A New Year's Serve

[tennis_chiro]

Wonderful Video

Why?

For revenge against those who have ostracized you by whupping up on your first AND second serves, and against those tennis instructors who have maintained a knowing silence when contemplating your grim plight, and to demonstrate to yourself once and for all, that, while your upper arm twist is limited in one direction it is unlimited in the other.

We start with the Stotty-provided 1954 Davis Cup clip full of amazing goodies. This video is hard to stop for analysis of anything, at least on my computer, but is short enough for plenty of repetition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR7kvBGntW8

In the backhand volley sequences of Ken Rosewall, he gets his elbow high, where he wants it, then keeps it still while he cocks the racket underneath it.

In the full slice sequences of Ken Rosewall, he keeps his elbow low, then lifts it, then twists it while keeping it still.

You can hit these two shots, rotorded servers. So can anyone. But should we tell him?

As demonstration, stand racketless and face wall with upper arm parallel to floor. With opposite arm, push your serving hand back. How far does the upper arm, held parallel, twist back?

Now wind up for a backhand slice on the other side of your body, adopting the same construction. See how far your upper arm can twist back? You see?

Remember, to hit rolling slice, you roll to the ball but don't roll from the ball. It is of extreme importance to keep the elbow still in the vertical or up-and-down dimension if you are bold enough to expect Rosewallian result.

That may be the best clip I've ever seen to show the difference in a "Rosewallian" slice. In all the effort to dissect every anatomical difference, don't forget to notice the forward motion of the racket head towards impact is almost perfectly level. Find a simple way to make the racket head reproduce that movement and you may find all the anatomy fits pretty well!

Also interesting to note how athletic these guys look 60 years ago when hardly anyone went to the gym, especially the older Vic Seixas. Much more cut muscular appearance than players like Riggs, Budge, Kramer.

don

[stotty]

Rosewall forehand volley

That may be the best clip I've ever seen to show the difference in a "Rosewallian" slice. In all the effort to dissect every anatomical difference, don't forget to notice the forward motion of the racket head towards impact is almost perfectly level. Find a simple way to make the racket head reproduce that movement and you may find all the anatomy fits pretty well!

Also interesting to note how athletic these guys look 60 years ago when hardly anyone went to the gym, especially the older Vic Seixas. Much more cut muscular appearance than players like Riggs, Budge, Kramer.

don

Yes, I've watched the clip over and over like bottle. The more you look, the more you notice things. You can see why Rosewall's backhand volley was better than his forehand volley. His balance and positioning is better on the backhand than on the forehand. On the backhand volley he cuts the ball off further in front of him. On the forehand volley he's slightly later than would be desirable.

Nonetheless all the men in 1954 clip volley beautifully. None of this short compact, stabbing stuff you see so often today. All the men plough (plow...in yank speak I think) into their volleys with the shoulder. I really love that. Ploughing and following through fluently...wonderful.

[bottle]

Rotorded Server: Seixas Smash Model Didn't Work?

Then develop a backhand serve since your upper arm twists for longer runway on backhand side.

Note: Millions of tennis players have modeled Rosewallian slice without realizing that both Ken Rosewall's backhand volley and his regular backhand slice are backhand serves that work the same way as anybody's normal serve on opposite side of the body.

This thought is not an invitation to look for a hundred correspondences or lack of same.

The correspondence is in upper arm rotation and pre-load, i.e. slingshot or catapult if you would prefer. A catapult, say, that has a spring-loaded axle at foot of the throwing arm.

[stotty]

Looks aren't everything I guess

Amazing Rosewall's backhand, isn't it? It's amazing, too, how many sliced backhands in general are very similar looking yet the ball flies through the air miles better with some than others. It's seems the tiniest, fractional differences in stroke production make all the difference with this shot. I have a friend with a very similar looking backhand to Rosewall's yet it's nowhere near as good.

[bottle]

Yup, and I was thinking, with a glass of pinot noir, that Don's instruction to let the anatomical moves adjust to an almost level swing (just barely descending I would presume) was uncommonly good, even for Don.

I think I tried, a couple of posts back, to present two extremes of Rosewallian slice-- a Rosewall sequence in which the racket went way up in the air like a skunk delivering a warning, and Trey Waltke's in repeating video where forearm and racket are almost parallel to the court before they produce a similar if smaller loop and venomous roll. With Waltke's preparation at top really resembling that of Rosewall's backhand volley more than Rosewall's ordinary slice, at least judging from a narrow base of three or four examples.

Well, people pretty much agree that Rosewall's slice is the best ever. And Waltke's is superior to anything I ever expect to attain. So why not split the technical difference? Have racket up at about 45 degrees before going down into the loop? And then fool around with more differences in these degrees?

The thing is, in fooling around like this with the elbow, one will, most likely, hit some slices with extraordinarily intense spin, maybe for a whole evening or match. But then the magic will be gone the next time out.

On Friday I hit some slices that were so spinny and sizzling and nasty and pace-filled and barely net-clearing and low-bouncing that my opponents were oohing and almost had nervous breakdowns. Later in the same set this nastiness was gone, however. Why? A question for me alone to answer.

I'm all for more analysis here. Until the shot may be repeated at will.

[bottle]

Teeter-Totter the Worst Idea in Tennis Invention History?

Serve and backhand slice are just the first two places where I have discovered this lurking spirochete.

One wants to get the elbow high yet one doesn't much care how.

So one belatedly waggles the elbow up as part of a body stretch which by itself is a good idea.

The effect in serve is the same as if one were part of a catapult crew in the post-drone wars and the spring-loaded axle at the base of the catapult's throwing arm lost its stability. Result: Leakage of power.

So get the elbow stable and firmly anchored before one twists it, in serve and backhand slice and any other catapult.

[bottle]

Not Yet Tried

I don't see what's so great, in an ATP Wannabe Forehand, about getting shoulders turned and still, then making a breaststroke motion with the arms, then swinging forward.

That's what I see in this college recruitment video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMQ4ZRVp4fc

I would find this kid, this "tennis machine" as defined by Steve Navarro, rather terrifying because of his consistency. Still, I rebel. I don't want to hit the ball like this.

I'd call it "three parts to the stroke," not a bad idea in itself, but why not use a different three parts to create more conflict between body core and racket tip?

Part one: unit turn. The left hand stays on the racket, but for how long?

Part two: pointing across with opposite arm to complete the backward body coil and elbow nudge and tap of a dog.

Part three: the pull and forward stroke.

To me, this is better, but what do I know other than what works best for me?

One thing that is immediately nice about this scheme-- in our living room-- is that both arms get to straighten at once and not far apart like an insect's forelegs, in part two.

Another is that there's no pause between backward and forward body twist-- an arrangement which intuitively seems dynamic.

To summarize: There are three parts to the stroke with two of them occurring while the shoulders are rotating backward.

Note: The term "nudge" now means more since space has been created for independent arm travel to be simultaneously added to backward body turn.

[bottle]

A Movement Movement, i.e., Utter Rebellion

Let's just discuss three steps today, right foot, left foot, right foot and hit the ball (with a forehand).

Short version: Right left right to the side with final right getting the body and foot around.

This scheme thinks that turning outside foot first is slow.

[bottle]

The Difference Between my Eastern Backhand and my Continental Backhand

The continental is about getting racket, shoulders and feet lined up early.

On a 45-degree step-out there's no initial racket roll. Behind one, the racket can be just slightly open as in this clip:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/modern_legends/johnmcenroe/mac_backhand/mac_backhand.html?MacBHCenterRear2.mov

The racket simply falls where it is as the shoulders level out (with arm still bent though it certainly won't remain that way).

On my eastern backhand with heel of hand on pointy top left ridge, I'm balancing racket head directly above a four/fifths extended arm, way back, a Petr Korda and Wendy Overton type pose that works with wrist firmly cocked and locked (up) throughout. There is a roll activated by hips-stabilizing forward weight shift.

Conclusion of this roll briefly points racket butt in desired direction to the outside, i.e., belatedly lines up racket with shoulders and feet.

Arm and wrist action in the continental is less mechanical and more pliable and later and harder to read and therefore well suited for passing shots.

[bottle]

Drawing on Roddick the Kid's Fury

Am talking about service invention. The story goes that Andy got so mad that he decided to hit the ball as hard as he could, and he's been serving that way ever since.

Well, I'm mad, too.

I'm reviving some of my forward travel serves even though I don't plan to push with my front leg very hard, not unless I want a knee replacement.

So I'm ceasing to go exclusively with my rear leg serve, both feet close together, and pretty much in place.

I space the feet more and travel travel travel like Steffan Edberg. I don't jackknife the shoulders forward. No, the travel comes from down below preserving backward/leftward tilt, with head out a bit toward left fence.

If you fire trailing leg while keeping front leg slightly bent, your right shoulder (or the hitting shoulder) can get extra high.

The best serves today occurred when front hip continued toward the net even past the point where weight was over the front foot.

In addition, severely raked down racket head went through a palm adjustment as I drew it up in a late circle. Let forearm wind counter clockwise simultaneous with twist of upper arm, I decided, on the grounds that a rotorded server should get this move done earlier than a conventional server with moderately good flexibility. On the grounds too that if a rotorded server can't get racket tip low he can at least get it far back toward the rear fence with hand away from neck.

All the service instruction I've ever heard or seen is predicated on moderately good flexibility. And stresses a position where racket head is on edge toward the ball and parallel to leftward leaning body.

This position is achieved late in a serve.

Well, I want the bonking edge of my fist and racket frame to knife toward the ball earlier than that. Why? Just to see if that idea works. At the very least it puts more emphasis on maximizing twist of upper arm than on triceptic (active and muscular) or passive (body activated spaghetti-arm) extension of the arm from its elbow. That happens, too, but de-emphasizing it could be a good idea.

[bottle]

Edge First (of a Tomahawk)

One experiment may lead to another in endless repetition going nowhere, but I don't believe that-- tennis meanwhile is coming to you.

The rhythm learned from a gravity-infused serve, seasoned by figure eight and windmill exercises, can be transmuted to weird variations if one has legitimate reasons for bringing them into being.

Should one turn the racket head in or out and when, and who has strong opinion on these subjects well enough expressed to persist through decades?

Paul Metzler of Australia comes to mind and John M. Barnaby of the United States.

Metzler wrote, that, for added control he turned the racket in, for added power he turned it out.

Barnaby affirmed, that, a strictly palm down whirligig generates unnecessary mechanical complication that can be circumvented by simply opening out the racket in the vicinity of trailing foot.

I'll try Barnaby's idea again today and tomahawk some serves. After all, just the day before yesterday (see # 1540, "Kid Roddick's Fury") I advocated for myself, "Let forearm wind counterclockwise simultaneous with twist of upper arm."

Now I'm saying to wind the forearm before that. And actually, if you're rotorded and have hand pointed down at that moment, the forearm winding will be CLOCKWISE from your own point of view, as early preparation to come edge-on toward the ball.

The racket on bent arm will get just as far back toward the rear fence with hand away from neck.

Wouldn't it be a fine joke if nobody could ever return my serve again?

[bottle]

I Won't Let This Idea Go Through Being Ignored

To expand on my so far unresponded to notion-- in The ATP Forehand-- of eliminating all pause between backward and forward body rotations, I wish to draw on a central premise of the old "Czech Book," a government invested instructional tome made in the hayday of Lendl and Navratilova.

The glue in the book's spine wasn't strong enough to hold the pages together.

The central premise I recall here is, that, in any tennis shot, if you take your arm from bent to straight while already swinging it, you increase racket head speed solely from physics.

This would be the same as pushing a satellite farther out in space to make it go farther and faster.

The operative phrase here is "tapping the dog." That's done primarily from straightening the arm, which is like pushing the satellite farther out.

With very little effort from you, you thus are able to get the frame gliding faster in a backward direction just before you pull it forward.

"Well, you push the first button down. And the music goes round and round. Oh-oh-oh-oh, oh-oh and it comes out here."

[bottle]

Down and Up and Hit (Down and Up)

If a ball comes toward me, I try to hit it back. I present the following video, at the end of this post, as antidote to all the poisonous pomposities I've been recently reading about how technique, beyond initial basics, is unimportant compared to trajectory, ball awareness, purpose of shot and a host of other items.

Every associated (and asinine) assertion may contain minimal validity, e.g., "Recreational player, stop imitating the greats. Spend your time more wisely." On the other hand, the items alleged to be more important than such imitations are also more boring-- especially to persons who already know that stuff.

Personally, I am intrigued with technique in tennis, golf, rowing, chess and baseball. Does this make me a lesser competitor in these pursuits or others? It's possible, but will I change? Not a chance. Too much fun.

I liked a recent post in this forum in which the player tells how he occasionally will alternate with his new ATP Forehand some old flatties struck with an eastern forehand grip.

That would be me, too, only I'm trying to get away from my eastern forehand for more continental flatties so useful for low balls and special situations. (I save my strong eastern for my ATP's).

Regard this crazy forehand, reader. Be honest now. Would not it kick your ass?

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/modern_legends/johnmcenroe/mac_forehand/mac_forehand.html?MacFHRunningCourtLevelRear.mov

[bottle]

Tap the Dog but Don't Wipe it

Here's one alternative to the foregoing. Doubt I'll be doing it much on account of my affection for my continental, but I tried this shot once or twice while self-feeding the other day and detected a clear smidge of promise.

I'm building, as always, on what came just before, and that is backward and forward body rotations with nothing in between.

On every one of my interpretations of The ATP Forehand, I start by abruptly laying hand backward from the wrist hinge. Come to think of it, if I slowed this, it might combine with the other backward actions to push a few more ergs out into the racket tip and thus help with the reversing power loop about to occur.

In this way or another, one should create easy and likely unprecedented racket head speed which then may be applied however one wants.

No wipe then could mean a hit-through-through-through more powerful than classical but in which you use the additional speed similarly to c-a-a-r-r-r-r-r-r-y the ball.

[bottle]

Non-judgmental Transportation of Two Ideas from Rowing to Tennis

The first idea is that, in rowing, when you simultaneously fire legs, back and arms, the legs overpower the back which overpowers the arms and you thus obtain your desired sequence.

Applying this to kinetic chain in tennis, if you simultaneously fire hips, belly and arm, the hips with help from the legs overpower the belly which overpowers the arm and you thus get your desired sequence.

Taking this a step further-- in tennis-- the belly and arm are, sequentially, "pre-loading," which is practically the definition of being overpowered.

On the other hand-- in rowing-- there is an exquisitely torturous training required thing involving firm "musculoskeletal corset" and called Rosenberg Style. The legs, very deliberately, drive perfectly straight before the back appears to do anything. The back then applies huge power. The arms, made freakishly strong from all the focused training, prolong the stroke and create a vacuum behind the blade for perfectly clean extraction from the water.

Perhaps because he is an unusually humane man, Harry Parker, coach of Harvard University, sees no contradiction and thinks the sequence happens naturally, but
new software included with indoor rowing machines purportedly makes a distinction in where peak power is applied.

If I go to the new Neighborhood Club in Grosse Pointe, Michigan, in other words, and climb aboard a new Concept 2 ergometer, I can soon be peering at a small black electronic graph which appears for every one of my strokes.

With a single glance I can tell whether I attained peak power at the catch, which is how we of the Brown Cinderella Crew used to race ("Hit the catch and don't run into anything") or whether peak power occurred in the middle of the stroke, which is the way that the Allen Rosenberg coached self-conscious United States gold medal eight of the 1968 Olympics used to row.

So, have I learned the Rosenberg stroke so as to run the experiment? Not yet since I am busy as a tennis player.

But here is immediate application, in the form of a question: "To be or not to be," or, more specifically, "to be physical or mental in the production of forehand sequence?"