A New Year's Serve

[bottle]

Narratives of Discovery

That's what I make. For instance, if I have developed a personalized version of a Ferrerfore, I play some matches then ask myself, "Hmmmm. This is a hard, fast shot with enough topspin to keep it in, but how, when I want, can I convert some of these same shots into moonballs?"

From the look of things, Trey Waltke did something similar with the Ken Rosewall backhand. Waltke says with pictures in his article (first item in Classic Lessons) that he imitated three things: The turn, the contact and the finish. That says to me he probably DIDN'T imitate a lot else. And this approach clearly led him to development of his own superbly characteristic shot.

My great-grandfather had 87 patents. I have none. But I've made some discoveries. Right now I'm going to examine Waltke's drop, "the top of his backswing."

Just did it. (But had coffee first.) I wanted to know if the tip of Waltke's racket lowered more than his hand or if both go down together. Answer from studying the four looped videos of himself in his article? (And I might add that it was a surprise!) The hand stays high. The racket tip goes down.

I'll try that when I get to the court today. Of course the racket will already have turned over some during and from the grip change. I think I'll hit some lobs first since any lob from this design is simple and effective. Then I'll add forward roll as the arm extends to produce low-skimming slice.

My personalized version of a Ferrerfore does not take racket immediately back as far as David Ferrer does. My racket in fact ends up pointing somewhere toward the side fence as does my left arm. The shot thus becomes a forehand serve. Forward rotation produces a delayed, power-producing effect as the bent arm goes back and forward and more than catches up. It's gotten fast! I suggested that this produces a flat shot with enough topspin and that's true. (I use a strong eastern with big knuckle near or on 3.5 .) For more topspin and loft to the shot, however, one can simply send the hips toward the net as part of the forward body turn.

[bottle]

Waltke Variation of Rosewall Slice

People often want me to be more simple. Okay, I won't read the text in the following article and another one we've examined before. (By "we" I don't just mean "me" but various people in this forum.) I'll just consider certain videos.

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

At top of the article there's A) looped video of Waltke, B) again in middle right, C) again in middle left, D) again at the bottom-- a total of four continuous loops, which is a huge treatment more complete than anything available anywhere of Rosewall himself.

Waltke like Rosewall probably does other things when the camera isn't watching (eat, etc.), but why not go with what's in front of us?

From watching A) and D) together, I surmise that Waltke's backward roll concludes with the racket head lowering behind his back. If this is true, then his racket from that point has nothing to do but roll forward to get to the 45-degree pitch shown at the beginning of B). Furthermore, the racket acts as an old-fashioned scythe from there to the finish.

In video C), where Waltke is hitting on the rise, we see more compressed rhythm in the shot. The racket is slow until it comes in slightly toward his neck. Then, abruptly, it drops to start the quick roll forward, at the end of which the arm is straight and ready to scythe.

This scything, apparent in all four of the video loops, is most accentuated in D), the last. The drop here is slowest, too-- most like top of a very good backswing in golf where gravity does the work.

[bottle]

Think More Rather Than Less

Re Rosewellian Slice:

Both rolls, linked, advance the racket head.

But the first roll levels the racket head with strings open to the sky.

The weight is where the racket is.

So the weight, if a train, moves slowly out of the station before it builds speed.

The ideal swing creates a tray of canapes (pure levelness). This can be adjusted by knee level or height of the arm swing or both.

The rolls are sharp but unhurried. If they are hurried the racket head momentum will get stuck and fail to sum.

Can one finish the rolls quickly and then do something else with the racket? Yes. Can one roll all the way to contact? Yes. Can one roll past contact? Yes.

There are a lot of new combinations that suddenly become available once one has mastered the painterly confidence required for this shot.

[bottle]

Ahoy There, Little You-I!

Hello, how's it goin, little you-I? Yesterday we did painting in tennis, right? So would little you-I like to combine poetry and tennis today? Probably not. But the poem I have in mind is where the expression so essential to tennis instruction "little you-I" comes from. The poem may be coming from where we are coming from, so we wouldn't want to miss out, no?

On the other hand the poet, E.E. Cummings, said in the introduction to his COLLECTED POEMS: "-- it's no use trying to pretend that mostpeople and ourselves are alike. Mostpeople have less in common with ourselves than the squarerootofminusone. You and I are human beings; mostpeople are snobs."

Here's the poem:

o by the by
has anybody seen
little you-I
who stood on a green
hill and threw
his wish at blue
with a swoop and a dart
out flew his wish
(it dived like a fish
but it climbed like a dream)
throbbing like a heart
singing like a flame
blue took it my
far beyond far
and high beyond high
bluer took it your
but bluest took it our
away beyond where
what a wonderful thing
is the end of a string
(murmurs little you-I
as the hill becomes nil)
and will somebody tell
me why people let go

If I were to say this has always been a favorite poem, I wouldn't be saying much. It's a favorite poem of many other people, too. And I like kites, also, but so what? However, if you take me up on yesterday's suggestion about hitting Rosewellian slice from the phase just before the strings face the sky, I think that you, or little you-I, should relax both your shoulder and your forearm. Because if you keep them solid, as if you are sculpture, the simultaneous combination of straightening your arm a little and revolving it backward could, conceivably, shatter your elbow or other body part or ego.

Can we come up with a cue for this specific exercise? How about, "Roll your palm out toward the side fence." Would that be too much? Remember, observational research has disclosed that the human mind is only capable of three conscious ideas per year. If you do this, you will have only one conscious idea possibility left for the rest of the year. You will have used two slots on continuing to roll your arm backward and continuing to straighten it (though doing both faster than earlier in the cycle).

I suggest that little you-I then use the third slot for incorporating this newly acquired knowledge in an overall looped Rosewellian slice backhand.

[bottle]

On Ken Rosewall's Painterly Slice

Sam Green, "the Wyeth of the watercolors," may or may not have played tennis. We never got that far in our informal talks, and I wasn't playing much tennis in those days, just was being a reporter and shooting pool.

Sam's son, Sammy, who decided that the social aspect of painting interested him more than actual pieces, ended up arranging parties for John and Yoko in Manhattan, becoming Greta Garbo's closest friend, and forging all of Andy Warhol's signatures on Warhol's work which Sammy and others mostly did. If Sammy didn't do the forgery, he once explained on film to a hostile interviewer from Great Britain, it isn't an original Warhol work.

The best painting in Hope's living room (she would say it's my living room, too) is of the house where she grew up, and is by Sam Green. The reason I think the painting is great is not the geometric quality of the Victorian house, though that is represented well, but the flowing tree branches reflected in every window.

The thin, bi, tri and quadrifurcated lines are utterly loose, reflecting Sam's free temperament.

When I was on the varsity crew at Brown, I would sometimes visit Sammy's apartment at the Rhode Island School of Design just as respite from my athletic friends. There I met the painter Gretchen Dow, who as Gretchen Dow Simpson later did thirty or fifty covers for the New Yorker magazine.

Sammy took me to a life drawing class. That's where I learned about flow. You could see the flow in the hand of each of the fifteen painters except for myself. The instructor smiled knowingly every time he passed me by along with the jagged teeth I'd drawn in a lady's face.

My hand squiggled. And the nude model's body must have made me nervous. For my easel suddenly crashed.

Eventually, I married a RISD graduate, herself an accomplished painter with flowing lines. When she took to tennis, her opponents mostly didn't know what hit them. For the amount of time she put into tennis, she reaped a bigger return than anybody I've ever known.

This is how I feel about Ken Rosewall's slice. You can study all available films and photos. You can discuss it with knowledgeable people. You can even be successful in figuring it out. But unless you allow yourself total confidence in producing a painterly line, the shot will be a disaster.

But u-i persists. A low, perfect ball skids deep in a corner. You will, in a second, be so tantalized that you will never for the rest of your life stop wishing to master this shot.

[bottle]

~

Thanks for this, Stotty. I think it's so easy to be satisfied with one's workable backhand slice; but, as Sergio Cruz says, "The rolling hit takes perfect timing but when timed well, pays interesting dividends."

Unlike you, Stotty, I'm not teaching a bunch of students right now, but I have, at many periods in the past, and I know the terrible responsibility. When you're working with yourself only, you're in perfect position to fool around and experiment and maybe even be far out.

One of my favorite tennis writers, John M. Barnaby, never taught hit-through slice at least in his books (he was the varsity coach at Harvard University for fifty years). Everything was crossing the ball or chopping down its back. Body was what went through the ball and always to varying degree.

I'm just running a little clinic with myself right now on Rosewellian backhands and am having a ball doing it. What am I trying to accomplish? To go farther than I have in my similar periodic experiments with Rosewellian slice in the past.

Should one get arm straight early or straighten a bit as one goes along, like Trey Waltke? Steve, I mean don_budge, says this doesn't matter overly much, but I'd like to be clear about it in my mind. Of course if you study ALL AVAILABLE sequences of Rosewall in photo and film, you see that he's straightening sometime right up to where his strings face the sky.

That's pretty late in the cycle, so maybe some of the difference is imagined. Maybe I'm exaggerating. Maybe the difference between Rosewall and Waltke, though real, isn't exact.

I guess if I didn't hit the dilemma-causing sizzler I want once in a while, I wouldn't seek to make every backhand slice perfect.

To be practical, I think one should play a singles match where one hits ALL slice backhands even though that's not and will never be one's normal way.

I did so yesterday and had great fun; but, there was a big wind, which helped a lot.

One idea I had last night was just to take racket back to where the strings face the sky. Then to take it back to the phase just before the strings face the sky. And then to take it all the way back and around in a full loop. Do this as a learning exercise. Then drop and hit balls from the three preparations. Form conclusions. Time for dinner.

[stotty]

I commented to JY a while back (in response to his post on Tomic's backhand) that Rosewall's sliced backhand was better than any of the sliced backhands around today. He agreed, but stated that the hitting style of today's sliced backhands have undergone a "forced" to change due to the increased spin and pace of today's game. This is something I hadn't considered since I've never played tour level tennis, and my crude Rosewall backhand works just fine. When instructing upcoming players, therefore, you have to consider whether to teach the Rosewall style or Fed's style. Can you teach the Rosewall style and hope the "forced change" will happen on it's own to an extent? Or should the Fed stlye be taught from the outset?

For me it's only at tour level where these things become paramount, so at club level or even regional level, players are better of with Rosewall style backhands, right?

This is another good example of how most coaches find it difficult to coach above their own personal level of play. Most coaches have no idea what it's like to have tour level shots coming at them. Some coaches with an excellent understanding of the game and an ability to convince others can suceed teaching players above their level, but most look like a fish out of water trying to do it. It happens a lot here in the UK as many coaches try to retain strong juniors beyond the point where they should.

Curious also is that most players don't take the time to learn better sliced backhands. It's such an easy shot to learn. It's been an absent in the game for some time now, going back 30 years even. Borg had an almost pathetic sliced backhand (though won 11 slams without much fuss). Nadal's sliced backhand is only slightly better in my view. I can understand players managing without the shot but cannot understand why they choose to do so - it's such a handy little weapon to have up your sleeve.

[bottle]

~

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

Relating film, with its stops, to the still photographs under it, Photo 5 seems crucial. Forward roll about which you shouldn't overthink has already happened, but from our vantage point the racket tip is still even with the trailing edge of Muscle's body, farther back probably than u-i thought. That leaves a big sweep to the ball. So maybe the experts who have always called this a "blocked" shot are wrong. And maybe both ends of the racket never do travel at the same speed. And maybe the racket tip is still coming around albeit in a wider arc.

[bottle]

Ono. Not Scapular Retraction!

Okay, here's a new idea to de-chunk me and reduce me to a complete beginner just before I go out to hit with my generation younger quasi-son-in-law.

Since recent efforts to sharpen my serve have involved development of a cleaner range of scapular retraction and scapular adduction-- through fuller understanding of these previously opaque terms-- why not use some scapular retraction in one's Rosewellian slice?

That would mean using scapular adduction in the wind-up-- what good one-handers already do without having read or heard such a dreadful term.

Faust doesn't care. He wants to know everything for which he even-- no, he really will-- go to hell.

Why doesn't Muscles thrust his left arm way out into an extended second wing?

Because he's swinging differently from the rest.

Squeezing the shoulder-blades together, which is double scapular retraction, is what makes the others look like birds.

Rosewall, he uses single scapular retraction if he's using scapular retraction at all. Perhaps he doesn't need it. Perhaps he never uses it! I don't know. But I'll try some single scapular retraction right on the ball today to see if I'm going to pay for it.

[bottle]

Thank You Very Much

Yes, I slept peacefully with Hope although she was up for half the night reading some book on organizational technology she downloaded on our new Kindle-- and says it wasn't boring, either.

To be aware of the ghosts that reside in every square foot of farmland or for that matter of land encased in concrete is high and admirable consciousness.

Now, your question about my tennis book-- half full or half empty? Half full! I say that simply because I'm engaged in a rich problem this day as hopefully every day. Problem, challenge-- let's choose "challenge," the better word. And here it is:

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

In the Sergio Cruz article, note how the still photos are made directly from the repeating film. Note how photo number four keeps its canapes level on their tray but in number three they would be falling into the back of Ken Rosewall's upper arm and smearing it with lingonberry jam.

To go backward further, tennis_chiro said that one can use normal change to a more eastern grip to simply turn the racket open a bit. Right hand does what it normally does, in other words, just starts clinging to the racket handle a bit sooner. I take tennis_chiro up on this as I sooner or later do all of his suggestions.

So consider the whole pattern. Grip change to continental opens racket head a little. Dropping/cocking the racket head in close to the upper arm-- only an inch away-- opens it a bit more. And rolling the arm backward still more achieves a level racket head directly behind the hand with a straight line through both projecting toward the target.

We move ahead in thought. To quote Cruz: "While the action of the racquet "rolling" to contact can increase the speed of the racquet (and subsequent pace of the shot), this action must be timed perfectly to create a repetitive and consistent contact point. While Rosewall mastered this timing, few top players today (if any!) utilize such technique in their backhand slice."

What a challenge!

Of course nobody is going to turn into a Rosewall, but was that the goal? No, the goal is a better slice backhand than one currently has. I would lean toward getting the arm straight early like Rosewall or Budge rather than a-little-at-a-time straightening like Trey Waltke simply because I'll then have one less variable to worry about. And I would be willing to bet that most people trying to imitate this shot (thousands or millions at different points in their lives) start rolling forward from photo 3 rather than photo 4. Don't do it. Roll backward to photo 4 instead.

I also have new ideas about body rotation immediately after photo 4 and stopping it then for a blocked contact (typically) and resuming body rotation to take racket up to the right. See, too, if hand swinging downward during the roll doesn't get it (the hand) out of the way for a pure, clean hit.

Most important, it seems to me, is keeping elbow in so racket head goes faster and more powerfully than the moving but subdued hand. Then hand and racket can go out together.

But this description will differ from tomorrow's as we have agreed: Ken Rosewall's backhand, with all of its possible variations, is a tremendous constant, and no two descriptions of it will ever be the same.

[don_budge]

Sleeping peacefully...

Sleep bottle...sleeping peacefully I Hope.

I am reading..."A New Year's Serve", on my computer from the copy that you sent me...up here in my little office over looking the Swedish countryside, the deserted farm and barn in the distance. My only neighbors are the ghosts that reside there. Peace and tranquility surround me...like the sheets and blankets that envelope you.

It's deep bottle...very deep. By the way...is it half full or half empty? I got you the first time I read you. I understand you, bottle. The Artist within. I thank you. For knowing you. For the lessons that you have taught me in so many words. You taught without teaching...the mark of a great teacher! Thank you for the book...for both books for that matter! What a gift to receive...another man's thoughts. You trust me...you know you can. At least as far as you could throw me...into Lake Michigan after eating several psilocybin mushrooms and screaming Merlin!, Merlin!, Merlin!...three times at the top of your lungs. Cast me into the lake as if I were Excalibur...your only hope. Like a "New Year's Serve"!

I am reading you...as you sleep. Here in Sweden...a million miles away. In another universe...A Separate Reality! I thank you for your book, your trip, with all of my heart!

[bottle]

Three Books Up

My trilogy, including A NEW YEAR'S SERVE, the book, is now up at Amazon (as of yesterday). Anyone with a Kindle can purchase it or part of it before it goes to paper and becomes more expensive. And if anyone doesn't, it won't go to paper, so will stay cheap and unrecognized, lost in the sea of a million electronic books. This will be okay, too. One advantage of this kind of publication is that one can go back and make a change at any time. All you have to do is give up sales for 48 hours while you make the change. So, for instance, if I want to include don_budge's new insights about Ken Rosewall's slice over in the "traditions" thread today (and I highly recommend them!), I can wait for 48 hours when I don't think there will be any sales and rob don-budge blind! Or he could do the same with me, just start by putting up his own book. I'll help him, tell him what I've learned about format. He certainly writes enough to quickly make a book. And it's not empty stuff either. Everyone I know at this site agrees. Same thing could be said of tennis-chiro. He'd be good for eight books. And not empty stuff either.

Also, while I'm flakking my book, and others, you should know, kind reader, that
you can download the first two chapters or more of any of the million books at Amazon for absolutely no money at all (other than the price of a Kindle or comparable gizmo). I say "or more" since for some reason the people at Amazon decided to preview SIX chapters of my novel THE PURSE MAKER'S CLASP out of the 34 total.

My other name (they're equally real) is John Escher. Thanks.

[bottle]

~

Think I got sidetracked by one of Ken Rosewall's variations. For more of this discussion go to the "Thoughts about Tennis Tradition" thread.

[bottle]

~

Fascinating as usual when you two guys get in the act. I want to think about this some more, and Don's direction definitely makes me think that I could be over-emphasizing forward "roll," that it's something that naturally happens if
racket tip has fallen open-- because arm wants to return to its starting position. A congenial idea, coming down to "Do less, Bottle!" I like that point of view very much.

Anyway, I'll simply present what I quickly wrote early this morning before I saw these reactions and before I went off to watch a soccer game. Then I'll think-- whether that's a mistake or not-- and report back. My favorite part of the whole Cruz article is where he describes how he and his buddy were at some courts and followed their ears to the best "clink" they heard, which was provided by Ken Rosewall's contact with a tennis ball. If people just pursued the best clink of which they are capable they might develop well! Let clink determine all, in other words, especially the details. Am just fooling around here, typing as I think. Here's what I wrote:

Scheme for Sunday (After Rain Stops)

Did I say, "Don't roll at contact?" Then do roll at contact of course. But roll backward while you send loose wrist forward (but across the bones, i.e., try ulnar deviation). This feels good and transitions to the sideways follow-through.

(Well, it feels good in pantomime since the rain hasn't stopped yet, and I haven't tried this scheme on an actual tennis court yet-- not once in my whole life. And I can't wait.)

Two of the very interesting things about the Rosewall backhand slice are A) it always looks the same in every photo and fim sequence and B) no two descriptions of it are ever the same.

I see two conniptions in this smoothest of all strokes, the second of which I just described. The first is the working open then closed of the racket face (roll-roll).

In between, the shot is a blocked shot, i.e., both ends of the racket travel together. This provides some nanoseconds in which one can get ready to put the above work on the ball (backward roll of arm combined with ulnar deviation forward).

[don_budge]

...

hmmm....