A New Year's Serve

[bottle]

Theory vs. Practice in the Serve

Must re-try what produced an effect years ago-- a backward turn of the hips angulated the body in such a way that the racket tip pointed farther down toward the court.

This premise can be tested by anybody. One puts a racket in one's hand and, with elbow in generally agreed upon high position, simulates the lowest point of one's racket drop. The rotorded server, i.e., thousands of servers, won't be able to produce verticality toward the court. But if he, she, you, I then rotates the hips slightly backward, the racket tip may glide down seven more inches in unison with the backward hips stretch regardless of stance, count, service method or anything else.

Granted, backward stretch of the upper body and hips takes place early in most good serves and therefore should create the desired slot for the extra amount of drop which then should actually happen during energy release from front toes on up.

But DOES final lowering of racket tip happen this way for the rotorded server? If it does, fine, he need not think about the problem any further. But if it doesn't...if he somehow gives away the extra seven inches, he might consider transplanting this little demonstration maneuver into the serve, and late.

Of course one might have to restructure serve to accomodate the late turn, which might have deleterious effect on other aspects of the serve-- there's the challenge.

Here's one way this approach might work. In a rapid coil 2-count serve the knees bend while the racket goes down, they bend more while the racket and toss go up with weight also shifting forward, they bend more as hips turn an extra bit to establish the 7-inch maneuver very late.

But this last instant extra backward turn of the hips also takes the racket AROUND more, which may threaten therefore the edge-on component necessary for properly spun serves, i.e., produce too flat a contact. So I'll try this experiment from an open or semi-open stance.

[bottle]

The Perils of Bottle and Elena

It's not that we're an item. It's just that neither of us can attain the serve we want.

Navratilaw I: If one uses sequence, one's timing must be perfect. In other words, "Don't put unnecessary pressure on yourself!" Navratilaw II: "The serve already is complicated-- so make it as simple as possible."

This brings me, if not Elena, to a new headline, title, proverb, bumper sticker,
prescription or question:

Complicated in and out or Simplified out?

This is a seldom discussed serving choice that everyone must make whether they discuss it or not. Rephrased, it's palm down or palm turning out.

Big advocate of palm down: Vic Braden. Big advocate of palm turning out:
John M. Barnaby. A tennis writer who advocates both-- palm down for more "niftiness" and control, palm turning out perhaps as racket goes back by rear
foot for more uninhibited power-- is Paul Metzler of Australia, but is this distinction he makes still valid, given overall service evolution and change of fashion (one essential, the other extraneous)?

Most servers unlike Metzler probably wouldn't do both in the same match. Does one want more movement of the racket or less to get it parallel to hitting edge of the body?

Today's on-court search shall begin with a turning out of palm but with palm turned so far over on handle (extreme serving grip) that even after one turns the arm out, palm still will face down. But if that experiment proves to be unworkable joke, it won't last for long.

[bottle]

The Unworkable Joke

"Unworkable joke" from last line of post # 407 was the verdict. Twisting the racket out from an extreme backhand grip, however, led to the thought that twisting the arm is twisting the arm.

"Not too profound," one might say.

"Nay, by my troth, I know not," says the drunken knight Sir Andrew Aguecheek, "but I know to be up late is to be up late."

If you twist your arm at address, before you start any service motion, or you twist your arm as racket passes your right foot, or you twist it as it rises toward the back fence, or you twist it as you roll over a one-hand backhand, or you twist it to counter body thrust in a serve, the twisting is the twisting, and once one realizes that, the rest may be personal preference as to when.

A neurotic worry immediately asserts itself. "You don't want much time between the cocking and uncocking of some muscle." True. But if you've been speeding up your wind-up, you may have more latitude to put things in between than you thought.

I didn't like opening racket at address even though this gave the racket less to do through the whole wind-up-- felt a bit uncomfortable. And I didn't even try the opening (the twist at the shoulder joint I'm talking about) as racket went down. The hands are connected then (worrisome) and besides, the knees are starting their bend-- complicated enough, so keep the simplicity of that, I told myself.

Twist by rear foot could create sequence that was needless (remembering Navratilaw I), but slowly rolling arm during its slanting upward path felt very good no doubt because of all the one-hand backhands I recently practiced. The racket tip went a lot farther than the hand and ended up pointing at left fence post behind oneself.

Now, with the upper arm cocked, i.e., twisted, the elbow was ready to bend to its right angle. After that the two halves of the arm would clench in response to lift-off, but would the racket get parallel to right side of the body just then? Not unless I helicoptered the elbow forward a significant amount as it rose, considering the extreme stance I chose to use.

Another worry: Shoulders aren't broad enough for this! By whirling the elbow forward so much you reduce lever length from neck out to elbow.

True no doubt but part of a trade-off: Getting the elbow more forward gets the racket farther back toward rear fence, which means that more of the arm action can take place behind one's neck.

Most important, no matter how you do it, the racket needs to come edge on very close to the ball before it veers off to side. Otherwise, contact is too square and spin is compromised.

[bottle]

Too many unforced errors.

[bottle]

Think I'll cut the grass.

[stickman]

ok bottle i like your depth and analisis... i just uploaded a couple vedios and would like you to critique them for me. Im not interested in what i do well... just what SUCKS and needs to be FIXED.

[bottle]

I'm writing reviews of all three of your strokes. And a French teaching pro and his girlfriend are coming for dinner tonight, so I'll show him the vedios, ask
him what he thinks, report back.

[bottle]

Sebastien Foka

Sebastien Foka believes in hitting out front. Sebastien, teaching pro at East Side, Detroit and former number one at Wayne State University was impressed with Stickman's three strokes as shown here in the forum but spontaneously said,

SERVICE: Opens too much. Overall motion is too fast too soon. Left arm up longer. Weight should go directly toward the target rather than always on a perpendicular to the net.

FOREHAND: Bend knees more. Get more weight going forward, i.e., step into ball whether shot is closed or open and all players should learn both (closed first). Some of the run-arounds were better than others but not in one case did the foot land over the baseline. "Leg goes up in air but not forward."

BACKHAND: Bend knees more and move body. "It's not just about the arm...
more legs and a little wrist." Sebastien mimed a one-hander while we both watched Stickman on my computer. I was struck by how Sebastien's altering wrist stayed slightly ahead of his hand in that one mimed action. The heel of Sebastien's hand would be on top left pointy ridge of the racket handle. He felt that Stickman should move wrist a little throughout but not flip it at the end as he currently does. Again, Sebastien wanted to see more weight go into the ball both on drive and slice, in which racket face was too open, as was especially apparent when Stickman himself mimed a slice without any ball. Sebastien didn't want to say too much since nobody can absorb a lot of information at one time.

But Sebastien wasn't surprised that Stickman was having more luck with low balls; he saw this as having to do with setting of the racket face on all shots.
And, "Move feet. Lean in to it more."

As a junior in France with a father from Cameroon, Sebastien got to play with
Jo Wilfred Tsonga among others. He says the top French playing pros come from a wonderful system in which everyone wants to play well, but they don't have a mad desire to win majors. Sebastien holds the record for most wins at Wayne State University (a huge place).

[stumphges]

It's not that we're an item. It's just that neither of us can attain the serve we want.

Navratilaw I: If one uses sequence, one's timing must be perfect. In other words, "Don't put unnecessary pressure on yourself!" Navratilaw II: "The serve already is complicated-- so make it as simple as possible."

This brings me, if not Elena, to a new headline, title, proverb, bumper sticker,
prescription or question:

Complicated in and out or Simplified out?

This is a seldom discussed serving choice that everyone must make whether they discuss it or not. Rephrased, it's palm down or palm turning out.

Big advocate of palm down: Vic Braden. Big advocate of palm turning out:
John M. Barnaby. A tennis writer who advocates both-- palm down for more "niftiness" and control, palm turning out perhaps as racket goes back by rear
foot for more uninhibited power-- is Paul Metzler of Australia, but is this distinction he makes still valid, given overall service evolution and change of fashion (one essential, the other extraneous)?

Most servers unlike Metzler probably wouldn't do both in the same match. Does one want more movement of the racket or less to get it parallel to hitting edge of the body?

Today's on-court search shall begin with a turning out of palm but with palm turned so far over on handle (extreme serving grip) that even after one turns the arm out, palm still will face down. But if that experiment proves to be unworkable joke, it won't last for long.

Hey Bottle, I'm not sure exactly what you're thinking with the palm in and palm out stuff, but have you looked at the push vs. pull stroke mechanics "theory" expounded by the poster "tricky" at TT?

There's a fair amount to it, but on serve he says there are two basics styles: pull, or coil style, and push, or drive style. Tricky claims that, although Fed and Pete look to have a very similar motion (using a similar stance, etc.), Fed uses the coil style and Pete uses the drive style. The orientation of the hand and racquet during the backswing and at the trophy pose are "tells" one can use to distinguish the styles. Personally, I think there's more than a little something to this theory. You might want to check it, assuming this is at all relevant to your own process.

[bottle]

Pulling Hand toward Contact

stumphges,

Thanks for bringing my attention to this. Push or pull, however, does seem more academic to me than palm down or palm vertical or even palm turned up. Because these are actual serves where the racket forms what Vic Braden used to call "a natural loop" (I've always seen this as a helicoptering motion) and those where the racket tip simply goes down before it comes up as if it were a brush dipping into a paint bucket.

I think the Braden category of real servers would tip the can over as they try to "scratch the back of the person next to you." The other category would have the paint bucket over to the right so racket could go down hitting edge of the body, no?

That said, I was impressed recently by Pat Dougherty. He argued, in a U-Tube video, that arm motion coming up to contact is more pull or hammering than turning of the upper arm, but that that last instant turning was an essential if subservient ingredient in advanced serves. Okay, that's my take, here's his: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjXJGsRtm08

Note: I doubt I found the specific posts you wanted me to see, stumphges. I got sidetracked by a Talk Tennis discussion of whether fiction has any beneficial use in this life (It enables one to know another human being better than is possible any other way since the author can express a person's deepest secrets according to E.M. Forester). My other sidetracking had to do with a post that said, "I hate you all." To one degree or another, hatred is the lot of all tennis analysts since most tennis players want to say, "Just hit the
goddamn ball."

Every time a TV celebrity warns of overthinking in tennis, however, he or
she should also warn of underthinking in tennis.

[bottle]

Re Video in Post # 415

These are stopped shoulder serves, which means that arm motion from a folded-together-at-the-elbow position takes place solo and uncomplicated by the body, which has already done most of its thing.

Weight is coming through in linear fashion like a tall streetcar on straight tracks, but that's the body's contribution at this point. Body rotation to resume after
arm motion up to contact.

So what should the arm do (in Dougherty's advanced version)? It should throw as a hammer throws so that impact makes a big WHACK regardless of raspy sub-noise or not.

So, would we spoil the excellence of this throw if we identified any cooking ingredients in its recipe? Probably, since sequence is involved. My dangerous knowledge for today nevertheless is one inch of adduction (elbow helicoptering forward), sudden arm extension from the triceps, elbow deflection of one inch to right as upper arm spins a lot more than that.

[bottle]

Palm Down Discovery

While it's hard not to be influenced by my home run hitting seniors brother-in-law (he prescribes "No tension in the body, anywhere"), Pat Dougherty wants some starch in tennis serving, cylinder style-- think control, upright posture, shoulders drawn back from one another and slow deliberateness. All this in one's body but with a whip-like arm that seems by contrast completely loose. My brother-in-law was also a minor league pitcher so he'll go along with this, and the other obvious analogy is some great quarterback throwing a pass.

This method still goes when chest is facing up. I've decided to minimize any pause between backward and forward rotations. Palm down hand then facilitates a natural loop. I'm ready to give up preparatory right-angled arm forever or an open racket at address like Samantha Stosur.

The natural, helicoptering loop can be as slow and deliberate as the horizontal body rotation-- two wheels simultaneously turning in the same direction. But when you stop the shoulders, the elbow then continues another very fast inch to start the throw or heavy snap on the ball.

One should try 1) flexing hand outward, 2) flexing hand inward to see which
of these preparations leads to a more effective release at contact.

[bottle]

Tennis Language Rears its Ugly Head Again

We're all stuck with tennis language unless we've mastered brain transplants through the pressing together of two foreheads. And there are many fine (small and subtle) concepts beyond 40,000 frames-per-second video which have to do with the wrist.

At the conclusion of Post # 417 I spoke of flexing hand outward, then flexing it inward-- mistake. Very unscientific of me although I'm not inclined to be hard on myself since I received two positive emails from Doug King and one from Jeffrey Counts today, and who doesn't like encouragement.

Mark Papas at Revolutionary Tennis shows flexion, through photographs, as the wrist motion that moves the palm inward. And hand extension as the wrist motion that moves the back of the hand outward-- or upward if the hand started out flat on a table. Then the hand would stick up. I guess you could call it "extended"-- clear as mud.

Never mind. Tennis language is frequently in code, and we only have two choices: 1) Learn the code or 2) Learn the forehead trick, i.e., find a good tennis teaching pro and press your forehead up against his or hers.

So, to rephrase the last sentence of Post # 417: "One should try 1) flexing hand inward and 2) extending hand outward to see which of these preparations leads to a more nuclear release at contact."

Mark Papas, who provided that word "nuclear," also defines, through photographs, radial deflection of the hand as wrist motion toward the radius bone in the forearm, and ulnar deflection of the hand as wrist motion toward the ulna which again is in the forearm but on the outside.

The photographs are just photographs and not X-rays but hopefully one can still absorb the idea even if one has never broken his or her right forearm.

The quartet of these wrist motion definitions is essential to Mark's scheme of racket head travel from low point up to the ball.

From studying Brian Gordon's research here in TennisPlayer, Mark has concluded that the wrist moves in a very conscious and pro-active way even when you are relaxing it.

Which you do at low point. You extend the wrist with radial deflection in his view. Then, halfway up, you deflect the wrist toward the ulna. Near the top but before contact you unleash or flex the wrist. This is a brand new program for somebody who hasn't tried it!

[bottle]

"Simplify, simplify, simplify"

Why not trip the serve with last minute bending of knee solo.

Why not simply bend body onto front foot as palm down hitting arm goes up with toss?

Martina Navratilova says that effective serves are usually three or two counts. Like Ralph Waldo Emerson, she advises simplicity. Two counts, say I, are more simple than three.

So, first count will include body going back then forward bowing in a reverse C onto front foot (toss, wind-back and straight arm easing up to rear fence just occurred).

The second count will include additional bending of front knee and immediate minor extension of it to initiate forward rotation of hips and shoulders as well as folding and helicoptering of hitting arm followed by rest of the serve.

[bottle]

Back Door Hinge Revisited

If eliminating backward rock doesn't subtract from ball acceleration and more likely adds to it, why not serve this way all the time?

Admittedly, I've been very influenced by Mark Papas at the website "Revolutionary Tennis" yesterday and the day before and in past years, periodically, as well. I myself found a literary agent, Helen, at a Hollins College writer's reunion and proposed a book called "Rebel Tennis." When I then presented a year's work to her-- written proposal or query with a good USPTA pro poised to do the visuals-- she revealed that neither she nor anybody in her agency knew anything about tennis and I wasn't famous enough. So maybe the next book will be "Contrarian Tennis." But aren't ALL tennis books and tennis websites revolutionary, rebellious and contrarian? Or as a friend of the USPTA pro said when he first heard of my project, "How's Rebel Tennis different from other tennis?" It isn't. If you're willing to say anything about tennis other than just repeat what you've been told you're immediately a Jacobin headed for the guillotine in 18th century France.

I don't like Mark Papas so much when he attacks Vic Braden and other teaching pros whom he thinks "establishment" but I don't. In fact, when I finally met Braden I liked him a lot and immediately changed my views despite having been fermenting my huge potential jeremiad against him for several years.

But there's more to Mark Papas-- a great deal more-- than polemics. There's great substance as when he mocks every tennis player in the world for thinking he needs to point his racket at his opponent every time he serves. What this achieves, he asserts, is necessary backward shoulders rotation whose greatest contribution is to screw up one's toss.

So, in a conventional stance, one can line up one's shoulders square with one's hips as if one just rotated back. Weight is on the back foot. You stand tall. Your racket points to net post or to wherever this pre-wound condition dictates.

Now, instead of waiting to send your waistline out toward the net after the toss, and bending your knees, and doing many other things that people who may or may not be wiser than you have recommended, you concentrate from the first instant on forming a single image with your body, an archer's bow.

Bending your knees now becomes a "subset" (Some of Papas' language may come from his being good at math) of forming the archer's bow, which has two limbs, upper and lower, tossing arm and left leg. Your waistline is handle of the bow, so imagine you're wearing a belt even if you aren't. And understand, please, that making something-- in this case bending of the knees-- a subset of something else is what improvement in technique is all about.

One practices the archer's bow in front of a mirror. The extended upper arm,
weaker than the bent leg, has to work harder to contribute its half of the stretched bow's full tension.

The left arm should stay up after the toss, stationary, but the right arm can hinge back from the spine, stretching muscles across the chest.

I tried keeping palm down and helicoptering elbow around as in post # 419 but achieved better result with arm bending into right angle as part of the smooth stretch and toss and stretch forward, i.e., draw-back of the archer's bow.

So I quickly abandoned the New Year's resolution in post # 417 and kept elbow back and forgot helicoptering unless it was upward and was happy to own a simpler serve than two days before.