A New Year's Serve

[hockeyscout]

I don't think the answer is all one way or the other.

The mechanical, like a "set-piece" in theater, could be the part that is most repeatable and reliable.

The organic, on the other hand, is the part where one makes distinction and adjustment and expresses oneself.

In the Federfore I've already posed (and this also is a post) that left arm goes high and next falls a small amount whether this comes from overall body action or the arm itself or both.

To summarize: Left arm falls to roughly parallel to court.

That is a mechanical guideline. Imprinting the guideline in one's electrical system may take a short while but with any determination one will get it.

The more complex right arm-- in a Federfore-- performs a loop of distinctive nature not the same as the distinctive loop of Ivan Lendl.

Me, I've been preaching against loop because I think that any loop tends to become overly mechanical, and also because I've developed some loopless alternatives that I know work well and sometimes better.

I now subtract the "against" part but keep the rest.

The challenge here is to sensitize this loop, to slow it down and imbue it with feel.

The irony is that one's loop then may seem hydraulic, but don't be fooled.

When one slows loop from hand separation the loop becomes the agent of one's sensitivity while providing better because more delayed timing for mondo and wipe.

Of course, as Roger Federer points out in his old Charlie Rose interview, footwork is the main determinant of excellence.

He also suggests that footwork should be so natural that no one notices it.

And I suggest that (movement to and from the ball), and, (stroke mechanics and organics) are absolutely equal as two conceptual entities.

So, does my credibility seem the same as Roger's? No since I play at a lesser level. But is marching out some nation's tennis labeling system ever the proper way to determine either credibility or athletic potential? Nope.

What is the truth?

Yes, you have tremendous validity and credibility with me for one reason. You are not dogmatic and you've got the patience to explore the new, and the next.

I am constantly dumfounded by how everyone is always trying to fix the racket, when the cause is ALWAYS 100% related to collarbone, posture, abdominal, belly button and hip positioning.

Roger even says it, when I miss it is because of my feet. I don't think in terms of feet, I actually think in terms of collarbone, ribcage, belly button and hip positioning, however, he's right.

Bottle, I completely ignore the racket. Trust me the racket does everything it needs to do when muscle groups have been correctly synched, and the athlete understands proper sequential loading techniques.

I see so many coaches asking players to bend the knees. The player bends the knees, and five other muscle groups go awol, and more issues are created with the racket head. If an athlete knows what muscles to load, and when, it is a piece of cake to do any athletic sport!

If I ever see a tennis coach make reference to the racket head, I know he's not understanding what went wrong in the chain, and what the cause was, and it'll be impossible for consistency to be set up in that player, it will break down in matches and the player will lose it time and time again (and the pro will blame another pro), and its a never ending chain.

The Bo Jackson's, Dion Sanders, Roy Jones Junior and Floyd Mayweathers are great because they understand how to properly connect the pieces, and it results in smooth athletic function.

Bottle, a superb thread, and their are great nuggets in here, and we read this everyday first thing so keep up the great work!

[bottle]

Knowing Where the Racket is

Ha-ha, but I do talk about where the racket and racket tip is.

But I will keep the other firmly in mind.

So that, for brief moments, I can forget where the racket and racket tip is, on my way to the next plateau where I never think about that.

Thanks for the response.

[bottle]

New Production Idea for all Camps of Rotorded Serving in the World

The shortfall in everybody's serve, instructors, administrators and student campers alike, occurs as one tries to twist the upper arm axle-like back, i.e., tries vainly to lower the racket tip a significant amount toward the ground.

But, "You use what you got," Vic Braden said.

The troubles henceforth of shortened runway in both directions are practically legion even in the rotorded servers who can't afford to attend the worldwide network of camps for remedial work that includes the crushing of Rotary Club adhesions.

A special problem is that the runways are too short for other projects such as turning the racket tip outward on its way up to the ball before internal rotation sets in.

So turn the racket tip outward soon or sooner than that or even at address, just get this important swerve out of the way!

If one turns forearm just as arm starts to bend, one unclutters the down runway for humeral resistance.

Humeral resistance is the buildup of forward muscular effort in the humerus (the upper arm) even as it is twisting BACK.

We would like to say DOWN rather than BACK, but BACK is frequently the word we need to use when discussing rotorded serving.

The proposal here is for an uncluttering of downward runway which in fact will enable a loosening of fingers for more racket tip lowness at the same time.

The idea comes from Glooscap Soccabasin, a North American Indian who developed his style while tomahawking white persons between the shoulderblades at 20 paces.

Other Indians kept a firm grip on the handle right up to release.

Glooscap's throw was basically from the twisting humerus just as theirs, however he added a loosening and tightening of fingers to the mix.

Note: This reference to Glooscap, a peaceable figure in Indian mythology, applies only to the humerus.

I have not sung "Hail to the Redskins" since Joe Gibbs refused me an interview once I brought up the word "redskins" in discussion that would have veered toward stereotype.

Still, making oneself into an Indian at 20 paces tomahawking a white person between the shoulderblades could be helpful fantasy and good tennis tip.

[bottle]

How Many Times Can Racket Tip Veer to the Right in a Great Rotorded Serve?

No, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

No, what figure should you save for retirement, and what would you do if I told you that you will die the micro-second your dough runs out?

No, what would you do if a man came up to you and asked what you would do if a man came up to you and asked what would you do if...etc.

Hey, I don't want to have sex with the Brit lady in the Viagra ad so omnipresent now on American TV and even in The New York Times. What exactly is wrong with having sex with Americans?

On the veer question now, I envision first veer, an external twist of forearm, just as arm begins to bend.

And second veer from a loosening of fingers which ships racket ahead of humeral twist.

The humeral twist is slow and willing to lose the race because of internal conflict between backward movement and forward muscle action already begun even though the actual forward motion hasn't started yet.

The second veer is mitigated by how two halves of the arm, loose at the elbow, clench together just then in a countering direction.

Third veer is to establish through centrifugality or loose continuation of momentum ephemeral right angle in the arm without which you can never initiate the ruthless efficiency of Glooscap Soccabasin's thrown tomahawk.

Fourth veer occurs right on the ball as passive arm has centrifugated straight and hand and wrist have tightened, and continued internal rotation of humerus sails the racket head out to the right.

[bottle]

Not Much Swing for a Short Angle

Admittedly, I am entering a period of months in which I won't play tennis or even do self-feed.

I therefore expect some thinness of idea. I think I still will have new stroke ideas since they are involuntary by now. But I won't have any way of testing them other than pantomime which sometimes can work and other times be too removed from the reality of oncoming balls.

I start with a suspicion that recreational players who use their ordinary strokes to try and hit severe short angles are apt to fail to get to the outside of the ball even if they are good at this in deep line play.

Is invention of a new shot the answer then? Yes if the invention is simple and easily acquired. I recommend my (>) as possible form.

Last year while in Mexico I invented a backhand which proved worthless once I put it to the test back home.

The same expat who let Hope and me stay in her cool rooftop flat in the center of Puerto Vallarte has invited us again.

Puerto Vallarte happens first, the knee replacement second.

My family physician signing the surgery clearance predicted great things for me yesterday. On the other hand my good friend recently died from a knee replacement and mine is scheduled for Friday, February 13 after which I will believe more in science and less in superstition or more in superstition and less in science.

I would like to think that Frank had more other things wrong with him than I do. He just didn't heal. And the Chrysler people have now removed his pentastar from the top of the Chrysler building on I-75, more than a coincidence both Dr. Eckel and I agree.

Frank's widow Gretchen saw to it that I inherited some of the clothes which didn't fit his son or son-in-law. These include a very fine overcoat good for the Grosse Pointe, Michigan climate.

My ideas for best short angle or any other shot may be thin but so should be contact for a short angle. All of us have seen short angles where the player clouted the ball and won the point but that was low percentage.

For the time being I am advising a minimal swing that is not much more than a double wriggle followed by a firm roll of the forearm.

[bottle]

Suck in the Information like a Vacuum Cleaner, then Come up with a Good Serve

I have always been fascinated by pages 54-5 of TENNIS: HOW TO BECOME A CHAMPION, C.M. Jones, Transatlantic Arts Inc., New York 1968 but printed in Great Britain.

I could go to the library to scan these facing two pages but rather will attempt to duplicate the author’s pinmen with drawing of my own in the file attachment at the end of this post. The moral of this story is to get racket way back behind your neck or away from your head to supply better leverage and improved power vector. There is a lot of math on these pages supporting this contention but I stick with the before and after drawings here, noting that arm, though way back, must get bent to a right angle like a mountain man throwing a tomahawk.

From a video one now (http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/...s-invalid&tt=b) and video two see 7:47 marker to skip extraneous stuff about sharpening the hawk, etc. (http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/...spart=avg&tt=b) I graduate to a question I have rarely heard discussed by teaching pros or anyone else in tennis.

Should a player bend his arm completely together or keep it in the right angle mode of someone throwing the hawk?

The rotorded server has been reminded of his inferiority by all those telling him that he doesn’t get his racket tip down low enough.

He therefore bends his arm completely together in an attempt at longer runway. Is that best? Will this produce more or less racket head speed?

Note how the mountain men go nowhere near the subject of upper arm contribution. They just throw. So bully for them.

A tennis player might have to think more, in that there is no release of the hawk and a tennis racket is suddenly going to rotate to the outside so that its front rim barely misses the ball rather than cleaves it in half.

My final never answered question is whether a rotorded server, stealing from this throwing mode, can add loosening of fingers and hand (wrist) to the backswing to produce more racket tip depth. And whether the consequent tightening of fingers blended with straightening of wrist will add to the force coming from the upper arm as it twists.

[gzhpcu]

I have the book and figure 14 (which Jones admits oversimplifies) does not correspond to reality. There is no racket drop.



I never did get it. Look at the slow motion serve to Tony Trabert. His racket points to the back fence, only at the start of the serve, and then goes into the drop. It does not go up towards the ball from this position...

[bottle]

Nice, Phil. Thanks so much. And with a brown foreground and yellow background too. I've always been confused also by what was the reality and what the asserted unreality in the drawings. So I just take from them what I want. Uncramped serve largely but not completely due to a big backswing way way back. Does the arm then bend? I should think so. But does it bend to a right angle or to more than a right angle, soon or maybe real late if you are a Mark Phillippoussis?

You sit in the lounge of a tennis club and watch the various players performing serves through the glass. If you're lucky, everybody in the lounge suddenly turns into a critic. This doesn't happen often but it happens enough so that I'll imagine three of these persons.

The first sees a serve that superficially seems good to him. He points out however that the server never bends to more than right angle and would get a better result if he squeezed the two halves of that arm, upper and lower, together.

The second sees a guy serving whose arm gets all bunched up before it flies straight. Seems good to him but he wonders if the guy is getting any hawk action from the humerus or internal rotation or internal axle-like twist or whatever you want to call it.

A third guy is baffled by the talk but can beat the other two any day of the week so doesn't worry.

Note: I finally got the second link to mountain man hawk throwing to work. I recommend the slow motion sequence toward the end (7.47) and bring this to your attention just in case you are the only person who understands the rotordation I am coming from.

[gzhpcu]

The mountain man is throwing the tomahawk forward, on the serve you hit up...


Also, I find the trajectory on the serve is circular, not linear...

[bottle]

The mountain man is throwing the tomahawk forward, on the serve you hit up...

Also, I find the trajectory on the serve is circular, not linear...

1) Arrange body and toss so the same throw goes up.

2) You want the action more behind you, don't you, rather than following a bad toss around like Ana (Serb) or the demented one (Russian) gone amok?

3) Isn't the big question here about getting the most out of internal arm rotation per Bruce Elliott and all the experts lauding upper arm twist as a prime power factor?

4) Do you use triceps muscle to straighten arm or is arm a loose noodle?

5) Man, I've tried everything and will continue to do that.

6) This circular idea seems troublesome unless you mean the wheels are revolving in opposite direction.

7) I admit that nobody can know everything about everything but could it be that the circular body elements are first and foremost a loading mechanism, second the deliverer of calibrated weight on the ball?

[bottle]

Adding a Loop to Mountain Man 1's Hawk Throw

Mountain Man 2 already has it. The loop seen at about 7.40 of his solitary and snowbound hurls (http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/...spart=avg&tt=b) is what makes him look so much like a tennis player even though his throw is forward and end over end, two factors that the rotorded aspirant must modify to his slantwise purpose.

Mountain Man 1 correctly tells his many students that if they throw with hawk closed their hawk will rotate open once per revolution (http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/...s-invalid&tt=b).

Just imagine a hawk spinning from 4 & 1/2 paces with one closing and one opening on first revolution, another closing and opening on second revolution, the same for pace three and again for pace four.

This is no good. We shall be lucky to stick the hawk in the target at all. Our mistake however will be target driven. We throw the hawk with purely vertical end over end and straight forward revolutions because of envisioning perfectly vertical stick.

Of course this cannot happen if palm is too much down. But look at Mountain Man 2 in slo-mo from 7.47 ! His palm is first pointing down. Then it passes beyond intended line toward the target. Then hawk loops back to that line while opening to perfect square, beveled no more.

Admittedly, all motions are paltry compared to what a tennis player does.

And the tennis player's image in mind is not his frame stuck perfectly vertical in the ball.

Rather, he eggs the ball from the left. If his frame were sharpened enough it could embed itself in the ball but on an angle. Just as his thrown hawk would spin end over end but on an angle.

So racket spins end over end but on an angle and upward without changing pitch.

The arm meanwhile centrifuges straight from humeral contribution.

This creates a desirable shoehorn flourish off of the same humeral twist but in a new direction more up and to the right.

[bottle]

Here's Another One I Kind Of Like

Well, I got the link wrong. But there is a large number of videos out there under the rubric of "how to throw a tomahawk." View them all?

The first video I had in mind for this post contains a lot about doing more by doing less. Again, it helps define good throw as largely from upper arm with elbow very relaxed, although the person, a lefty again, never would say anything like that. For him a throw is a throw.

How translatable are these hawk throws to tennis serves? Very or little or not? Certainly the word "tomahawk" gets used often. One teaching pro even tomahawks old tennis rackets up and over the fence into some woods. You can search for that YouTube video, reader, if you'd like. But I'd rather see you yourself actually perform the experiment. Or find the video and watch it and then do the experiment or imagine it-- anything goes when it comes to freedom of experiment and translation thereof to some discipline (in this case tennis).

I've never heard enough talk about why spaghetti is supposed to be faster and more effective than triceptic extension after purposeful self-trickery temporarily to anesthetize oppositional muscles and in any case what exactly straightens the goupy loose arm? Legs and back, as Allen Fox once wrote? Acceleration-deceleration of the shoulders? Internal arm rotation forming a centrifuge? The one thing I know for certain is that you as tennis player must make a firm decision at least on the point of loose arm or not.

[bottle]

Hawks Unlimited

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=how+to+throw+a+tomahawk&vid=d1ea7cf4ac9b410017fe88e28f70e6c8&l=00%3A51&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.607992504249290287%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DnPFNghop0zI&tit=How+to+Throw+A+Tomahawk+-+3+Basic+Steps+to+Throwing&c=5&sigr=11adtql25&sigt=11jjb0fqi&sigi=11r1du4r6&ct=p&age%5B0%5D=1336633100&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asa&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw&hspart=avg&tt=b

“Keep your wrist locked!”

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=how+to+throw+a+tomahawk&vid=69d0f7205f54f2e7562c2ceac201deb0&l=00%3A37&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.608030772406845980%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8mY2vZ_SuvI&tit=HOW+TO+THROW+A+TOMAHAWK&c=6&sigr=11aef9ds6&sigt=10n95m2kk&sigi=11reb7tgj&ct=p&age%5B0%5D=1306607242&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asa&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw&hspart=avg&tt=b

No advice whatsoever.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=how+to+throw+a+tomahawk&vid=94b6646d7df43766a08577b57f2c0a44&l=2%3A41&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.607987530676243309%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmecgEgXGjcs&tit=How+To+Throw+a+Tomahawk&c=8&sigr=11ajrnmvb&sigt=10n95m2kk&sigi=11radobkf&ct=p&age%5B0%5D=1329106315&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asa&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw&hspart=avg&tt=b

It’s a girl!

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=how+to+throw+a+tomahawk&vid=b6fd3bbfe014497960165a0e72cb6d21&l=22%3A28&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.608042983000638788%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dyl7uSmw6szg&tit=DyerTimes+-+RMJ+How+to+Throw+a+Tomahawk+Video&c=9&sigr=11a2lcm6q&sigt=11d23f8c4&sigi=11rqd7oam&ct=p&age%5B0%5D=1388599776&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asa&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw&hspart=avg&tt=b

Very long (22.8). I haven’t watched every minute. The student talks. A living demonstration of hockeyscout’s passion for instrument as likely essential.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=how+to+throw+a+tomahawk&vid=31bbd154fbd35dc2b8ff1a56305869d2&l=1%3A09&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.608019167402855075%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DhrWsOmE_d6E&tit=How+to+Throw+a+Tomahawk%2C+Hatchet+or+Axe+-+1+Minute+Lesson&c=10&sigr=11b5conbi&sigt=11poocrea&sigi=11r32506a&ct=p&age%5B0%5D=1377111988&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asa&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw&hspart=avg&tt=b

Wrist motion seen as a source of inconsistency. I wonder about wrist and fingers blended. Less inconsistency? Only one revolution!?

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=how+to+throw+a+tomahawk&vid=3ba7e33e9f2f131cdcc50441f680a8ab&l=1%3A33&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.608001600997622911%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DoihBxZFzV7U&tit=how+to+throw+a+tomahawk&c=11&sigr=11bc88f4j&sigt=10n95m2kk&sigi=11rsmlq2k&ct=p&age%5B0%5D=1331913600&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asa&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw&hspart=avg&tt=b

Poor trees. I wonder if all the info about correct number of paces and revolution corresponds to body toss relationship in tennis only is magnified.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=how+to+throw+a+tomahawk&vid=22b95915adad680103b8b019caf39ccc&l=00%3A29&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.608035256357487375%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DdEIiiE5ajDU&tit=SOG+Knives+-+How+To+Throw+a+Tomahawk&c=12&sigr=11ar0dq0e&sigt=114q5pkkm&sigi=11r049lo5&ct=p&age%5B0%5D=1390335701&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asa&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw&hspart=avg&tt=b

Straight up, this woman says, but she has the loop of Mountain Man 2 .

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=how+to+throw+a+tomahawk&vid=66114adc4c1b9d24024e46f1aa5e39ad&l=5%3A12&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.607988458392978026%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DqfMVgkAOrl8&tit=How+To+Throw+A+Tomahawk&c=13&sigr=11av4b3lc&sigt=10n95m2kk&sigi=11rm83hof&ct=p&age%5B0%5D=1344038067&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asa&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw&hspart=avg&tt=b

Focus on instrument and murder victim.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=how+to+throw+a+tomahawk&vid=5e73ffc94f499634bdad606b1149b22c&l=4%3A09&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.608003190132769211%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DR6hORi6abaQ&tit=Tomahawk+Throwing+-+Disaster+Contingency+Specialists&c=14&sigr=11bgod9ae&sigt=11kf1qoj6&sigi=11rv60m49&ct=p&age%5B0%5D=1345767296&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asa&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw&hspart=avg&tt=b

I’d like to whup this guy in tennis.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=how+to+throw+a+tomahawk&vid=264444ddc1fd46925ce574bad4929a3b&l=7%3A34&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.608007253172487118%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DzQYGD60gskQ&tit=How+to+Throw+a+Tomahawk&c=15&sigr=11bhufd2j&sigt=10n95m2kk&sigi=11rk3d3dv&ct=p&age%5B0%5D=1391982078&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asa&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw&hspart=avg&tt=b

I only got to the passion for sawhorses. Well, there is an unlimited number of these videos still to watch. But this is all becoming a bit much until maybe another time.

[bottle]

Humorous Twist: What all the Foregoing is About

Not too funny, you say.

Well, I agree.

The foregoing is about the humerus, not the humorous.

Of all the gods up in the sky
None was stupider than Jupiter...
You say Minerva? my mother would say.
Never herva, my father would say.

Whoops, Ronnie Raygun, there I go again, stealing from my father.

And now from Jim McDermott in Latin class at The Hotchkiss School:

With Dido I cannot abide, O
But in Venus I'd like to sink my penis.

The new form that all the concern about Armand Hammer twist is leading toward could find itself exceeding stiff and useless.

Right forearm after a Braden A.T.A. windup (Air The Armpit) opens the racket from being quite closed just as the arm starts to bend.

But the racket, through the miracle of what the body is doing, remains somewhat closed.

And remains that way through a small but natural loop in which one doesn't care whether arm folds to a small amount less than right angle before opening out again to a perfect right angle, i.e., Communist-Fascist Configuration.

However, just as this happens, the conflicted humerus is rolling back just as the fingers loosen and the wrist loose-cocks (SIM), both of which actions combine with the slight arm's opening to set the racket frame perfectly on edge for the snicker-snack to follow.

Remember, however, the "on edge" is not perpendicular to the court but rather on a rakish angle to the left.

[bottle]

Backhand Slice Experiment

I continue to insist that backhand slice is not a single star but a constellation. Which is not to say it is a thousand points of light or anything else from Peggy Noonan aka Ronald Raygun.

tennischiro recently looked at video of klacr's backhand slice and concluded that it belonged at flat end of the available spectrum but still was more downward than what he, tennischiro, considered Rosewallian.

To me following tennischiro's guidance on this point, the klacr video the forum shared indicates a slightly downward slanting table off of which a marble can roll forward rather than a perfectly level table top on which the marble will stand still.

As with much else in tennis one need not expend ten years at Sparta Training Facility in Sparta, Greece (STF) in order to make some small adjustment especially since STF is notorious for no adjustment at all.

One need not spontaneously break into the Nifty Nine calisthenics from the U.S. Naval Academy either.

One can either A) try for level table top straight off or B) since one is trying to find the edge of the constellation or maybe edge of The Slice Galaxy-- try for upward slanting table in which a marble will roll off backward.

Ivan Lendl reported in his early tennis book with Eugene Scott that he Ivan won junior major with upward swinging slice before he spent three years in development of his topspin backhand.

Reader, you are not going to blow up anything with regularity until you set your depth charges in front of the submarine's bow and behind its stern.

Reader, you are not going to swing perfectly level with regularity before you can swing down and swing up.

Ever heard of a chop? Of slice sidespin? Of a slice lob? Of a dropshot? Of slightly downward level slice? Of slightly upward level slice? Of level slice?

Pat Blaskower, provocative author of THE ART OF DOUBLES, believes that the only backhand anyone needs in that game is slice.