A New Year's Serve

[bottle]

From Pierre-Hugues Herbert's Serving Display Against Novak Djokovic

Nobody ever tried harder than Vic Braden to steal pitching mechanics from baseball for the serving masses in tennis, sort of like Prometheus' gift to mankind of fire.

Vic Braden developed one Luis Tiant pitch where the server turns all the way back to a friend standing by the rear fence and says, "Hi, how are you" before continuing with his serve.

The rear leg driven and rotorded me accepts the Luis Tiant model (think John McEnroe and the Paris Open's young Frenchman, Pierre-Hugues Herbert) but wants nothing lazy at looking-at-back-fence moment other than the arm.

As for the hips, they're already firing at that point. The hips are firing as the arm just finishes its assumption of a right angle or whatever angle works best (please note that I did not use the expression "trophy position" and therefore deserve a Nobel, Pulitzer, MacArthur or Booker Prize).

Why such late assumption of throwing bend?

Because, right after hips fire comes the biggest gross body surge of power possible and I live in Grosse Pointe.

This design pits maximum body surge against further cocking of the arm, shoulder, scapula, wrist and maybe even fingers.

And the racket tip doesn't stay down, to put things mildly. Some used to say that racket tip was a paint brush dipping for an infinitesimally brief moment into a paint can, but then along came more recent instruction about turning racket tip out to the right, which forever spoiled traditional simplicity and unifying image including "backscratch."

The service engineers are right of course. (They are always right. Just ask them.) So turn the racket tip out toward side fence as part of the on-the-fly cock and immediately fire the tomahawk.

P.S. An area for added kick serve exploration is finger movement right on the ball, keeping in mind that science dismisses new possibility as much as it creates it and usually more often. Feathering technique from crew however must be applied-- as experiment-- in view of Steve Navarro's having his serving students make their strings follow the contour of the ball.

I've always wondered: Does modern emphasis on internal arm rotation put too much trailing rim on the ball in the case of all but the most skillful of servers?

Note: Standard objection in tennis to all talk about hand manipulation at contact always identifies the brevity of actual contact (say three or four thousandths of a second) without explaining that the manipulation could start before and continue afterward.

[bottle]

Compressed Time

To what compression can we take basic components of a good serve where "compression" means "compression in time."

Stan Wawrinka's serve is powerful and effective yet mostly seems to occur all in the last instant before, during and after contact.

So why couldn't a rotorded server, no Wawrinka, do something similar in order to fool the ball into thinking that it had been scraped in one of the hard to achieve ways that lead to powerful upward overdrive.

Because the server is rotorded, we know he can't get his racket tip as low as a conventional instructor would like, so we have to use special means to create a long runway to the ball.

Most obvious is extreme stance and rotation that present back almost but not completely to opponent and the net.

Once attaining this pose, with front heel up in the air, can the server maintain it while the arm does most of its work?

This allows the revised power design discovered in hitting slice serves still to exist in the greater upwardness of kick (or even topspin slice).

This design is a part of cueball philosophy in billiards and stage cues in theater, where some act produces true result or desired actuality that is quite different from the cue.

In the kind of serve I'm now pursuing-- more classical, less Jordonair and more "rotarian"-- the hips fire driving front foot flat to form a brace that accelerates top of the body, arm and everything else all at once-- more simple and down to earth and direct than anybody's theory of kinetic chain which probably holds water but nevertheless is intellectual and lawyerly, i.e. overly logical as if everything in life is arranged according to the same stride length.

There still is sequence, yes, but with just two steps: hips and the rest just like a baseball pitch.

So what to do with the arm?

The arm can slowly coil starting in the "up" of one's down and up gravity assisted and rhythmic lift combined with dramatic twist back of the body.

The slowness of this proposed arm coil may come as a shock but is the lynchpin of the new serve.

Rather than checkpoints along the way, e.g., "arm right-angled NOW!" one assigns an end position which gives body a nice bite-sized amount of arm and shoulder pre-loading coil left for body and arm-- bigtime negotiators-- to work out between themselves.

A useful thing that body could be doing during this prolonged coil of the arm is lean toward side fence while knees countervail toward opposite side fence.

Now when hips rotate hard to abruptly stop, they can send energy on a more upward vector with chest open to sky.

The challenge will be to combine last bit of backward arm coil and release of all energy in a short space.

[bottle]

Lloyd Budge Stories

Big brother syndrome has to be important in tennis, and here maybe is the greatest example.

But history screwed up. There aren't enough stories about Lloyd Budge, the man who goaded his much younger brother into giving up basketball, football and baseball for tennis. Fate had it that Don was supposed to outshine Lloyd but not overwhelm him.

Lloyd's 1945 book TENNIS MADE EASY is still considered one of the best classic tennis books ever. Lloyd himself had a distinguished career in both singles and doubles.

In an early round of the 1940 Southeastern Pro Championships, Flamingo Park, Miami, Lloyd Budge defeated Vincent Richards, who had first grown fat and then lost weight, according to Ray Bowers in FORGOTTEN VICTORIES: A HISTORY OF PRO TENNIS 1926-1945 .

Lloyd Budge must have served like this (see picture link):

[bottle]

A Reconsideration of all Five Clips of the Don Budge Backhand

The clips are at Tennis Player. There really is, out in the wider world, not much else. "The greatest backhand ever" in the words of countless players-- and only five good videos survive. "Not the greatest but maybe the most natural" was Don Budge's view of his own backhand.

Well, who other than dullards cares whether something is the greatest or not. But anybody in tennis SHOULD CARE about whether something in our game is "most natural" or not.

"Most natural" could, though not necessarily, signal some individual to A) imitate or B) learn and create.

The following clip is far from most dramatic of the five but probably is appropriate for the greatest number of aspirant players.

bbbbb

Note: If as I speculate there is a flying grip change in this video, it gets racket pointing to left fence. The arm, like a tranquil dog, settled, then is carried backward and slightly upward mostly but not completely by body turn.

Racket at side fence rather than rear fence seems a crucial point since even a 45-degree step-out will turn the racket back a lot, and we never want to turn the racket too little or too far.

In all five videos the racket after flying grip change goes another 90 degrees away from the target. "Perpendicular to rear fence" as tennis imperative is too rough, i.e., imprecise.

The open racket face at farthermost back part of the stroke means that arm roll is forthcoming to make the strings go faster than the hand.

[bottle]

A Reconsideration of all Five Clips of the Don Budge Backhand

The clips are at Tennis Player. There really is, out in the wider world, not much else. "The greatest backhand ever" in the words of countless players-- and only five good videos survive. "Not the greatest but maybe the most natural" was Don Budge's view of his own backhand.

Well, who other than dullards cares whether something is the greatest or not. But anybody in tennis SHOULD CARE about whether something in our game is "most natural" or not.

"Most natural" could, though not necessarily, signal some individual to A) imitate or B) learn and create.

The following clip is far from most dramatic of the five but probably is appropriate for the greatest number of aspirant players.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/golden_legends/donbudge/donbudge_sa.html?DBBHSliceFront1.mov

Note: If as I speculate there is a flying grip change in this video, it gets racket pointing to left fence. The arm, like a tranquil dog, settled, then is carried backward and slightly upward mostly but not completely by body turn.

Racket at side rather than rear fence seems a crucial point since even a 45-degree step-out will turn the racket back a lot, and we never want to turn the racket too little or too far.

In all five videos the racket after flying grip change goes another 90 degrees away from the target. "Perpendicular to rear fence" as tennis imperative is too imprecise.

The open racket face at farthermost back part of the stroke means that arm roll is forthcoming to make the strings go faster than the hand.

P.S. The url for the video in this post calls the particular backhand a slice. Is this true or not-- could be slice or drive, right? In his autobiography, Don Budge tells of getting confused right in the middle of Wimbledon as to which he was hitting day by day. This, though unbelievable, seems less so when one observes this clip.

[stotty]

P.S. The url for the video in this post calls the particular backhand a slice. Is this true or not-- could be slice or drive, right? In his autobiography, Don Budge tells of getting confused right in the middle of Wimbledon as to which he was hitting day to day. This, though unbelievable, seems less so when one observes this clip.

I'd say flat...not slice...definitely not topspin. Our very own don_budge would likely know better then anyone else alive today.

[don_budge]

I'd say flat...not slice...definitely not topspin. Our very own don_budge would likely know better then anyone else alive today.

P.S. The url for the video in this post calls the particular backhand a slice. Is this true or not-- could be slice or drive, right? In his autobiography, Don Budge tells of getting confused right in the middle of Wimbledon as to which he was hitting day by day. This, though unbelievable, seems less so when one observes this clip.

Actually Gardnar Mulloy would know better than I. Lee Tyler told me that he and Tom Brown would hit when Don was in town and have dinner as well. Gardnar, still clear as a bell as he nears the century mark, surely played with Don a great deal.

But as I remember it as a teenager who was prone to partying a good deal even as we were training some six hours a day at the camp the stroke was pretty flat. Whether he spun it under or over it was what you would call a heavy ball...it knocked the racquet out of your hands if you didn't square it in the middle of the strings.

Keep in mind that in those days...it was wood and gut. His racquet was particularly heavy with a 5" grip. No leather...just the wood with some rather small grooves longitudinally up the handle for better gripping. Exaggerated spin was not yet the technique and it would have been impossible with that kind of equipment.

The best way to put it is in his own words...it was the most natural stroke imaginable...the racquet just seemed to roll through the ball. But the whole game was like that. His whole game was like that. Natural. Just like the wood and the gut. It's interesting...many call his backhand the best shot in tennis ever...not just the best backhand. Just as many say the Pancho Segura two handed forehand was the best shot in tennis ever. But you always have to remind yourself that it was done with a wood racquet...that changes the whole conceptual frame of reference. You simply cannot compare it to the shots of today.

I remember one day musing to myself here in Sweden after some practice...feeling pretty good about my self. I was the same age as Mr. Budge as when I knew him...58 or so. I was wondering to myself...could I have competed with the old boy with the way that I was playing. But then I had a reality check...and I realized that I was playing with 100 square inches of graphite.

Once I asked him if he would hit a few balls with me and he said, "Why sure Steve...go and fetch my racquet in the ball room." I will never forget that there were four frames lying there on the bench and I grabbed one of them and held it in my hand and just gazed at it and taking in the immense beauty of his blunderbuss...his trusty wood tree of a racquet.

It may of been slice. It may have been flat. Whatever it was...over or under...it was a modicum. Just enough and not too much. It was perfect. Mr. Budge's backhand.

I hope that I didn't disappoint.

[stotty]

Actually Gardnar Mulloy would know better than I. Lee Tyler told me that he and Tom Brown would hit when Don was in town and have dinner as well. Gardnar, still clear as a bell as he nears the century mark, surely played with Don a great deal.

But as I remember it as a teenager who was prone to partying a good deal even as we were training some six hours a day at the camp the stroke was pretty flat. Whether he spun it under or over it was what you would call a heavy ball...it knocked the racquet out of your hands if you didn't square it in the middle of the strings.

Keep in mind that in those days...it was wood and gut. His racquet was particularly heavy with a 5" grip. No leather...just the wood with some rather small grooves longitudinally up the handle for better gripping. Exaggerated spin was not yet the technique and it would have been impossible with that kind of equipment.

The best way to put it is in his own words...it was the most natural stroke imaginable...the racquet just seemed to roll through the ball. But the whole game was like that. His whole game was like that. Natural. Just like the wood and the gut. It's interesting...many call his backhand the best shot in tennis ever...not just the best backhand. Just as many say the Pancho Segura two handed forehand was the best shot in tennis ever. But you always have to remind yourself that it was done with a wood racquet...that changes the whole conceptual frame of reference. You simply cannot compare it to the shots of today.

I remember one day musing to myself here in Sweden after some practice...feeling pretty good about my self. I was the same age as Mr. Budge as when I knew him...58 or so. I was wondering to myself...could I have competed with the old boy with the way that I was playing. But then I had a reality check...and I realized that I was playing with 100 square inches of graphite.

Once I asked him if he would hit a few balls with me and he said, "Why sure Steve...go and fetch my racquet in the ball room." I will never forget that there were four frames lying there on the bench and I grabbed one of them and held it in my hand and just gazed at it and taking in the immense beauty of his blunderbuss...his trusty wood tree of a racquet.

It may of been slice. It may have been flat. Whatever it was...over or under...it was a modicum. Just enough and not too much. It was perfect. Mr. Budge's backhand.

I hope that I didn't disappoint.

It's a rare day when you disappoint, don_budge. The shot you describe is much what I thought it would be.

I recently bought one of those "grooved handled" rackets you described, at an antiques auction. I bought it for just £3. It has a fish tail shaped handle too. I took it to the club and gave lessons with it for over a week. I let my more curious students have a go with it so they could experience 1930's tennis. I agree there is very little scope for spin with such a racket, and its limitations are significant compared to modern rackets..."night and day" as Rick would say. My model weighs 16 ounces and is head heavy. I found the best way to hit the ball is flat but slightly underneath...like Don Budge seems to be doing in the clip. This seemed to provide the biggest sweet-spot and the most venom. I found topspin, other than a very modest amount, very difficult to achieve...and the least effective game style for such a racket.

It was an eye-opener for me to use such a racket. It's a long way behind the wooden Wilson Jack Kramer I used when I first started playing tennis. So you see there is wood...and then there is early wood. A significant amount of engineering went on in the wood years too it seems to me.

I love bottles thread. It provokes and jolts my memory here and there....

[bottle]

Just A Bit More

These two remarkably informative posts taken together make me question my cyclical course over the decades of trying to master "a Don Budge backhand" although I have invested enough psychic energy in the project to stay with it just a bit more.

My 200 Tour Dunlop is at least a bit heavier than the other rackets I pick up.

And when I self-feed this way actually with a similar feel though lighter racket, an old Wilson Hammer 5.2, I hit some really nice shots.

Then I try the same shot against much younger kids and probably am late. (Opposing netman in doubles loves it.)

But Rosewallian Slice is doing wonders for my confidence (please see next post), and from everything I can understand, there is a big overlap between Don Budge and Ken Rosewall when it comes to ground stroke technique, especially slice backhand technique (although I will always wonder about their respective grips).

The mutual idea of a very flat shot with a modicum of spin for control (no matter the kind of spin it is) seems very important though never the whole story.

I'm thinking that for more topspin on the backhand side I'll return to my Petr Korda model. It was working great! Why did I abandon it? To make room for a new spate of Budgian experiments-- the only reason.

When however I say it "was working great" I should add that it is far from being as accurate as my slice. What I know is that if I use it sparingly, it gives some pretty good players trouble no matter where it lands.

This shot-- The Sorta Korda-- all at once takes racket back far and low (but not around) and therefore is a-rhythmic.

There is a lot of barrel in it, i.e., pulling on a rope or spearing with the handle similar to the "partitioned" spearing in Gordon's ATP Style Forehand.

Later Note: I am re-discovering or maybe realizing for the first time that "A Sorta Korda" can indeed be a rhythmic backhand lending itself to immediate flying grip change (a very quick backswing) followed by racket tip winding to inside as arm gets straightened by the hips-- everything flowing into everything else and not "a-rhythmic" as I suggested for a second-- I don't know why, perhaps because I was actively studying the very rhythmic Don Budge backhand or rather what still is known about it.

[bottle]

A Paradox In Double-Roll Slice

Suppose you are returning faster and faster serves from the ad court in doubles and all is going well. You are keeping your backhand returns low and deep and just a bit toward court center with sizzle, but would like to hit a short angle into the alley.

So, you shorten up. Wrong. You miss the shot.

That return might work if it were simple and elegant enough like a stripped down reflex backhand volley and less like your full, double-roll slice.

Still, the twin rolls have been working the best of all attempted returns.

The answer lies in a longer initial takeback to make time for both rolls smoothly to occur.

[stotty]

Suppose you are returning faster and faster serves from the ad court in doubles and all is going well. You are keeping your backhand returns low and deep and just a bit toward court center with sizzle, but would like to hit a short angle into the alley.

Dissipate the follow through as you strike towards the alley...deft stuff.

[bottle]

Nice. Thanks. Another way of putting it and probably accurate about what actually happened. Who cares about the set which we won 6-1 ? It was the best shot I hit in 10 years.

[bottle]

Quote from don_budge:

I don't buy into Dougherty's discussion about disguising a kick serve either. The disguise is not about whether or not it is going to be a kick or a slice or a cannonball...the disguise is decidedly in the placement. I never gave a second thought about disguising the spin but always kept my placement intentions a secret.

That is an iconoclasm, liberating for a rotorded server or anybody else too, I should think.

So, your pre-serve stance announces that you're going to hit a kick serve. Big deal.

The kick serve first and second is the mainstay of good doubles and many instructors have their singles players do nothing else also-- well, maybe for a couple of years.

The above philosophy of don-budge aka Steve Navarro certainly offers more attainability for a large number of players.

But I'm a rotorded and self-interested one, and once again here is where application comes down TO ME.

I've frittered years trying to develop kick from the conventional stance that works best for me in delivering flat or low slice or weak top.

From now on, if you're on the other side of the net and you see me line up in a conventional stance, expect flat or slice.

But if I'm turned way around-- I mean WAY round-- you're about to get something else and can be good with that.

The next big question is toss. We want repeatability, right? So use same toss. The only difference is that front shoulder is turned way around. The same toss therefore arcs forward and to the left like Boris Becker's toss.

Exact same amount of backward body rotation will enhance repeatability too.

So, having once and for all given up deception of service type in favor of deception of placement-- on ALL serves-- not too much else will be of significant variance.

The exception will be in time of greatest arm compression. Very late to deliver kick, with shoulders already flying UP.

The central premise of my baseball pitch serves is rapid forward rotation of the hips cut off almost immediately by the bracing front leg.

On a kick serve, I can see no reason to make the hips rotate around anything but a vertical axis since shoulders are about to fly upward anyway (and then downward).

How much should they come over?

Well, one knows from study that the strings come up to the ball but also turn over on the ball to the tune of about 10 degrees of arc.

Sport scientists discuss this 10 degrees over the top of ball. The best regular doubles partner I ever had, 6 foot 6 inch and pretty near tops in New England like his three kids, frequently mimed the ball and racket up in front of him to instruct his contact to happen at correct racket tilt.

My question: Does it matter whether arm or body applies the tilt?

I go with body for now.

[bottle]

On Serve: Arm or Body to Provide the Racket Tilt into the Court?

Answer one's own question department: If both provide the tilt neither will have to work as hard.

But I don't like this instruction in the case of a kick serve since I think that all zen of the arm should be directed at side fence.

Tilt in that case is to come from the bod, at least in my serve.

[bottle]

Wrinkles in Wawrinkan Serve Contemplated More

The serve of Stanislas the Manislas Wawrinka has much to recommend it and probably some wildness to avoid.

I see unusually sharp differentiation in speed in this continuous one-- slow motion to top of toppling backswing then everything goes fast. If a serve has five gears Stan shifts once from first to fifth.

The big attraction for a rotorded server such as myself is a growing feeling that one can usefully employ tight little circles in the area of the contact to generate racket head speed in an upward direction, that applied lateness of arm compression can work in a big way that could possibly be the break-through one has long sought.

The body weight one can put on the ball in a baseball pitcher's version of this serve seems good-- not too little or too much.

Arm work however may still feel more like a toss than a powerful throw.

That is why the huge fast drop or tall waterfall built into Wawrinka's serve has to be of interest-- not necessarily to copy but as signpost that whatever loose motion one can add to present achieved mechanics may transform "toss" to "lusty throw."