A New Year's Serve

[bottle]

No, and this is a smooth string bean one should witness and imitate if one can

In self-feed, the more promising route seemed to lie in allowing the two attempted strokes (Beasley-bam and Ellie-bam) to be themselves and quite different.

Also, the B-bam judging from Monday play seemed in a safe place so why mess with it?

But I notice "body" in the lower part of the Vines stroke here (http://www.britishpathe.com/workspac...is-Finals/full) if I click on 00.40 over and over again.

By "body" I mean that the racket, having been set almost facing the net-- just pointed rearward a smidge beyond that-- develops more point toward rear during the downward belly of its path.

Awareness of this small detail could help unlock the code of repeatability in pressure-filled play.

[bottle]

Daily Nomenclature

1) Easy peazey Beasley-bam

2) Defensive Ellie-bam. Starts with a high chop from the outside. Intermediate arm swing to ball is eliminated. From chop one goes directly into pivot.

3) Killer-bam. Terrorist-bam. Offensive Ellie-bam. The most extreme hit-or-miss shot in tennis history. To develop it properly one needs a practice partnership in which the two players do The Game of Errors, which is any form of exercise in which good shots are not rewarded and only errors are awarded.

So this is Wednesday. So don't try this shot (the full Ellie-bam) until Friday. To hit it, mentally but not physically divide backswing, located strictly in the slot, into a pair of halves:

A) Bent elbow leads back but racket at same time goes halfway toward point-at-rear-fence position.

B) Elbow drops to level of oncoming ball while at the same time wrist, which had been straight, lays back so that racket tip is just barely short of pointing at rear fence. (There is no manual available for this part of the stroke. I had to make one up.)

Now one should be ready to kill the ball. Gradual straightening of the elbow is finally permitted to start. And the elbow itself swings toward the ball. There is no manipulation of forearm (no farm-gating toward the ball whatsoever). Internal elbow and external elbow perform their intermediate swing with the word "intermediate" implying speed without force, i.e., one's weight is still being held back.

Long hips pivot exaggerated by taken-from-the-hips-body-angle then smoothly transfers weight from rear to front foot.

[bottle]

The Big Yield to Temptation

Of course I tried my killer Ellie-bam even though it was Wednesday and not Friday.

Once one has imagined a new shot (and a single little change will qualify it as new), it is very doubtful that one won't try it the next time one plays, at least once.

I am beginning to think (again) that the Beasley-bam and the Ellie-bam are not that far apart.

The Beasley-bam is circular and looks weird because of one's arm wrapped around one's neck.

The Ellie-bam employs linear racket work while staying in the slot, which probably resembles shots one already uses or is more familiar with.

I was coming in and hit an Ellie-bam so hard it was unbelievable. Ken Hunt: "John, what do you have in that bottle?"

It is nice when someone, anyone, an almost 90-year-old in perfect shape and ranked third in the Midwest 80's, gives you the feedback you need.

One ought to keep arm bent all the way through elbow-drop-and-wrist-layback in my view. Maybe one should even squeeze arm a little as if compressing a spring-- I don't know, but there is some kind of a distinct feel associated with what is going on just then, something to discover then work with.

And I'm thinking one should try to learn little by little from the more moderate pace of the very reliable Beasley-bam.

That shot sees gradual straightening of arm all the way to end of the pivot, so why not try same thing off of linear arm work out in the slot?

Then later, if that goes, one can add the small scissoring after arm extension from the elbow, the most sophisticated and challenging part of the Vines stroke.

Oh my gosh, I didn't even try the defensive chop-to-begin Ellie-bam I outlined in the previous post.

These super flat shots that don't spin and which knuckle at their best are opening up new possibility.

[bottle]

Where Next? (Quo vadis)

I'd like to graduate from Beasley-bam to Ellie-bam but am unsure of how to get there.

Watching films of Ellsworth Vines leads to acknowledgement of differences along with the similarities in technique.

Before giving in to the differences too much, I'd like to try simple reductions of "the platter loop" that takes a Beasley-bam to a shoulder-high ball.

Lower balls can elicit a spiraling down of the racket before hips pivot drives strings level-- more complicated.

So the level racketwork shot is the place to make one's initial reduction in scope if such effective reduction is possible.

Maybe the full scope of hand easing beyond neck is essential to efficiency-- don't know yet.

Propose less bend in arm but same feel of a "stir" only farther toward slot or actually out in the slot.

Different Backswing

The precise nature of Ellsworth Vines' backswing may not be crucial to hitting a full Ellie-bam, and so in self-feed today I'll try a modification to the McEnrueful backswing that ought to work.

"Down and up" correctly describes the McEnrueful backswing although one shouldn't think of it that way for fear of being slow. Best think is that racket is already up and got there in a single swoop.

But to invent we frequently take something apart before putting it back together. The "down" will remain exactly the same.

The "up" will not. The arm will bend more. The wrist will lay back. The strings will get higher than the wrist as in a Beasley-bam. There will be no racket drop before the forward action of the arm begins, at least not today.

So will racket stay in the slot as in the Pathe films of the Vines forehand?

To inside of slot or even inside of that, in the compromise I sought in the above post.

A Beasley-bam starts with hand by neck, which hand then bellies out as elbow goes around neck two inches more.

The new design thought is that one doesn't need so much "belly."

Forward racket path will be neither straight (Vines) or broad curve (Beasley). Could we call it curvilinear (https://www.google.com/search?q=curv...ome&ie=UTF-8)? Probably not.

Whatever it is, it ought to create a slightly inside out path to the ball, at which point smooth pivot of the hips will chime in same as in the other two strokes.

Will the timing of this be too stark as has happened in at least one other experiment?

If so, one ought to be able to miniaturize smooth delay from the example of a Beasley-bam.

The bent arm is up, poised to straighten forward. If shot will be better, the elbow can go backward a little while straightening a little as in a Beasley-bam.

Whether hand goes around neck or stays closer to one's hitting side, one has shortened backswing by severely bending the arm.

Note to self: Bring tools to lift net a couple inches at Rouge Park.

Second Note: Trying new shot for first time in living room created hellaciously open strings at top of the "up." So, on "up" one may have to lead with elbow far toward rear fence.

Third Note: Don't be overly wedded to one scheme. Compare in self-feed this backswing to one closer to that used by Vines himself, then pick the one that worked better, with Beasley-bam remaining the fallback from either.

[bottle]

Beasily-bam

Reader, I have to write my new ideas down or I don't think them through. The shot I most want to try has three timing units same as the others. If there are more or fewer than three the shot is uncontrollable, at least by me.

Desired shot: McEnrueful backswing, down and up, but with the "down" to include a squeeze together of the two halves of the arm. One also leads with the elbow thus closing the strings.

The "up" now includes the beginning of arm straightening as elbow continues back toward rear fence and maybe to inside a bit.

Even though the shot I call The McEnrueful puts "down" and "up" together as a single timing unit, this shot thinks of them as separate entities which means one can go through them more slowly.

1) down, 2) up, 3) mono-level wrist layback and sweep.

One probably will know if one likes this shot after 20 seconds of self-feed.

Like a Beasley-bam, this hybrid shot is platter-loop. Unlike Beasley-bam, the platter is small. The longer racket head can stay at ball level the better. That could mean the hand got beneath the strings without altering level of those strings.

If one doesn't like the shot, the option will remain of straight back bent arm like Ellsworth Vines, small drop, extension sweep.

Beasley-bam and Ellie-bam: Racket stays square throughout. This shot: racket closes and opens before going through ball square.

Will this shot have a name? Not if it gets abandoned after 20 seconds. "Beasily-bam," I guess.

[bottle]

Three Forehand Gears in a Good Warmup

First Gear) Beasley-bams

Second Gear) Beasily-bams

Third Gear) Ellie-bams

[bottle]

Soft Ellie-bams

The Ellsworth Vines forehand-- biggest hit or miss shot in the history of tennis-- and you want to hit it softly, bottle?

Exactly. How else can I learn it? I'll re-watch the Pathe films. I'll resist my natural inclination to coil my arm like a spring and glom the Ellie-relaxation instead.

I've got the backups in place, the Beasley and Beasily bams. They produce forehands more consistent than any I've known.

So take time, Escher, to build up the Ellie-bam, all the time, Bottle Escher, in the world.

Keep backswing in the slot. Keep elbow out during the brief drop. I mean, if bent arm drops a small distance, the elbow has to come in a bit, no? But don't bring it in more than that. And don't coil the arm like a striking snake. Go the relaxation route instead. But don't do a mondo through dint of operant conditioning (https://www.google.com/search?q=oper...hrome&ie=UTF-8). You could think half-mondo-- the wrist to lay back slightly but the forearm not to roll under.

For this is a bam and not topspin shot.

But hit it easily. Just drop the elbow with wrist going back to swallow racket head momenum from the turn.

Just drop the racket like a paper cutter. That's count two.

Three is slow swing through the ball and up.

Up? Yes. Say, "Welcome into my wheelhouse, ball." Hit it smoothly with a bit of opening elbow. Then contract same elbow to bring the racket tip up to swallow momentum again.

Why would you want continued momentum when you've already hit the ball?

So catch the racket out front for a while. Easy, Easy.

Now hit a little topspin with the arm contraction. Then lift elbow sharply at same time for a reverse forehand.

Try chop version for a wide ball. (Flat forehand again but with no arm swing before contact, go directly from chop into the pivot.)

Back to basic Ellie-bam caught out front.

Later you'll eliminate the catch.

But for now, easy peazey.

[bottle]

Paper Cutter Drop to Launch the Ellie-bam

Just because the great Ellsworth Vines does something complicated doesn't mean that little u-i must follow him.

Ellie takes bent arm far back in the slot while keeping his racket tip pointing a bit toward side fence. Then, as he drops his elbow he has wrist lay back to point tip more at rear fence.

Let's be bold and depart from this for the sole purpose of injecting more paper cutter feel into the shot-- a worthy goal.

Maybe one's paper cutter feel already was there. In which case I merely seek to purify and intensify it.

I do this by laying wrist back during count one of three, the almost level bent arm takeback. Wrist can smoothly lay back at the same time thus getting that move accomplished and out of the way.

To make things even easier, one can reduce the amount of wrist layback, cutting it to half of available range.

The racket tip goes sooner now in pointing back. And paper cutter drop consists of nothing more than a small elbow drop to estimated level of ball or a little above it.

One can see, in the Pathe films, that Ellie not only is bent from the hips but bends a little more as he hits the ball.

This transfers extra power from his pivoting hips.

Count one: Racket tip back.

Count two: Paper cutter drop.

Count three: Sweep with the arm first but then jolt the ball simultaneously with all known power elements.

What are they?

The long smooth hips pivot transferring body weight which also makes racket disappear in some old photographic renderings.

The opening at elbow followed by immediate contraction at same place.

The pushing of that elbow too.

The slight taking of more body angle to slam the ball a bit more.

[bottle]

Drop & Sweep then Pulverize the Ball

What? You missed the shot!

Then hit 10 Beasley-bams and 5 Beasily-bams.

[bottle]

Why, if a Cue Works, Would one Want to Try Another?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?

Nope. The new cue might work better than the old one.

Curiosity killed the cat.

Satisfaction brought it back.

Old cue for the Ellie-bam: 1) racket back, 2) racket drop, 3) whole forward stroke.

Replacement cue: 1) racket back, 2) racket drop and sweep to ball, 3) power part of the stroke.

Do I have to know which alternative will be better before I run the experiment? Of course not. It is essential, in fact, that I don't know, i.e., "suspend judgment."

Either one could be better than the other on a given day and there could be a third better than either although I doubt it.

[bottle]

A Looser Prescription for Grip

Mercer Beasley, coach of Ellsworth Vines and other champions, wanted his students to find their best grip in a looser way than other coaches have always taught and continue to teach.

In his 1936 book HOW TO PLAY TENNIS, he advises his students to place racket on shoulder and feel natural (wriggle the fingers and hand, I presume) then see what grip they come up with.

He calls this "automatic grip" and gives the same prescription for both sides (forehand and backhand).

I can't pretend to have followed such a sensible method in acquiring my own grips.

But I do think most of what I've read or seen on the subject is wrong and over-conceptualized as if delivered by a character in a play by Henrik Ibsen.

Grip is individual, must be discovered by the individual, has a lot to do with the shape and size of one's hand as well as the diameter of the racket handle, is not something anybody wants to be doctrinaire about.

The uni-grip that John McEnroe claims he uses for all of his shots is just east of an eastern grip, it seems to me, a "composite" or "Australian" grip as described by Ellsworth Vines in his book TENNIS: MYTH AND METHOD.

This grip is so close to conventional eastern forehand it may even qualify as such depending on whom is doing the talking.

Remember: GRIP IS INDIVIDUAL.

Other tennis writers almost universally describe the Ellsworth Vines forehand grip as "eastern." But consider how silly Bud Collins was in viewing the Vines forehand as a windmill. We need constantly to assess the credibility of anybody passing himself off as a tennis sage. The Vines grip may have been eastern or a bit to left of that. Whatever it was, it probably was arrived at in the Beasley way: Put racket naturally on shoulder then see what grip you have.

[bottle]

Why, if a Cue Works, Would one Want to Try Another?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?

Nope. The new cue might work better than the old one.

Curiosity killed the cat.

Satisfaction brought it back.

Old cue for the Ellie-bam: 1) racket back, 2) racket drop, 3) whole forward stroke.

Replacement cue: 1) racket back, 2) racket drop and sweep to ball, 3) power part of the stroke.

Do I have to know which alternative will be better before I run the comparison? Of course not. It is essential, in fact, that I don't know, i.e., "suspend judgment."

Either one could be better than the other on a given day and there could be a third better than either although I doubt it.

Third Possibility

All one has to do is doubt some third possibility and there it will be.

Possibility 3) Count one: Take straight wrist back and then loop down with wrist opening a bit. Count two: Swing arm to ball. Count three: Pivot.

"The weight is where the racket is," said Stan Smith, but that is not really true in Ellie and Beasley bams.

The weight is where the racket is in a Stan Smith forehand, which is a different kind of excellent flat forehand more from transverse stomach muscles (trunk or shoulders) I would say.

Here, weight transfer is delayed and all from the hips at very end of the stroke.

Right now, given the three choices I have outlined, I choose number two: 1) racket back with wrist opening a bit, 2) racket drop and sweep to ball, 3) power part of the stroke.

It is not that this possibility is necessarily best of the three but that I like it. It suits my temperament.

[bottle]

Third Possibility

All one has to do is doubt some third possibility and there it will be.

Possibility 3) Count one: Take straight wrist back and then loop down with wrist opening a bit. Count two: Swing arm to ball. Count three: Pivot.

"The weight is where the racket is," said Stan Smith, but that is not really true in Ellie and Beasley bams.

The weight is where the racket is in a Stan Smith forehand, which is a different kind of excellent flat forehand more from transverse stomach muscles (trunk or shoulders) I would say.

Here, weight transfer is delayed and all from the hips at very end of the stroke.

Right now, given the three choices I have outlined, I choose number two: 1) racket back with wrist opening a bit, 2) racket drop and sweep to ball, 3) power part of the stroke.

It is not that this possibility is necessarily best of the three but that I like it. It suits my temperament.

But wind yesterday taught me to value third possibility more.

[bottle]

The Guy I've been Talking So Much about

https://www.si.com/vault/1957/07/29/...mercer-beasley

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Mercer_Beasley

[bottle]

Drawing Out Some Lessons

The Guy I've been Talking So Much about

https://www.si.com/vault/1957/07/29/...mercer-beasley

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Mercer_Beasley

To me it is extremely interesting to discover in all this tennis history something I only suspected-- that Mercer Beasey and Ellsworth Vines did not always see eye to eye-- almost a characteristic I would venture of a perfect teacher-student relationship in any field. So Ellie takes a shot at Mercer sometime but at other times praises him to the skies.

Interesting too that Mercer Beasley like other extremely successful teaching pros was good at self-promotion. How many potentially great coaches have utterly failed in this regard and thus found themselves unable to help thousands of the players they should have helped?

But my new concern with flat shot technique made me revisit Beasley's book, and in this area I find him more and more interesting every day. No, topspin should never be the basis of anyone's game unless he is Borg, Vilas, Muster or Nadal especially as he gets older. Keeping the ball deep is so much easier and less energy-draining with controlled flat shots, and that is exactly what a Beasley-bam is replete with its high behind the back close form (hard to read among other advantages).

I followed my curiosity, that's all I did, then found I suddenly had an extremely consistent new forehand. But in the above material we find Beasley chiding at least one of his national champions for refusing to go the close behind the back route. This other champion and Ellsworth Vines both refused, I would suggest, though Beasley is utterly supportive of Vines' mastery and what he did on his own-- from and after his Beasley lessons.

Me, I will never discard the Beasley-bam nor my attempt to learn the more hit-and-miss Ellie-bam.

The Ellie-bam works remarkably well in self-feed right now but not equally well in actual play. Starting today (a self-feed day for me), I shall cease laying the wrist back in any form whatsoever except in topspin shots with different grip.

This pre-stroke flattening of the wrist and flat wrist maintenance will make my Ellie-bam more consistent with my Beasley-bams and Beasily-bams (abbreviated version of the Beasley-bams which immediately worked and continues to do so and is good for service returns) as well as with my McEnruefuls.