federer, on the other hand got votes of some other players, being described as more suffocating in his work on the opponent.
Think what this is saying in technical terms...

Hope that more people will get engaged in the discussion soon...

You make some interesting points, but what you say above, is what I feel is far more important, day in and day out, in the game of tennis.

For the serve, it is slightly different,
but as for points played out, Fed's forehand is a special blend of speed, placement and spin, that can overwhelm the best.

[sejsel]

You make some interesting points, but what you say above, is what I feel is far more important, day in and day out, in the game of tennis.

For the serve, it is slightly different,
but as for points played out, Fed's forehand is a special blend of speed, placement and spin, that can overwhelm the best.

And yet, it got outpaced - just by Pete's forehand in Asia, not once...

Sometimes you also wish to end point sooner or with less effort.
Not saying that Fed is not able to flatten it out; far from it.

Sometimes it seems (inside-out forehand) that Pete's mechanics are more sound in terms of coming under the ball in some positions...
Fed has incredible diversity in hitting - as John pointed out in his analysis - so much elements of different techniques in his forehand, he is able to hit it in so many ways and blends several techniques and styles, all of it naturally coming to him now...
Saw him first time in Marseille, and knew back then (2000.) that he will become long-term world no.1...

[airforce1]

Not too sure I'd put much stock in what happened in Asia, but your point is well taken.

In a normal match on a fair hard court, I take Pete in his prime.
But playing drop points with no serving, which is more relevant to our topic, I'd pick Roger in his prime in a minute. (I'm hoping we still have not seen his prime yet!)

I'd also pay to see both matches if it were possible.

[sejsel]

Not too sure I'd put much stock in what happened in Asia, but your point is well taken.

Competitively, no, of course; technically, I think yes.
Nothing what was seen there is to be taken lightly when it comes to discussing technique.
But anyone would be darn lucky having any of those two strokes...

In a normal match on a fair hard court, I take Pete in his prime.
But playing drop points with no serving, which is more relevant to our topic, I'd pick Roger in his prime in a minute. (I'm hoping we still have not seen his prime yet!)

I'd also pay to see both matches if it were possible.

Of, course, we will never see that...
Yet, there was a debate some time ago on the issue Fed vs. Pete, either on YouTube, or on tennisplayer.net, revealing in its part some of the circumstances around that 2001 matchup in Wimbledon.
Pete was then of course past his prime, Fed not in his own yet either, grass court, etc.
It felt almost unreal seeing them both at the court at the same time...