A New Year's Serve

[bottle]

~

Okay, boss, I'll go with the Ashe smash only. Because I do wanna have fun. And I love theater! My last post was just a few thoughts preliminary to putting any program into effect. Good thing you caught me while I still was malleable.

Thanks for the word "non-existent" in describing backscratch in the overhead taught by Arthur Ashe in his book for kids. I've always wondered about my lack of lowness there. Not getting racket tip low enough is a real challenge to a rotorded person determined to attain his best serve.

But on the overhead, no, not a problem. The rotorded server can belt an easy overhead down for a bounce that carries it two courts over. His opponent then will think he's better than he is, an advantage that T.R.S. may harbor very carefully until the end of the match but probably not beyond that.

A new link: http://bottle-booksandstuffbyjohnescher.blogspot.com/

[tennis_chiro]

Key to the smash

In TENNIS by Pancho Gonzalez, the master teaches a beginner's smash along with a more advanced one.

The only trouble with this is that most people remain and should remain beginners for the duration of their life.

So I prefer the term "easy smash" to beginner's smash.

The big difference, which Gonzalez demonstrates with photos and even gives his own name, "the small punch," involves the same continental grip as advanced version but an early opening of the racket face and slight cocking of the racket tip with hand directly in front of the eyes.

He writes, "I never flailed away with all my power until I first had achieved consistency and placement."

But why should anybody ever use more of an overhead than they need unless unconsciously they want to miss.

Question: Should the easy version even be called a "smash?" Yes and for one reason-- because it's a cousin of the other. Truly though it is an overhead volley or "placement"; on the other hand if the ball is coming down fast when you hit it it will also hit the court pretty fast.

Sometimes when one wants to take the easy lob and bounce it over the heads of one's opponents, one might choose to use a windmill service action that is even fuller than that of a normal (no jump) or difficult (yes jump) smash.

Or one could start this windmill with arm bending, etc. then at the last instant convert it to "the small punch" for a drop-shot overhead which would be one's number five smash.

The key to the smash is to get sideways in the "trophy" position. If you want to be a little more careful, you can wait in the non-existent "backscratch" position (Ashe used that position). It's fine to start with just a volley up high to get the sense of hitting with your arm extended, but with a little preparation and practice, even a beginner can hit a "real" smash. And it is so much fun, it's worth the little extra risk. This doesn't mean you have to swing hard or come out of your shoes; just make a nice move up to the ball and it will have plenty of speed.

don

[bottle]

Five Overheads Instead Of One

In TENNIS by Pancho Gonzalez, the master teaches a beginner's smash along with a more advanced one.

The only trouble with this is that most people remain and should remain beginners for the duration of their life.

So I prefer the term "easy smash" to beginner's smash.

The big difference, which Gonzalez demonstrates with photos and even gives his own name, "the small punch," involves the same continental grip as advanced version but an early opening of the racket face and slight cocking of the racket tip with hand directly in front of the eyes.

He writes, "I never flailed away with all my power until I first had achieved consistency and placement."

But why should anybody ever use more of an overhead than they need unless unconsciously they want to miss.

Question: Should the easy version even be called a "smash?" Yes and for one reason-- because it's a cousin of the other. Truly though it is an overhead volley or "placement"; on the other hand if the ball is coming down fast when you hit it it will also hit the court pretty fast.

Sometimes when one wants to take the easy lob and bounce it over the heads of one's opponents, one might choose to use a windmill service action that is even fuller than that of a normal (no jump) or difficult (yes jump) smash.

Or one could start this windmill with arm bending, etc. then at the last instant convert it to "the small punch" for a drop-shot overhead which would be one's number five smash.

[bottle]

In My Arrogant Opinion

This is going to work. But like any arrogant person, I'm apt to get ahead of myself, which could lead to a tragic or worse, bathetic, fall.

I'm too impatient however to do anything else. My mind races ahead and I take my body with it.

On one hand topspin backhands, I've just been straightening my arm in tandem with a leveling of my shoulders. Then twisting the arm to bring the racket tip around. Then lifting both ends of my stick.

Are there ways to dun arm-straightening for more of a financial (I mean kinetic) contribution?

Tennis is loaded with them.

If I can centrifugate arm straight to begin the forward part of a backhand slice, why can't I do the same in a backhand topspin?

Später. Viszlat. Later.

[bottle]

~

Yes, but coordinate grip change (don't flip racket, which one could certainly do) with winding back of the shoulders. Do it that slowly, in tandem. Now racket gets back just as shoulders finish THEIR turn back. And left hand, which effected the grip change, can stay at work-- economical. It pulls slowly back and then slowly down to perform the teeter-totter with right hand the fulcrum.

Back, level, swing. This is the plan.

[bottle]

~

And maybe simplifying the grip change. Just pull with left hand while relaxing fingers of the right hand. This gets knuckle to the desired place. Now don't slide hands together-- leave that to Ken Rosewall. Left hand still on throat will travel a bit more to lower racket tip during the middle part of the timing chant where you get racket more behind hand ("back, level, swing!"), but so what. Seems like an interesting trade off. Besides, since this is the grip change I've used most of my tennis life, it ought to be better myelinated than any other. But what if that old myelin is hard and cracked? AAARRRRGGGGHGH!

[bottle]

Good Grief

My best backhand slice returns were the imitation Phillippoussis with its initiating back clench and the one where I take left hand off the racket early. Zowie! That one cooked in one out of three tries and the other two also stayed in and weren't bad.

But I'm looking forward to improving the model that's closest to Rosewall. I do think success will depend on learning to straighten arm from core rotations within a 30-degree wedge of pie.

[bottle]

Think Rosewall's Ease Through Once Again

This is fun, gentlemen, and every bit of information counts. I don't want hand changing level before the forward swing starts, and that's why I talk so much about a teeter-totter with a defined fulcrum-- the hitting hand. Make left hand, once slipped close, twist racket tip down farther while right hand stays where it is in the interest of a clean hit.

To me this is all quite a revelation, especially the part about bringing hands together. There can be a sequence or rhythm (click click click or maybe cha-cha-cha) embracing 1) grip change 2) left hand slipping down to right 3) both hands together keying racket into position, during which, in my book, step-out occurs and shoulders finish their winding back.

Then there's a pause in body turn of any kind. The shoulders hold position for the teeter-totter in other words.

Now the forward hips and shoulders rotation begins its 30 degrees. During this time the arm centrifugates straight which motion melds into and completes forward roll.

Do all that correctly and the next part of the stroke with shoulders paused again-- the scything, I call it-- is a cinch.

Note 1: The nature of grip change is important. There are several ways to do it. For this stroke you want to hold racket still with left hand while right palm fans slightly over the top-- the result is rhythm: You give right hand something to do then left then both then both again. All these machinations are linked and relaxed. The hands are pulled behind the body but not as far around as in some other variations.

Note 2: Left hand pressed against right is efficient. It needs move only a little to twist racket tip down a lot.

[bottle]

Asinine or Absolute Assurance?

Operating as if every supposition in # 866 is God's own truth, I was surprised that 1) the Phillippoussis imitation worked extremely well from the first ball dropped and hit, but why wouldn't it when for years and years a moving of the shoulder-blades together was a central source of power in my slow barrel first, fast rip second backhand slice? The biggest difference from that sidespin dominated shot lies in WHEN the shoulder-blades clench-- at beginning now, not end of the forward stroke. Also, the Phillippoussian takeback is higher and longer and farther around. Right hand is permitted to rise all the way to the ear while left hand remains comfortable on the racket throat. Smoothly climbing racket butt seems to wait like a surveyor's dumpy level for oncoming ball to come into the scope's range in this two-part-only slice.

I also remain surprised at how well 2) the one armed backswing version of three-part Waltke works, how early removal of left hand from the racket doesn't create the instability it's supposed to except every once in a long while. Advantages are the free form comfortableness of this takeback and the fact that one can bend the arm more. Remember, all I've been doing for several days is dropping and hitting balls. Tomorrow at 6:30 a.m. I'll play indoor quasi Australian Open old coot doubles, and I plan to use both of these shots for service returns from the ad court. If 1) or 2) works better than the other I will of course go with it although I'd prefer to use both since the dropped ball evidence says they WILL work well and variety is what good backhand slice is all about. Of course great variety is apt to develop within a single design here as well, facilitating perhaps the jettisoning of one stroke or the other. Or perhaps not.

My third option 3), more Rosewallian by virtue of the two hands sliding together for bigger and more deliberate free form loop is promising but needs more repetitive regulation before I take it into quasi grandslam play.

[bottle]

~

Yes on "Muscles." But I didn't know the Roehampton in "The Roehampton Rocket." Or about the windsprints. The history of human scrawniness, it seems to me, is an especially attractive topic. Thanks so much.

Technically speaking, I had no idea how Ken Rosewall, in the videos, got his arm straight. So thanks for giving me another avenue to explore. Passive centrifugality from perfect hips and shoulders efficiency within a 30-degrees rotational framework will be a great challenge for me, I'm sure.

[tennis_chiro]

Just a side note!

Let's not abandon our topic too soon. ...

In both, he straightens arm without a shoulder-blades clench. Body rotation may assist, but only slightly, and besides, Ken's nickname is "Muscles," so I conclude that the arm straightening like Trey's again is muscular.

....

You do realize that Rosewall's nickname came like so many other Aussie nickname's with the characteristic Aussie humor, probably from Hopmann. The Roehampton Rocket got his nickname because he was so slow in the windsprints Hopman had the national team doing. Similarly, "Muscles" got his nickname for his sleight build. Check some of the old video from the early 50's.

There was very little about that backhand that could be described as "muscular". It was extremely efficient and if anything peerlessly effortless, but there definitely was some shoulder turn into the shot, but perhaps very little after contact. If you check the Cruz video you will see Ken's shoulder's go from about 120 degrees to the baseline to 90 at contact and they hold that position for a couple of frames before continuing to turn forward: at contact they are basically stationary, but that 30 degree turn into contact is a vital part of Muscles' effortless power. It comes from hips as much as shoulders, but the shoulders and head are very still through the contact zone and a little beyond. That was part of his unparalleled accuracy with that shot.
don

[bottle]

Compare Apples to Apples

Let's not abandon our topic too soon. We have two substantial articles to work with, both containing filmstrips and still photos and text with all of it not the same. And we want to improve our own flat slice, so let's drop Roger Federer by the wayside-- he's for another day, a day when we wish to add to the defensive force of our steep chop.

Let the two authors contrast Roger and Ken. We on the other hand can, with no fuss, accept their conclusions and move on. We'll mine the articles with cross-purpose, comparing the level slicers only, Trey to Ken and both to Mark Phillippoussis. What are the subtle differences? And how can a person steal if he doesn't even know where the loot is?

Here are the two articles:

http://www.tenniscruz.com/content/view/27/27/

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/classiclessons/trey_waltke/the_slice_backhand/the_slice_backhand.html

And here's Mark, fourth looped video down in the Waltke article. I plan to speculate like hell today, i.e., guess. How can anyone do science if he won't authorize himself to guess? Needed always: hypothesis and proof. Negative as well as positive results are gold if not pure gold.

Mark's rhythm is different from Trey and Ken. While leveling the racket by lowering its tip like them, he does this as part of hand rise. The leveling is not a separate timing unit.

Mark gets the racket where he wants it in one fell swoop. Then he clenches his shoulder-blades together. That's very different. The clench passively straightens the arm. A bit of body rotation adds to this force. Hand winding up to prepare in the repeating video rises all the way to his ear.

What's the huge implication of this? The Mark Phillippoussis slice backhand, at least judging from this one video, is a two-part rather than three-part stroke, and I can't wait to try it (rain).

But the three-parters, Trey and Ken, need more comparison, too. In a spectrum I'd say Mark is most nervy, Trey is next most nervy, and Ken is all about taking one's time. This sounds more like personal judgment than it ought to since tennis and other emergencies frequently require stripped down or reflexive or "nervy" movement.

Both Mark and Trey finish arm-straightening later in the slice backhand cycle. To contrast however, Mark's straightening is passive and driven by core body, Trey's active and regulated by the triceps muscle in the arm. (Are my guesses here "educated?" One can always hope.) A careful evaluation of all four loops of Trey hitting his slice might argue that he uses arm muscle method sometime and passive method sometime in which maybe the straightening is aided by gravity.

Ken, taking the time he has created, in Waltke article, raises hitting hand only to left sleeve. In the Cruz article he does the same.

In both, he straightens arm without a shoulder-blades clench. Body rotation may assist, but only slightly, and besides, Ken's nickname is "Muscles," so I conclude that the arm straightening like Trey's again is muscular.

In the Cruz article, Ken's arm is straighter sooner. Did it fall straight? One way or another the arm is straight before it rolls forward.

Trey and Mark by contrast roll as they straighten-- a bit dicey but possible.

Returning to backswing, Ken's is most leisurely of the three, again because he has bought extra time for this. And during the "leveling" upper body is still rotating backward.

In still photo two in the Waltke article, Ken has shucked left hand down wooden racket shaft toward right to unify fulcrum for the teeter-totter, and racket tip is up but diverging from his body. A very full loop is therefore happening even before the leveling or teeter-totter motion I've talked so much about.

[bottle]

Next

Try this explicit arm work at different heights measured against the body (at shoulders, belly, knees, etc.).

How could this work? What other adjustments might be necessary?

[bottle]

Back, Level, Swing

The progression driving this writing/thinking hasn't stopped yet.

One can decide just how long one wants to keep left hand on the racket.

Anything will work. For something really nice, however, keep it on just long enough to hold the handle steady while fanning right hand achieves the slight grip change to continental.

Next, same fanning can occur in one arm form turning the racket over.

How steeply should racket rise? Very gradually, so that hand just reaches back of neck at chin level as you're ready for the teeter-totter (translation: "leveling," i.e., racket tip twists down while bent elbow twists up).

This change may require drill, particularly if you've been taking hand up to chin before winding around more. That's uneconomical = this verb: jettison.

Overall stroke design: BACK, LEVEL, SWING.

[bottle]

Look, Mommy, I Can Do It With One Hand

"Stink eye," yeah. Worse even than pink eye.

Probably, the people who read this thread are ready for another topic, but not I.

I'm about to go to the park even though I need to save energy for planting a tree later in the day. I hope, Hope, the hole I'll dig won't be my grave.

I'm thinking, "Would a right-handed painter keep his left hand on the brush?"
Not likely. And since I won't rest until this "old-fashioned" shot is purely theatrical tour de force, why not make it into total anachronism by removing left hand from the racket throat very early, which also will lower my center of gravity for improved balance, and allow right hand to be the unimpeded fulcrum of my highly esteemed (by me) teeter-totter?

An alternative might be to shuck hands together like Arthur Ashe or Donald Budge in early drawings and description of him in Talbert and Olds. Shucked together hands would posit them both at the fulcrum where they wouldn't get in trouble.

A reason not to take any monstrous step could be a lifetime of myelination, muscle memory, seasoning and practice, in which left hand has played its fatherly role with never a glitch.

Myelin, on the other hand, gets all hard and cracked from the age of 50 and you emit the wrong sparks all over the place (translation: you become a nervous wreck), so you might as well lay down a freshly viscous layer. For brand names think GOOP or SHOE GOO carefully wrapped around your neuronal pathways.

Okay, okay, my proposed change won't work as well as I anticipate. I'm fully open to this. I'll keep left hand on racket during most crucial quasi-grandslam- tournament-play for the rest of my life.

I absolutely insist, however, on one hand only as crucial exercise to properly educate the young person right hand in the etiquette and full responsibility of becoming the sole fulcrum.

Here's some hint of how the revised take-around may look although both of these backhands appear to be drives.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/golden_legends/billtilden/billtilden_sa.html?BTBHSide2.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/golden_legends/billtilden/billtilden_sa.html?BTBHRunningSide.mov