A New Year's Serve

[bottle]

Delicate Arcs Through the Air

"The simplest answer is often the best one," as a Stieg Larsson character solving gruesome murders is apt to say.

But not always.

The backhand discussion, or should I say progression, that I have been conducting with the Youzhny, Wawrinka and Federer backhands (Federer wins again), has returned me to such twentieth century tennis questions as, "Why does Lloyd Budge start his backhand students with elbow so far out? Why does Don Budge start with his elbow in but then hit the ball with the same huge separation?"

Regardless of century, the tennis community has always agreed that "extension" is crucial to every good one-hander. But when should it happen? Or where should most of it happen?

I'm presently on steroids, antibiotics and cough medicine containing codeine, not playing tennis, lying on my back and making arcs through the air with hand cocked up enough to form a line in the skin at my wrist. That tip about line in skin comes from Chris Lewit, who in his new book doesn't present Federer's wrap around bent-armedness as one of the most teachable options at the Chris Lewit Tennis Academy. Lewit nevertheless strikes me as open minded. I admire his profound conviction that beautiful shots in tennis are great shots.

Lying on one's back, one doesn't achieve much upper body rotation, the only significant flaw that I can detect in the steroids, antibiotics and codeine method of divine design invention.

But flaw it is. Because shoulders turning back as Federer steps out are integral to his getting the racket behind him and parallel to rear fence. That and keying the bent arm just a little. By "keying" I mean turning the bent arm as one would turn a key in the back of a mechanical doll.

The keying thus started continues to lower racket as shoulders get still. The shoulders then start rotating forward as bent elbow swings low toward side fence.

[bottle]

In Search of Compensation for Rotordedness

No less a server than Brenda Schultz McCarthy advises thrusting with front foot on a first serve, with both feet on a second serve.

Most top players, it would seem, don't make this distinction but always get weight way out on front foot.

They have big flexibility in their shoulder rotors available to them.

A rotorded server, however, might take McCarthy's advice to heart.

He might start with racket farther back than most servers, extreme stance, revolve backward as he sinks down on knees with weight equally distributed on both feet, having started out with them quite close together.

Such a sinking whirl might suggest a serve with equivalent rotation about to occur in the opposite direction.

Instead, I'm proposing a simple straightening of the extenders straight up (both legs and hitting arm).

One might reduce forward travel on the toss to prepare for this.

[bottle]

Re Roger Federer Slice Backhands

I never thought I'd be trying this shot. It's nothing like my own staple slice,
which I'm pretty happy with, but the new slow motion sequences really give me a different idea, make me think this a version of or at least close cousin to
"the floater" described by Arthur Ashe in the old book MASTERING YOUR TENNIS STROKES.

I don't have time to revisit that book right now, believing that on court experiments take precedence to reading most times, or to re-visit the passages in Tilden where he talks about the importance of proper orchestration, suggesting that, yes, you can hit fast versions of slice, that's possible, but what's really best is shots of best contrast, say, very fast drives and very slow slices.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/new_issue/2011/february/new_issue_february_2011.html

Certainly, there's much less rotation of the shoulders in this shot than in a Federer backhand drive (for a quick comparison see the post with link before this one, # 574).

Reduced rotation of the shoulders leaves arm work and shoulder-blades clench to think about.

Since I mentioned my staple slice, I should try to explain it. It starts with
a shorter backswing. Barrel of the racket glides a little toward net. The
clench then dramatically changes direction of this gliding motion, accelerating it. Arm is bent but I'm looking to relax it so much that the clench will straighten it automatically. That also takes strings through the ball a bit.

I've seen professional descriptions (I'm proud to call myself an amateur) of
a similar shot but trying from a more turned around position, and no mention of whether elbow is active or passive, namely muscular or passive.

For softer slower slice I get muscular with the elbow, use extenders in the arm itself. Both, I feel, are pretty useful shots.

But this chop is something else. See how the elbow comes up late, leading
to a whirling overhand arm action followed by both arms moving toward right fence (the clench).

The clench itself doesn't seem to contribute power. But observe what happens below the waist. Much like a regular drive.

[bottle]

Shoulders Revolution in Roger Federer's Backhand

The newest high speed videos show that Roger continues to wind his upper body back as racket swings in upper register parallel to baseline for a distance of about a yard.

And that forward rotation of the shoulders starts near bottom of the drop and is evenly spread out over the central action-- until slightly after contact, I would guess.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/high_speed_archive/phantom/Roger_Federer_HD_HS/Backhand/RF_BH_Wide/RF_BH_Wide.html?RF%20BH%20Wide%20NeutralStance%20Rear3%20250fps.mov

[bottle]

Improve on Roger Federer!

For your straight arm forehand, use Will Hamilton's definition of everything and also Roger's himself.

Roger, in Rene Stouffer's book about him, called his forehand "modern retro." Elsewhere, he's said it's rather flat.

It's flat, too, according to Hamilton's definition in that frame gets edge on to net at point of farthest extension.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtuTHsFlfGg&feature=relmfu

If you are old enough to have a vaccination mark on your left, upper arm, don't finish there, however, but rather over your shoulder. If you are too young to have that mark, do finish there. Then, whether you are young or old, try the opposite.

[bottle]

Add Redi-Whip to Triple Smurf (# 571)

Redi-whip equals golfer's waggle equals pulling a rope-- all the same thing.

Golfer's waggle just doesn't resonate with a straight arm forehand the way it does with bent or bending right arm. You could sway the straight arm to counter waggle of your body to and fro, but that's not the same. Or you could argue that straight arm mondo is the same but I don't think so.

Me, I think bent arm is clunky, so I must be talking about bending arm here.

Wipers break in the cold and their rubbers wear out and streak the windshield, so I don't mean them.

Wiper happens after contact to decelerate racket-- keep it there.

This golfer's waggle idea or pulling of a rope however attains more speed in the accelerative short piece. You start it then reverse it in a dramatic dipsey-doo.

To repeat, just stick with the instruction of # 571, but add a little side-arm turn to changing structure in both directions. Combine this with extreme looseness of grip and a finish as low as it can go.

[bottle]

Three-Rise Elbow Combined with Three-Close Hinge

The design of this forehand starts with slightly less arm straightness than in a Federfore, which is basically a flat shot.

Real power can come from same full whirl of the body in which one thinks of kinetic chain as much or as little as one wants.

There should be a slow feel section in which the elbow rises a little toward the net as it bends a little more. The arm work is slow. But the body already is in full whirl.

Next the same two movements of the arm accelerate. This brings strings in front of face. One looks through them at the net.

Obviously this is a fleeting, unconscious or even nonexistent moment although it does happen.

Finally, the elbow twists up as arm bends more, and thus provides the racket deceleration.

[gzhpcu]

Richard Feynman was quite a personality. I enjoyed his autobiography "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman". One of the greatest theoretical physicists. His "Feynman diagrams" really visualized particle physics. Now, if we could get some equivalent, simple diagrams for the tennis serve....

[bottle]

Quixoticism: A Little Different than Most People Think

Yup. And the novel I most enjoyed "teaching" at the University of Rhode Island was DON QUIXOTE by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. Part of the pleasure was a very good student who you could say became a pickup assistant team-teaching the course, which was in centuries of picaresque novels, namely books starring rascals rather than heroes. The student was Channing Gray, more recently arts critic of The Providence Journal. His brother, the late Spalding Gray, was a terrific performance artist-- few human beings have ever been able to speak off the cuff as well. (I saw him on TV last night playing Fran Drescher's psychiatrist in "The Nanny.") An older brother, Rocky Gray, remains brilliant in American and all literature.

In that class, only Channing and I seemed to appreciate the zaniness of the knight of the rueful countenance. But we'd keep talking. And then other students would start getting it, as evidenced by their chiming in. Some good classes came about this way.

In physics, I admire Richard P. Feynman, who besides winning two Nobel prizes and diagnosing the Challenger disaster taught safe-cracking at Cal Tech. He emphasized that to be a boy or girl scientist, the only kind, you have to be comfortable with uncertainty.

Even a blind chicken finds a kernel of corn. Something is required, however.
You have to keep pecking.

[gzhpcu]

But if it were easy, anybody could do it, right? Why even try doing it, then? To quote (or misquote), Sir Edmund Hillary, when asked why he climbed Mt. Everest, he replied "Because it is there...".

[bottle]

Absolutely. But sometimes you can get your racket underneath and lob.
But when the boulder comes at you at shoulder level it's really tough.

[gzhpcu]

Bottle,
Have you ever considered that trying to get our tennis strokes right is somewhat akin to the labors of Sisyphus?

[bottle]

Wiper the Viper in a Gutter Next to a School

Will Hamilton has made something clear to me-- a forehand question I've wondered about for years.

Somewhere in the jungle two hours from Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka: One of the two teachers with whom I stayed in a corrugated schoolhouse out in the middle of an open field wielded a camp flashlight and cried: "John, come with us. You may see a serpent. It is one of the vipers we were talking about."

In Hamilton's explanation at Fuzzy Tennis Balls, wiper is something that happens in follow-through. But don't blame me too much. If you scissor your arm early from straight to bent, you're creating a kind of wiper before contact, too. Just don't confuse yourself further with this, reader. The wiper happening after contact can come from elbow turning over.

Whatever you do, try to get the strings to rise in a straight line below and immediately above contact if you can. I detect a scenario here on a ball of a certain lowness where arm scissoring and slight rise of elbow will cancel each other out and thus preserve the perfect alignment that hold-out champions of one elbow setting on all forehands over-value so much.

In any case, if you go with Hamilton and declare wiper as something occurring strictly after contact, you will probably think more clearly-- a perennial problem for tennis players everywhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtuTHsFlfGg&feature=relmfu

For gone from consideration will be any wiper before contact. That leaves 1) scissoring and 2) elbow lifting in different or no amounts as the variables one can play with if more topspin than on a flat shot is the goal.

[bottle]

Backhands: Youzhny, Wawrinka, Federer

I want to add Roger to the comparison in #561, which got a favorable, unsolicited review, privately sent.

Youzhny and Wawrinka: a big box loop with four sides. Who knew that? I sure didn't. And tennis instruction like other forms of education is not about the brilliance of someone's presentation. It's rather about how some student received the material and made it her or his own.

A single missing element in the student's understanding is a torpedo sure to scuttle the precision of any great one-hander, topspun.

So a pox on any explainer who doesn't hit the important stuff in this or any other subject. I'm now emphasizing lower register sideways swing parallel to both the court and the rear fence as crucial.

Youzhny appears to use a square box similar to Wawrinka, but keeps his wrist at a single setting. They both get arm straight behind the back. For more, see # 561 .

Federer's loop has the same four sides only it's more rounded. With the other two, the elbow pretty much swings the racket in high register-- that doesn't change its verticality very much-- well, a bit more for Youzhny. Then elbow is quiet while arm straightens.

Federer, he starts keying the racket head more to go behind his still winding back, then keys to lower register, then swings the elbow. They all swing the elbow in lower register, and that's a fair cue. Swing of the elbow can be with a straight or bent arm-- Roger's is bent. This means that, unlike the other two, Roger has bend available to add to racket head speed coming into the ball.

Which works best? Probably a different choice in the case of each amateur trying to learn this stuff.

[bottle]

"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -- Tennyson

Thanks, Phil. This is a new experiment for anyone, it seems to me. Not that I or anyone hasn't been here before. There's always a slight difference to recurring experiments, however, if any other change is also in the works. How will the changes complement each other, or will that happen at all?

People who criticize this return principle ("You're going in circles!") are often superstitious labelers who have, unnecessarily, handicapped their own mind and limited the actual possibilities open to THEMSELVES. Then they wonder why their game is stale.

If nothing else, this filmstrip is simplification. Many players see Roger bend his knees as he bends his arm. Others first bend their knees as their hands go down. But this video is saying, at least to me, "Try starting with knees already bent. Then move them straight toward the net. Then bend them a little more (while moving them toward net a little more, too)."

This information certainly combines with some provocative thought by Mark Papas at "Revolutionary Tennis" website. A good question is whether it combines with platform stance. Don't see why not. But I haven't tried it yet. I'll try it then return to what I've been doing just like somebody on the tour.

Or unlike that person on the tour, I might keep it. There are distinct advantages to being a lesser player.

Does the lesser player wake up in the middle of a night sweat and cry out to himself, "I won't go backwards!" I can imagine a tour player doing that.

When one plays once a week, waiting for Spring, the experiments may add up. Now I have two of these print jobs queued up for indoor tennis tomorrow night: The Wawrinka backhand and this serve.

This is too much. I am very apt not to play well.

But I don't care. Just need to remind myself that any new experiment is part of others and therefore is more interesting than winning/losing.

So don't choose me for your doubles partner! Thanks again.