NABRUG Lurking
Like Quilty in LOLITA or his spin-off Q in the early Star-Trek episodes, NABRUG, Der fliegende Hollander, still is scouring all forum posts to find his opening.
And NABRUG, like Malvolio at the end of TWELFTH NIGHT, would say if he were more articulate and knew English better, "I'll be revenged on the whole pack of you."
Should NABRUG and I ever meet in person, it will be murder at first bite.
NABRUG long ago ceased positing his posts here and withdrew from this website, but much to my surprise, there he was this week in the comments under the following YouTube video, pretending to have read my novel THE PURSE MAKER'S CLASP and claiming that it bored him:
Perhaps NABRUG has access to some tennis club's feed or is just naturally ubiquitous like Quilty or Q.
The form of his literary review was Post # 61 in the "Developing an ATP Forehand Part 1: The Dynamic Slot" thread, a series of "Z's" since NABRUG seldom has ideas of his own.
Give this to NABRUG though.
He knows how to pick a supremely ugly moniker ("NABRUG") and will choose sometimes the very simple course of a blocked, redirected shot.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A New Year's Serve
Collapse
X
-
Experiments in Stroking Technique
It is interesting how, when confronted with any new idea, most tennis players will unnecessarily place themselves in an either/or, right/wrong frame of mind. I seldom see much comfort with the uncertainty and appreciation for opposites of the Feynman-defined scientist. If you come up with an unproductive idea, can you go back? Sideways before you go forward again? Of course!
I've been contemplating the crucial speed of hips pivot-- since that's one of the current forum topics-- and how I started out in tennis thinking about nothing else. I must have been 17 or 18 and already obsessed with another sport-- crew-- but would play in mid-summer against the oldest daughter in a huge tennis family where everybody was a state champion, college captain or teaching pro or in the case of my friend, a totally consistent Chris Evert clone.
She quit a good career in New York magazines to attend Harvard Law School where she cracked up-- had a breakdown so severe that she was obliged to spend the rest of her life as tennis champion of both the males and females in different mental institutions. Ochi, who used to participate in this forum, suggested that I wanted to crack up myself so that I could join her there. No, but he was right about my liking her.
If we played tennis 30 times, the score was 29-1 . The day I beat her, as on all those days, my spin was horrible with much too much side in the mix. I was cranking my hips as fast and hard as I could, and temporarily zoned out, and hit the ball consistently deep.
Later, I read Ted Williams on the subject. He advised 3/4 power for the hips, 4/4 power for shoulders above the hips, with hips starting "marginally" first. And with backward and forward hips motion completely linked-- no pause whatsoever in between. Everybody knows about Ted Williams' hitting, but what about his teaching and the 17-point rise in batting average across the board at the Washington Senators?
Later, too, I met a 20-year-old dude with sciatica from cranking his hips too hard on every forehand. The diagnosis came to me through his father, a physician. Since I now have sciatica myself, I need to remember this.
One of the best but least used words in tennis instruction is the following verb: "to sum" or "summing." Oscar Wegner uses it very effectively in his McGraw-Hill book. And Martina Navratilova while TV-announcing has spoken out against too much sequence.
Sequence and simultaneity can never exclude one another. Life and tennis simply aren't that simple. But as Martina points out, the more sequence there is in any tennis stroke, the sooner the next mistake.Last edited by bottle; 06-01-2012, 07:10 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Cross-eyed, Cross-armed Backhand
The imagination doesn't plod from forehand to backhand, it flies.
Starting with furniture 1 at
and all the other repeating videos of Federer et al. in this landmark two-part article, we note that Roger gets his shoulder to his chin very soon. But then he straightens his left arm toward the right fence. What's that about? I used to think the pointing itself was what put shoulder under chin. And then I wondered if Roger was maybe delaying the left hand through the extra extension, marking time as it were. Finally, I saw a little more movement of shoulder under the chin. And concluded that Roger was performing scapular adduction just then.
"Scapular adduction, scapular retraction." Are these terms too much for you, reader? When I found them in Wikipedia I was grateful. Because I had heard teaching pros, even very respected ones apply the term "adduction" to tennis serves without me ever knowing precisely-- in a kinesthetic sense-- what they were talking about.
Scour these repeating videos of Roger Federer for the following phenomena: 1) slow scapular adduction (husking) as left arm straightens, 2) medium speed scapular retraction (arching of back) as racket flips/mondoes, 3) fast scapular adduction (sling-shot) from flip to contact.
Loading and release of wiper are happening at the same time.
Whoops, I just took a shower. Would a person significantly hurt his serve if, before he started his motion, he pressed both elbows toward the net to open out his shoulderblades behind him?
On single hand topspin backhand one can and should try to get hitting shoulder under the chin right away mirroring forehand. Could one be pressing shoulderblades together at the same time? Why not? Hitting shoulder might be a little short of chin, I guess.
As forward hips create same passive-resistant spearing effect in handle, could not the shoulderblades pull far apart? Here is where I propose crossing the arms. I've always admired two-hand one-hand backhands but don't want to use that construction myself. And long ago, I trained myself to drop hitting arm down from left hand.
One could, to learn, cross one's eyes while crossing one's arms. With stroke learnt, one could normalize the eyes.Last edited by bottle; 05-25-2012, 08:42 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
"The Pro Shot"
The pro shot, as I understand it, is the short angle that obviates the need for an approach shot down the line and finishes the point right here right now with a ping-pong-like slam.
A touring professional, supposedly, will make this shot 100 times out of 100 attempts.
Peter Burwash of Burwash international tennis advised that, if the ball is high, we hit a "lolly." The lolly would be a flat swing with the racket head beveled.
But there are ways to hit good short-angle topspin from low to high when the ball is very low, too. I make this shot 2 times out of 100 attempts but have been trying to improve all of my life.
One time I hit this shot in a match against Frank Partridge, the head piano player for all the dancers at the North Carolina School for the Arts, and a spectator cried, "Buggy whip, buggy whip-- WOW!!!"
Is, reader, a very long and complicated buggy whip the way to go?
Okay, here's a stab at "the practical application" I discussed in # 1157. Using http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...ehand_part_01/ for inspiration, specifically furniture # 15 if you count from the beginning and # -9 if you count backward from the end of Part 2, you see a video that illuminates use of the elbow hinge.
I simply want to explore this movement all on its own for the short-angled put-a-way I desire. Not much extension is required, right? And I'll agree with Don that the power for deeply placed topspin comes from upper and lower arm rotations.
(Whether hinging should be used or forbidden as an additive is another question.)
I knew a good player in Virginia, Anita deFranco, who used a pure hinge for all of her shots, but I want it just for short angle. I'm thinking, no loop, racket starts fast for about one third of the downswing. After that it's braking the whole way, building up pressure to make the racket head change direction seamlessly like the top of the backswing in golf.Last edited by bottle; 05-25-2012, 05:57 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
My Takeaway
Originally posted by don_budge View PostYeah...I don't know bottle. Weigh in? Hmmmm....
I read the article...Developing an ATP forehand part 1:The Dynamic Slot. My first impression? Yawn.... I am a little skeptical of guys with phd's as it is. I don't know what they do with their lives. worldsbestcoach comes to mind. A seemingly intelligent, discerning individual, yet he had his problems playing with others. I remember trying to sort out a little donnybrook between the two of you. Sigh...those were the good old days.
Brian Gordon's article? How can one dispute it? The latest gadgetry. Millions of sensors taking billions of measurements. How can one dispute science? Hmmm... But I am one of those guys who is still not certain we ever went to the moon. I am not saying we didn't...I just want to see some more proof. From somebody other than those that serve their own best interests.
To tell the truth...in my opinion...I didn't read anything new. I had a difficult time staying focused enough to read through the entire article. I found it boring...I am not sorry to admit it. Biomechanics isn't my thing. Neither are gizmos or gadgets. I am one of those guys that just wants to get to the heart of the matter. I understand it but what does it have to do with the price of salt? I see everyone else buying into it...that in itself makes me want to run the other way.
The acronym in itself is obnoxious. Words manipulated to add more credence to another meaningless credential to the end of a name. BEST? Get real...in a real sense. More virtual reality. More virtual morality. Orwellian doublespeak. From Descartes...I doubt it.
There is nothing new in the article that I can discern. More rehash from the technique experts. I believe that there is more to the game than zillions of words devoted to technique. For me the game is more about tactics. It is more about metaphysics. More art than science. I would just as soon sum it up in one...and it isn't even a word. Swoooooshhh! Passing the face of the racquet through the path of the ball. Tilden is the book.
No surprise though...this is typical stuff that gives people a warm and cozy feeling these days. Gadgets, gizmos...electronics. It proves it all!!! I don't know. When someone writes the "Bible" on tennis it gives me the creeps. Especially when they recommend following the Spanish or the Israelis or whomever. I, for one, believe that the answer is right at home staring us in the face....but for some reason we don't want to see it. We don't want to acknowledge what the problem really is.
The article? Much ado about nothing. Nothing new under the sun. That is the way I see it. Bigger racquets allow for bigger swings because there is more margin for error to miss the sweet spot. All of the players used as models are using too strong of grips to play all court tennis...except of course, The Man. That is all it is. The rest of it...window dressing. Celine would call it applesauce. A couple of guys getting together in their garage...reinventing the wheel. Maybe part 2 or part 3,4 or 5 will convince me.
I'd love to spend 3 or 4 hours trying to construct an adequate response to don_budge's post, but I just don't have the time. I have to drive to NY in less than 3 weeks for a summer as a full-time tennis pro and … no time. But I can't let this go by…
I love the article. But then, I am always a little too much in love with technology. Harvey Mudd and all that…The trick is what do you take away and use. Some may sign up for an immediate session or franchise with Brian and Rick's BEST, but that won't be most of the people on this site, certainly not me, but there is definitely something here I can use.
I already teach a forehand very similar to what is being advocated by Brian. I have to convince other people that this is a good way to go. Imagine three pros advocating their various techniques:
Pro A. The old timer who has been teaching in the park for over 40 years, get the racket straight back and low early and point the racket to the opposite fence on the followthrough: "I've been doing it this way and it works. It's simple. My students don't have time for all this fancy stuff."
Pro B. Picked up a little information from Oscar Wegner and has had great success telling his students to get the racket back, but a little higher and finish with the back of your right hand on your left ear or cheek. Of course, he missed the part where Oscar said don't take a backswing. But, hey, he's teaching the Modern Tennis Method, he thinks. Unfortunately, none of his students ever learn to hit through the ball.
Pro C. Mr. Classical. He teaches the high backswing, but getting the racket all the way back early. He thinks he's teaching the Lansdorp stroke because he tries to get students to finish like the pros of the 80's and early 90's up over their left shoulders.
Then there I am. I want a unit turn with a tiny bit of backswing to move the racket head off the right shoulder where the hand will have very little additional posterior movement as the racket head moves back through a loop and inside and then onto the plane directed toward the intended target.
Now I have ammunition as to why there is an advantage and benefits to be gained by that type of swing. I feel there are advantages in terms of consistency and accuracy as well, but Brian's study says you get additional racket head speed from doing it this way. It will, however, be the rare student that I will engage in a discussion about rotation, supination, etc. Too much thinking. If, in fact, as Brian states (I think I remember this) gravity is not a significant contributor to racket head speed, I am not convinced that the force it generates is not a contributor to the player's ability to hit with consistency and accuracy because of the the reliable feedback he gets from the drop. Besides, I love telling people to use gravity; they don't charge you anything for it! Perhaps when I was doing my medicine ball drill, I was really engaging the stretch reflex reaction more than calling on gravity, but I don't think it would work without gravity.
The point is, I can definitely say, you get more power by starting without pulling the racket so far back so early. People like power. It's tougher to get them to fall in love with consistency and accuracy. But I argue that tennis always has been and always will be C.A.P., necessarily in that order: Consistency, Accuracy and Power. The more powerful player wins by forcing the more consistent player to play at a speed at which he is no longer more consistent, etc. (I also made up a new one this week: Commitment leads to Competence and Confidence which leads to an Attitude where a player can express Agressivity while Adapting and Adjusting Appropriately with Positivity that ultimately creates an enhanced and Peak Performance.)
Bottom line: Brian's research is a great tool for me to use to backup the unit turn/backswing and type of swing I've been trying to get my students to use. And I suspect, don_budge, that the same could be said for the swing you advocate for your students.
I do want to hear more about the function of the wrist, which I describe as a passive hinge which controls the shot, but is not a primary motor unit, although it certainly makes a contribution; it's primary function is control. I believe it is the forearm pronation and shoulder internal rotation that is providing the power to add the topspin.
don
Leave a comment:
-
The Three Mates of the Pequod
Readers of MOBY DICK have always thought these sailors went down to the bottom of the sea. In reality, however, Starbuck was headed for a coffee chain. Flask (third mate) would discover that all his friends and relatives had joined Alanon. Stubb would become the foundation of a new way of hitting a tennis ball.
To consider furniture number 15 in the article here, why wouldn't a normal person immediately search for practical application?
I know I will whether I'm normal or not. Chris Lewit and Oscar Wegner both are fans of the scissoring arm. Well, if you want to scrape that way, here's how to do it better.
And if one stubs one's hand to increase racket head speed in a simple hinge, and stubs to increase rotational speed in upper and lower arms, and already is ripping one's shoulderblades together (scapular retraction) as one pulls them farther apart (scapular adduction), why not start extending legs while compressing them and pro-actively search for every other body place where one can similarly stub?
And how many of these stubbing actions can one perform at the same time? To what extent do we admire conflict and know how to use it in our lives?Last edited by bottle; 05-24-2012, 05:54 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
I love this response from the professor's son, too. Especially with its effort near the end to keep the door open just a little. Surely, the philosophy of opposites in all things is profoundly eastern. On the other hand, Brian Gordon, another son of academia, has a great knack for clarifying opposites in The West, right here in the world of dominant gadgetry, and Li Na along with all the other Chinese need to read him. But if they do figure out topspin better, watch out. In any case I subscribe to the late anthropologist/polymath Leonard Shlain's notion that east needs west and west needs east.
When John Escher wants something specific, viz., more racket head speed, he is very apt to write some such post as follows.
Leave a comment:
-
So true
Originally posted by don_budge View Post
No surprise though...this is typical stuff that gives people a warm and cozy feeling these days. Gadgets, gizmos...electronics. It proves it all!!! I don't know. When someone writes the "Bible" on tennis it gives me the creeps. Especially when they recommend following the Spanish or the Israelis or whomever. I, for one, believe that the answer is right at home staring us in the face....but for some reason we don't want to see it. We don't want to acknowledge what the problem really is.
Leave a comment:
-
BEST? I doubt it.
Yeah...I don't know bottle. Weigh in? Hmmmm....
I read the article...Developing an ATP forehand part 1:The Dynamic Slot. My first impression? Yawn.... I am a little skeptical of guys with phd's as it is. I don't know what they do with their lives. worldsbestcoach comes to mind. A seemingly intelligent, discerning individual, yet he had his problems playing with others. I remember trying to sort out a little donnybrook between the two of you. Sigh...those were the good old days.
Brian Gordon's article? How can one dispute it? The latest gadgetry. Millions of sensors taking billions of measurements. How can one dispute science? Hmmm... But I am one of those guys who is still not certain we ever went to the moon. I am not saying we didn't...I just want to see some more proof. From somebody other than those that serve their own best interests.
To tell the truth...in my opinion...I didn't read anything new. I had a difficult time staying focused enough to read through the entire article. I found it boring...I am not sorry to admit it. Biomechanics isn't my thing. Neither are gizmos or gadgets. I am one of those guys that just wants to get to the heart of the matter. I understand it but what does it have to do with the price of salt? I see everyone else buying into it...that in itself makes me want to run the other way.
The acronym in itself is obnoxious. Words manipulated to add more credence to another meaningless credential to the end of a name. BEST? Get real...in a real sense. More virtual reality. More virtual morality. Orwellian doublespeak. From Descartes...I doubt it.
There is nothing new in the article that I can discern. More rehash from the technique experts. I believe that there is more to the game than zillions of words devoted to technique. For me the game is more about tactics. It is more about metaphysics. More art than science. I would just as soon sum it up in one...and it isn't even a word. Swoooooshhh! Passing the face of the racquet through the path of the ball. Tilden is the book.
No surprise though...this is typical stuff that gives people a warm and cozy feeling these days. Gadgets, gizmos...electronics. It proves it all!!! I don't know. When someone writes the "Bible" on tennis it gives me the creeps. Especially when they recommend following the Spanish or the Israelis or whomever. I, for one, believe that the answer is right at home staring us in the face....but for some reason we don't want to see it. We don't want to acknowledge what the problem really is.
The article? Much ado about nothing. Nothing new under the sun. That is the way I see it. Bigger racquets allow for bigger swings because there is more margin for error to miss the sweet spot. All of the players used as models are using too strong of grips to play all court tennis...except of course, The Man. That is all it is. The rest of it...window dressing. Celine would call it applesauce. A couple of guys getting together in their garage...reinventing the wheel. Maybe part 2 or part 3,4 or 5 will convince me.
Leave a comment:
-
Short Forehands, Short Backhands
Thank you very much, Don. There's so much to react to right now in this site. So much enthusiasm! It's heartening. But of course one then wonders what the persons who haven't yet weighed in will have to say (you, Steve, Phil?). And I've noticed a disturbing tendency in myself, in past instances, to become very critical later in direct proportion to the degree of my initial enthusiasm.
Already, I'm tempted to cavil at the use of acronyms, having learned in my pre-tennis life a very deep hatred of acronyms, which immediately create an in group of people with special understanding of what the letters stand for. So if you have a forehand you want me to think about, and you call it "The ATP Forehand," I may think "Association of Touring Professionals Forehand" (and I'm not even going to check now to see whether those words are correct) but I might just as well think, "Awful Tennis Pro Forehand." Or if you call something "The BEST System," I'm apt to think of THE TENNIS TECHNIQUE BIBLE: VOLUME ONE, a book the contents of which I like very much but whose title I detest, even though the author, Chris Lewit, writes in his text that his next book will be entitled THE METAMORPHOSIS, which means that he has read Franz Kafka and therefore is a good man, at least as good as Gregor Samsa, who wakes up as a dung beetle in the story's climactic first sentence.
BEST System indeed. It may well be the best system, but I don't want to waste brain cells figuring out what the letters stand for. Let's see. The "B" stands for biometric or biological-- something like that. The "E" stands for engineered. So far so good. But the "S" and the "T" elude me. I could look at the Tennis Player article to get them right but don't want to. I'd rather go to the court and continue to work on short groundstrokes and not feel the effort of someone telling me that something is very good when I'd rather decide that for myself.
Yesterday it was dropping balls and hitting abbreviated Ferrerfores and Federfores-- went well. I hit a few serves, too, remembering for the first time in a long time Brian Gordon's informed ideas (and animation!) about the oppositional upper arm muscles during a great serve. Today will be about making a shorter one hand backhand work the same way.
The idea that short ground strokes, properly designed, are better (while gaining time) for generating considerable yet unforced topspin is very provocative.
A huge key from the new TP article, it seems to me, is getting a head start on upper arm rotation by sending out an early restaurant order for positive oppositional muscle action and then drowning it in contrary body motion so powerful that it creates a "stubbing" elastic effect. (See all the article's visuals on this subject and then imagine others.)
In a right hander's one-hand backhand then, flying grip change can take hands quite far out toward left fence rather than behind back. Some bend in hitting arm is essential to how I personally start any of my one hand backhand drives but I can see how starting with a straight arm should work, too. I'm thinking I'll use scapular retraction along with hips rotation to drown the oppositional muscles already trying to wipe up the ball. I think this all, Don, will be thoroughly compatible with the inside out swing we talked about.
Incidentally, I remember one of these posts-- or was it at Talk Tennis before I received my lifetime ban-- where some tennis player expressed disdain for any changes to one's game which occur in an office and not on a court. At the time I was impressed with this fellow's wish to "be in the moment" but later came to develop a diametrically opposite view.
Design is best accomplished on a designer's table.
I'm not ready to reveal the title of my new tennis book, but I'll tell you right now, the choice of it reflects true cynicism.Last edited by bottle; 05-23-2012, 06:26 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Simplicity is elegant
Originally posted by bottle View PostI think the previous post is essentially correct, although I slightly screwed up the educational tools needed for full understanding of inside-out swing in either tennis or golf. So I'll conjure up some drawings used earlier. I made them for hitting single-handed topspin drives. You'll need to reverse everything for a forehand.
The golfer lines up his shot with a straight line parallel to the tips of both feet. That's the norm anyway. So, the ingredients in the formula for better understanding include a straight line and an arc, not two arcs as I suggested.
The arc just briefly coincides with the straight line-- for the moment when you hit the ball CLEANLY and PERFECTLY. One can increase the odds of this happening with a slight bit of forward body shift as arc touches line, Don Brosseau suggested, to stay on the ball for an extra microsecond.
postcard 2.gif and postcard 3.gif show what NOT to do.
don
Leave a comment:
-
A Subversive Message to All Rotorded Servers
Fantasize from this famous photograph in the public domain. If you can achieve this basic position-- WITH POWER-- you may achieve your heart's goal of effective kick spin.
Note the flat front foot. And the whereabouts of the toss. And the rear foot up on its toes. And the maintained contact with the ground. And Lloyd's curved line of belly (does that come from raising the diaphragm? Worth a try). And the two bent arms. And the left bent arm still up at contact. And the chest open to the sky. And Lloyd's face still upward and parallel to ground AT CONTACT! And the right shoulder higher than the left BUT WITH LLOYD'S FACE STILL OPEN TO THE SKY.
Rejected: Immanuel Kant, as Jim Fullerton, the varsity hockey coach at Brown University used to say. And "The Happiness of Sysiphus" by Camus (see Post # 1091).
Accepted instead: The wretchedness or not of the kick serve actually derived.
Okay, to pursue the Lloyd Budge photograph, what must we do? Well, YOU may have to do something different from ME. But here's something I'm going to try:
A longer and slower and less explosive extension of both legs activated by muscles only in the rear leg. Details: Start with flat feet and bent knees. Then go down farther so that front leg rises on its toes. As rear leg extends front heel may or may not re-lower to the court. Front leg will only complete its extension as rear leg rises up on its toes. The simple effect of this will be a slow-rising elevator which in no way leads to significant alteration of attitude in the upper body.
Servers like Venus Williams and Maria Sharapova can throw their head forward all they want before they hit the ball. We, knowing the limitations of our physique, shall follow Lloyd Budge's example by keeping our faces open to the sky.Attached FilesLast edited by bottle; 05-23-2012, 09:04 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
About Confusing Mannerisms of the Pros with their Excellent Dynamics
To my mind this is a greatly exaggerated "problem" in American and world tennis. What this notion does is spoil fun and give overly controlling teaching pros another avenue for manipulation. Squelching the natural inclination players have for imitation seems a dreadful mistake. In fact, Djoker's impersonations might be the best of his mannerisms for the complete beginner to burlesque.
Real life, not a spoof:
Last edited by bottle; 05-21-2012, 09:00 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
I think the previous post is essentially correct, although I slightly screwed up the educational tools needed for full understanding of inside-out swing in either tennis or golf. So I'll conjure up some drawings used earlier. I made them for hitting single-handed topspin drives. You'll need to reverse everything for a forehand.
The golfer lines up his shot with a straight line parallel to the tips of both feet. That's the norm anyway. So, the ingredients in the formula for better understanding include a straight line and an arc, not two arcs as I suggested.
The arc just briefly coincides with the straight line-- for the moment when you hit the ball CLEANLY and PERFECTLY. One can increase the odds of this happening with a slight bit of forward body shift as arc touches line, Don Brosseau suggested, to stay on the ball for an extra microsecond.
postcard 2.gif and postcard 3.gif show what NOT to do.Last edited by bottle; 05-18-2012, 09:17 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Re Ice Cream Cone and Hungarian Hot Dog of # 1141
The full topspin version of this shot worked better for me if I set the upright hot dog at six o'clock, i.e., lined up on the perpendicular to the rear fence. Also better was carrying the ice cream cone a bit lower than I previously had in mind. A full glass of merlot also would work. You wouldn't want to spill it and you'd have a better chance of not doing so if your arm was slightly bent as you ran. Slightly, I said!
Let's have both arms at the same length right now. Seems a thumping good idea. Then, if you're tall like me or even if you aren't for all I know, the arm can fall almost like a paper cutter but on a slight inward slant to seven o'clock.
Chris Lewit wants racket to go back in the five to six o'clock range unless his student is weak. Then he'll permit racket to go round a bit farther.
Me, I'm weak and infirm but don't mind. Anything to put a little more free gravity into my stroke.
To iterate, when I'm ready to hit but not before, the racket falls. At the bottom of the fall it mondoes, i.e., quickly folds back and down from wrist and forearm. Here is where the spearing or flashlight action simultaneously begins. Here too is where effective kinetic chain can occur. I'm thinking specifically of the hips to shoulders link. The two can be so close together you're barely aware of any sequence. The arm just fell and you wouldn't want to lose that natural energy, so hips, shoulders and arm all drive the flashlight toward the opponent for as long as possible.
Just before contact the handle veers left thanks to scapular adduction in the hitting shoulder. This slings strings AHEAD-- not in a straight line but along a very broad arc from right to left.
Anyway you cut it, this is an inside out swing, and the ball should hop way up having just veered a bit to the left during its main flight.
Note, some days later: All the business about "keeping flashlight going toward the opponent for as long as possible" should be taken with reservation. Assuming that the flashlight is turned on, it won't shine directly in the opponent's eyes for long. Yes, the butt of the racket will still lead but it will have turned somewhat.Last edited by bottle; 05-21-2012, 05:31 AM.
Leave a comment:
Who's Online
Collapse
There are currently 9410 users online. 4 members and 9406 guests.
Most users ever online was 183,544 at 03:22 AM on 03-17-2025.
- kianching ,
- richberman ,
- jborell ,
- bobbyswift
Leave a comment: