A New Year's Serve

[bottle]

Don't Think About The Backswing

Or the follow-through.

Just the bolo punch from A to B.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBVgDc8TXnk)

A is the aim point or end of the backswing you didn't think about.

The arm, the racket have taken a bead on the target. A pause there? Sort of. Regardless, the forward stroke begins. With B the contact point on the outer edge of the ball.

What describes the path from A to B? A straight line? Hardly. A serpentine with big curves? Hardly again.

A serpentine then with the mildest of curves.

Racket plunges down and to the left because of the shoulders turning back.

Racket continues to accelerate to right edge of ball.

The total path is in out in.

But body needs to continue the acceleration from contact onward.

[bottle]

Service Form of Administered Topspin Applied to Forehand

If one form of effective serve taught in California is a cone, why not lay the point of the cone on its side to bring one's forehand to a tight point?

Conical form in a serve refers to a broad base and circular motions becoming gradually smaller and less horizontal and more vertical as the cone rises to its sharp point.

But I don't have to conjure up that complicated image so often if I know from first hand experience that I produce more topspin this way than that way.

This way: Roll the just straightened arm to a Federer-like contact point well to the side but on outside of the ball with straight wrist retained.

That way: Lay back the wrist to form a windshield wiper or just for refreshment speak of a swamp buggy fan this time. It's more what Roger Federer himself does.

But the buggy fan just doesn't produce as many RPS for me.

Maybe my strength is "willowy" as a very good teaching pro once accused. Jim Kacian, USPTA, meant that I'm stronger in close to the trunk and weaker out in the leaves.

But isn't that true of anybody? We none of us really should want to fight Archimedes on the wrong end of any of his levers.

The remedy proposed here: Use the same three-phase backswing for maximum topspin that one does for one's slightly crowded bolo punch flat forehand (post 4160).

The difference is that one sets up for contact farther to the side. And finishes straightening the arm. And keeps the wrist straight rather than mondoeing it. And rolls racket's front edge so it leads coming off the ball.

Two different options now hove into view: 1) Send weight through the ball or 2) Put all weight into racket head speed.

Go with 2) not 1). What does one need 1) for when one already has the bolo punch flat forehand for personal use whenever one wants it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBVgDc8TXnk).

The counter-argument: You can have one contact point for both shots. You can hit all your forehands with the same straight arm. You can mondo or not within identical form thus contacting two different quadrants of the ball.

The ultimate determing factor however: Which of your flat forehands is going to work best?

[bottle]

How Many Times Do the Shoulders Rotate Backward in this Bolo Punch Forehand?

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBVgDc8TXnk)

Once, you say? Good. That is a solid opinion. I like it and will use it.

But for now I'll say three times.

Once with opposite hand on racket. Once with opposite hand pointing across. Once to begin the bolo punch.

With a Pete Sampras follow-through.

[bottle]

Evolution of One Forehand: Dispense With and Add To

DISPENSE WITH: The not so great Kid Gavilan bolo punch loops (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_Gavil%C3%A1n) used by the great playing pros of our age. And the in between bod rotations arm work seen in almost anybody's forehand.

ADD TO: Elbow work in both directions. Before: a very small raising of racket tip was the only arm work in preparation of the two-part stroke. After: The exact same small amount of racket tilt toward the net is achieved-- only combined with some drawing back of the elbow. This in turn adds to the length of cast net form in a crushed forehand with its slightly crowded contact point. And to the length of slant path in big separation straight arm straight wrist rolled forehands contacted farther to the outside.

There is a chance that, although racket path now is lengthened at its rear end, it is similarly shortened at its front end. As Ivan Lendl pointed out in his book with Eugene Scott, so as not to weaken oneself in all ground strokes one never wants to take the ball TOO FAR out front.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBVgDc8TXnk

I include this video of a bolo punch not to endorse it as something useful in tennis but to eschew it. But you may try it if you want ("Gee, thanks, Bottle." "You're welcome").

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO8qVrcT9ZA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mYyUHGBHxY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrtPKCoPxQs

I'm old enough to remember that it was his other punches, not his showy bolo punch, that made Kid Gavilan a great fighter.

[bottle]

What do you mean by rolling over the ball. I would suspect this is misguided, but shoot.

Thanks for this post. I am grateful for it.

[bottle]

Degrees of the Lousiness of Rolling over on a Forehand

Rolling over is abhorred and eschewed by most teaching professionals.

But some very great players in the history of tennis have done it, e.g., Rod Laver even in the videos of him at this website.

I found a video where I think he rolls over and another where I think he does not. Just go to the last entry in the stroke archive and play the two Laver forehands shown there.

The idea I recently had-- totally strange to me at least-- is of using ISR on a forehand the way you do on a serve. This makes top edge of the racket push forward rather than remaining vertical and fanning upward.

My experimentation so far is inconclusive in that I have done so in self-feed only (dropping a ball and hitting it after the bounce), but I plan to try the new shot in competition soon.

Maybe I'd be wise to give it a trial first against a bangboard.

Or in a neutral hit with a nice guy partner. Or do both things in sequence, bangboard first.

And insert some practice with a ball machine if a good one is available.

My hope is that rolling over (admittedly usually bad-- to jam two adverbs together), done with long arm and straight wrist will land in court and produce a disconcertingly different bounce.

[bottle]

What do you mean by rolling over the ball. I would suspect this is misguided, but shoot.

I suspected that too until I tried it. I mean that the upper edge goes forward. And this can happen while the whole straight arm is lifting. The turning of the racket is much faster when arm and wrist are straight just as in a serve. But I'm speculating that despite the speed of this fierce little move one can prolong it and control it just a bit through lift of the arm.

[10splayer]

What's Wrong with Hitting a Straight Armed Topspin Forehand with a Straight Wrist?

You'll roll over the ball. That's true. But not as much as if your arm was bent. Which would have the added disadvantage of pushing the strings sideways just at the time you wish they would go someplace else.

I am still in self-feed mode with this shot, I'll admit, but am very curious to see whether it works in competition.

A factor of course is that one may have hit 80 billion forehands the other way-- with a mondo to lay back the wrist first.

That virtually every player you've even seen does that however doesn't mean it's a good idea.

I'd learn the new principle while keeping the old one available for emergencies or choice.

The concept for this shot derives from observing the way that ISR is best employed in a serve-- certainly not with wrist either humped or laid back.

No, the wrist recently got straight.

Straight wrist produces more RPS. And if that is true for a serve why not for a forehand?

Should I be excited at the differentness of this new arrangement? Why not?

To hit this shot, take it farther to the right than for a cast net forehand which depends on straight push from the rod of the forearm.

This one gloms into and multiplies the force of whirling bod.

The multiplication comes from long lever to the side.

I am impressed by the current article here by Jimmy Arias on his father's contribution to his (at the time) innovative forehand. And how the rest of the world eventually caught up but for a while Jimmy got to clean up.

The implication-- that a whole sport could be stupid-- is close to astounding. Similarly, that some little Greek engineer could be smarter than all tennis but I fervently believe it.

I mean, talk to tennis players. Observe them. Watch the equipment they buy. How many of their decisions are based on quest for the best or on simple-minded fashion?

That's how I felt this afternoon after a day as sub teacher with 28 wild and crazy kindergarteners. On the way home I stopped at a tennis court. With no expectation I tried one of the many experiments I have in mind. In the cold rain, I dropped a ball and hit it reverse cross-court deep into the opposite alley. Then I tried the same shot the new way and the ball landed in the exact same spot.

So that's the tale of how I got excited. If the new shot is as good as or better than the old one, then all of tennis may have been on the wrong track for a couple of decades with its silly flip.

But if the second shot was an example only of passing excellence, then tennis (and I) go back to where we were.

What do you mean by rolling over the ball. I would suspect this is misguided, but shoot.

[bottle]

What's Wrong with Hitting a Straight Armed Topspin Forehand with a Straight Wrist?

You'll roll over the ball. That's true. But not as much as if your arm was bent. Which would have the added disadvantage of pushing the strings sideways just at the time you wish they would go someplace else.

I am still in self-feed mode with this shot, I'll admit, but am very curious to see whether it works in competition.

A factor of course is that one may have hit 80 billion forehands the other way-- with a mondo to lay back the wrist first.

That virtually every player you've even seen does that however doesn't mean it's a good idea.

I'd learn the new principle while keeping the old one available for emergencies or choice.

The concept for this shot derives from observing the way that ISR is best employed in a serve-- certainly not with wrist either humped or laid back.

No, the wrist recently got straight.

Straight wrist produces more RPS. And if that is true for a serve why not for a forehand?

Should I be excited at the differentness of this new arrangement? Why not?

To hit this shot, take it farther to the right than for a cast net forehand which depends on straight push from the rod of the forearm.

This one gloms into and multiplies the force of whirling bod.

The multiplication comes from long lever to the side.

I am impressed by the current article here by Jimmy Arias on his father's contribution to his (at the time) innovative forehand. And how the rest of the world eventually caught up but for a while Jimmy got to clean up.

The implication-- that a whole sport could be stupid-- is close to astounding. Similarly, that some little Greek engineer could be smarter than all tennis but I fervently believe it.

I mean, talk to tennis players. Observe them. Watch the equipment they buy. How many of their decisions are based on quest for the best or on simple-minded fashion?

That's how I felt this afternoon after a day as sub teacher with 28 wild and crazy kindergarteners. On the way home I stopped at a tennis court. With no expectation I tried one of the many experiments I have in mind. In the cold rain, I dropped a ball and hit it reverse cross-court deep into the opposite alley. Then I tried the same shot the new way and the ball landed in the exact same spot.

So that's the tale of how I got excited. If the new shot is as good as or better than the old one, then all of tennis may have been on the wrong track for a couple of decades with its silly flip.

But if the second shot was an example only of passing excellence, then tennis (and I) go back to where we were.

[bottle]

Arm Whip Experiment that May or May not Go Beyond One's Capability of Performance

In trading ground strokes during informal hitting the other night I noticed that my raising of racket tip from my chosen wait position had nothing to do with the efficacy of some forehand.

I could just have left racket sloughed out to side in the position where I thought it ought to be and the shot would be no worse.

That position: Elbow medium high and racket tilted forward, arm bent and relaxed, and this whole mechanism including the wrist about to yield to bod and become a cast net.

But I remember USPTR pro Walt Malinowski telling me he went to the outer courts at the D.C. Classic and watched some playing pros returning serves with their arms only.

Should be fun if the present cold rain will stop to try some arm onlies using no bod rotation, followed by some shots with a little bod rotation and arm lift to supplement the final scrape of strings past the ball.

Since I always have a see see in mind as the shot I most want to perfect.

Bringing into view this time idea number three at the end of post # 4148, the supposition that ISR is quickest when arm and wrist both are perfectly straight.

If this shot should work, it would be a combination of modern ISR-emphasized serving principle and a see see and a Ziegenfuss, that latter shot being a forehand that sends arm first at the ball with bod then chiming in to provide a long follow-through.

Valerie Ziegenfuss (Cooper), bronze medalist in doubles at the Mexico City Olympics with Peaches Barkowitcz, came up with that shot as the result of a chat she had with a tennis nut in a Texas bar.

[bottle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cORHXi_sfA

[bottle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNimEUTmQy8

[bottle]

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/this-is-what-happens-when-magnus-carlsen-takes-on-his-closest-rival-in-chess-2015-1

[bottle]

Changing Volley Direction through Finger Pressure Only

The idea came from reading Dennis Ralston. The execution of it took me about a month. First some of my forehand volleys became a whole lot crisper. And I started making some forehand volleys that ran parallel to the net, and they were firm. Then backhand volleys began to work better, too. And I revised my contact points, took the ball a bit farther back to allow for the change in what the racket tip now does.

Here's a guy who seems to believe that anybody can learn anything in a month. It's important to note that Max Deutsch, the guy I'm talking about, achieved all but one of the following goals:

https://medium.com/@maxdeutsch/m2m-d...s-9843700c741f

The first thing Max does every time, it seems to me, is devise a learning strategy. With my volleys, the big thing was hitting little chips against a bangboard, something I plan to do forever just for a minute or two at the end of any practice.

The ball can bounce once, twice, any number of times-- what does that matter? I'm trying to make things easy for myself, so I don't try to take the ball out of the air-- I do that when I play a match. Thus the shots turn into ground strokes. But so what? Pressure of the fingers, particularly of the bottom three. is the subject here, nothing else. All the shots against the bangboard are hit softly with as much finesse as I can muster.

[bottle]

Bent vs. Straight Arm: a Speculation

Back in the days when I was a cub reporter, men were men and newspapers were newspapers and posters were things on billboards.

I there discovered in my fledgling efforts at English expression that present and past facts tied one's hands, that freedom best emerged when one described an empty sky or vast, boatless river.

I now venture a similar claim for discourse about tennis and all other stripes of arcane knowledge.

One dreams, one speculates, and in so doing becomes alive.

Specifically, in topspin serves and ground strokes, one generates more RPS if one's whole arm is a straight rather than bent axle.

Why? A tight arc. The tighter arc with hand right-angling racket to the arm is more manageable by a human being than the bent axle choice.

This argument presupposes however that maximum RPS are a good idea when usually they aren't. (Note that we use "RPS" rather than the clunkier "RPM" more appropriate to long-playing vinyl.)

The argument also flies in the face of what we know of rocketry and man-made satellites, that the one shot farthest goes fastest if remaining in orbit.

According to that prescription a bent-arm serve or wipered forehand where strings are farther out from fulcrum of wipe or ISR ought to generate more racket head speed when in fact it generates less.

Human beings are frail, that's why, and therefore don't enjoy being on the wrong end of a power lever, not even Rafa Nadal.

Here's a conclusion: Use a still partially bent arm when employing any ground stroke for maximum push on the ball. The rising or pop-topping racket will provide enough spin.

But when going for the maximum spin of which one is capable straighten arm its last few inches of range but out to the side a bit to maximize pressure from your body twirl.

All serves to be hit from fully straightened arm even if that means tossing a bit higher.

Soft angled ground strokes to be hit from bent or bending arm (forehand), or from either straight or bent arm (one-hand backhand characterized by lift only but not windshield wipe).

Summary of technical point in another way: Bent arm forehand wiper is slowest; straight arm wiper forehand also with laid back wrist is faster; straight arm with straight wrist service wiper is fastest.