A New Year's Serve

[bottle]

In Pursuit of an Old Fashioned Serve

I love the tennistas who say the older serves were harder to master but more accurate in placement while putting more balls in the court.

The tennistas who say the new serves with their prime characteristic of bod and feet leaving ground definitely do produce unprecedented kick but with big trade-off.

Tennistas who say the best of the old fashioned serves produced enough pace and spin anyway (Gonzalez and Kramer are among those who come to mind).

Concluding thought: Post rule change serves being easier to learn does not necessarily make them better.

Note: It wasn't just overfeeding of Gonzalez the night before a barnstorming match that caused Kramer to be so competitive with him.

===========

All that is background to a decision to try and serve like Jack Kramer now.

A more currently apprehended point is that Kramer places his racket at gradually realized low point far behind his back.

Possible ways to go there: 1) more of a wide descent naturally to turn the racket tip more; 2) Slightly roll the racket to square as it drops farther in closer to bod.

Number 2) is better since 1) creates unwanted momentum where one wants smooth control, i.e., at the beginning of "up-together."

Next to determine: How does the slow rise of the elbow behind one (simultaneous with the toss) affect the sharp rise of the elbow now inverted and out front-- one needs to save a proper amount of range-- is that not so? But couldn't some advantage come from thinking of these two moves as connected with stuff between them so fast that it almost doesn't happen but surely does?

The soft rise behind compared to the hard rise before might consist of small movement with number of inches to be determined later by what works best.

[bottle]

Loose Motion of the Elbow Upward

Brian Gordon has told us that he has plans to advise us of enhancement to the seven upward rotations which some of us have just learned for the first time.

So should we sit back and wait for the next installment in his video series so as to be sure we get the information right before we apply it?

Don't wanna do that.

Not when here I am, rocking like a hurricane.

So I go to the Raymond James longevity ad in which Rosemary Harris before hang-gliding in the mountains of North Carolina hits ping-pong forehands that suggest a small amount of slow paddle progress followed by adduction or slam or accelerative rush (https://www.pinterest.com/billiardfa...ebs-ping-pong/).

Why can't one do the same thing in a Kramer-style serve?

The elbow, behind one, rises slowly in straightened arm.

It rises again, before one, inverted and fast.

It reaches the end of its tether, which causes the arm to straighten at the elbow faster than muscle could do. So point the tether the correct way to maximize this!

Followed by ulnar chop followed by ISR and full wrist flexion exploding all around the ball.

Try it again.

How about to Fox Trot rhythm?

Slow slow quick-quick slow...etc.

Slow is the straight arm rise.

Slow is the forearm fold.

Quick is ESR (shoulder) and EFR (forearm) and extension of wrist.

Quick is elbow finally getting relaxed and letting go thus escaping from rest of the serve.

Also everything else that follows and melds into a marshmallow.

Let's go again, this time letting go of the Fox Trot rhythm.

Just .1 of a second.

What is .1 of a second?

Itself.

1-2-3. Slow arm lift. Slow arm bend. Zoom.

1-2-hit-slow.

1-2-exhale-slow.

1-2-noise-slow.

Gravity drop doesn't count.

First count is when both hands go up.

1-2-NOISE-slow.

1-2-pffffuttt-slow.

[bottle]

Some Do's and Don't's of an Old Fashioned Serve

Some of which apply to a newfangled post rule change serve as well.

Jack Kramer is my model.

Appreciate the minimalism and great feel of a pitching motion that only raises the elbow several inches before the arm bends. Meld the two things together to form the rhythmic beginning of a powerful throw whether of ball or racket. And contrast this with motions in which the elbow rises up a distance in feet or a yard. Why? Because appreciation brings one closer to do.

Correspondingly, be amazed that all the racket head speed that countless teaching pros have attributed to triceptic (muscular) extension comes from elbow throw instead. I refer to rotation number five in Brian's map. Which is whip-straightening of arm at the elbow that is motion dependent or passive and lightning quick.

One drives one's elbow to end of its tether. That's how to do it.

[bottle]

Note

Kramer's hitting hand may be slightly lower than his tossing hand at bottom start of his serve, but both hands go out from his bod-- that is a point.

(https://www.tennisplayer.net/members...ServeFront.mov).

One would not be too far off to say the two hands rise from roughly the same level.

[bottle]

Dotty

We''re always trying to connect dots, right? How about a connection in Kramerserve between racket pointing at left fence and lift of right foot?

And another between racket pointing at left fence and toss arm arriving at TDC (Top Dead Center, the highest spot in the planetarium at which you can point your index finger.)

We're still speaking of slow part of the serve ending with slight lift of elbow and smooth fold then of forearm.

Though slow, the racket tip still is gliding fast enough to make picking out some reference point a dicey job.

If racket were just pointing at left fence and rear knee was just lifting and left knee was just bending, however, nice balance might be achieved.

Unless that is too theoretical. Maybe we seek parameters and approximations to give us the ability to think, "What I want is somewhere around here."

Similar, arrival of toss arm at TDC. Did it come to there from release of ball? When is life that dryly schematic? I opt for release and racket continuing to go up as follow-through to release. And farther follow-through to TDC after that.

Wouldn't it be great if the whole .1 second itself pulled your bod up?

[bottle]

Create. Don't Imitate.

Then when you get it right your wife, if she's still around, will say, "Oh yes. I think that's what I've done all along."

Who wants to lift the back leg other than a dog?

We humanoid tennis players would rather drive off of the back leg, using quad and ankle both. Whether we have an old fashioned serve or not.

If the dog's jumping instead of peeing, he probably will do the same thing.

Isn't that ankle and quad drive what that master teacher was instructing five player-pros one day at the D.C. Classic on an outlying court of Rock Creek Park?

"You can all get more out of your ankles," he said. "Really."

That sabotages the threshing pattern worked upon for years, the one where front heel goes down or partially down as rear heel goes up.

A heel only goes up when a knee is bending, not driving.

So you drive off of rear foot one way or another and then the right hip takes over which makes the right shoulder go up just as your elbow, in the form of a javelin, zings.

Can one think too much about this stuff and go mad? Of course.

But teaching pros from Braden to Van Horn-- a back-eddy school?-- have liked the idea of a service action that straightens the legs.

Or should that expression be "straighten the leg" with leg being singular? Should rear leg drive with front leg still bent to allow the .1 second total arm action to pull the front leg straight?

[bottle]

How Much Wood Should A Writer-Chuck Shuck?

E.M. Forester recounts in his great book for all writers ASPECTS OF THE NOVEL that Sir Walter Scott wrote every morning until he had three-and-one-half pages then around 10 a.m. got on his horse.

And that Thomas Mann only wrote one-and-one-half pages but polished it a lot to bring out strands in his prose.

Nancy Hale, descendant of Nathan and first woman reporter for The New York Times and later a successful short story and nonfiction writer, novelist, editor became a mentor of mine after Jean Valentine, someone who later won the National Poetry Award, arranged a private reading for me in front of Nancy and Jean at the MacDowell Colony.

Nancy, I believe, managed to write five pages a day (far more than I for those who think I am too prolific). She and Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings were two early women writers taken on by the most famous American editor ever Maxwell E. Perkins at Scribners Publishing House, New York.

Neither could be said to rival Perkins' other discoveries Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald or Thomas Wolfe but still... And one of the last things Nancy ever said to me was, "You'll be all right." I am not entirely sure that is true. (Car has still not been taken into the next door mechanic's garage and I can think of other problems such as sciatica just as Nancy had.)

And Perkins says the following in his next to last paragraph of his introduction to LOOK HOMEWARD, ANGEL, referring to the mountains around Asheville, North Carolina:

"Wolfe was in those mountains-- he tells of the train whistles at night-- the trains winding their way out into the great world where it seemed to the boy there was everything desirable, and vast, and wonderful.

"It was probably that which made him want to see everything, and read everything, and experience everything, and say everything. There was a night when he lived on First Avenue that Nancy Hale who lived on East 49th Street near Third Avenue, heard a kind of chant, which grew louder. She got up and looked out of the window at two or three in the morning and there was the great figure of Thomas Wolfe, advancing in his long country-man's stride, with his swaying black raincoat, and what he was chanting was, 'I wrote ten thousand words today-- I wrote ten thousand words today.'"

But old tennis shoes are a subject more interesting than this-- of course. And Wolfe, at least to judge by Eugene Gant, protagonist of LOOK HOMEWARD, ANGEL, was more cavernous than John Isner of Greensboro.

[stotty]

How Much Wood Should A Writer-Chuck Shuck?

I read somewhere, perhaps in E.M. Forester, that Sir Walter Scott wrote every morning until he had three-and-one-half pages then around 10 a.m. got on his horse.

That Thomas Mann only wrote one-and-one-half pages but polished it a lot.

Nancy Hale, descendant of Nathan and first woman reporter for The New York Times and later a successful short story writer and novelist became a mentor of mine after Jean Valentine, someone who later won the National Poetry Award, arranged a private reading for me in front of Nancy and Jean at the MacDowell Colony.

Nancy, I believe, managed to write five pages a day (far more than I). She and Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings were the two women writers taken on by the most famous American editor ever Maxwell E. Perkins at Scribners Publishing House.

Neither was Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald or Thomas Wolfe but still... And one of the last things Nancy ever said to me was, "You'll be all right." I am not entirely sure that is true. (Car has still not been taken into the mechanic's garage next door.)

And Perkins says this in his next to last paragraph of his introduction to LOOK HOMEWARD, ANGEL, referring to the mountains around Asheville, North Carolina.

"Wolfe was in those mountains-- he tells of the train whistles at night-- the trains winding their way out into the great world where it seemed to the boy there was everything desirable, and vast, and wonderful.

"It was probably that which made him want to see everything, and read everything, and experience everything, and say everything. There was a night when he lived on First Avenue that Nancy Hale who lived on East 49th Street near Third Avenue, heard a kind of chant, which grew louder. She got up and looked out of the window at two or three in the morning and there was the great figure of Thomas Wolfe, advancing in his long country-man's stride, with his swaying black raincoat, and what he was chanting was, 'I wrote ten thousand words today-- I wrote ten thousand words today.'"

Interesting. I heard Hemingway wrote between 500 and a 1000 words a day; Stephen King 2000 words a day. Is this do you think in terms of a finished product, or just drafts and tinkering? Franz Kafka would write a short story in a single sitting. He wrote The Judgement in a single sitting, starting at 10pm and finishing at 6am.

I don't think I could ever write a book. I wouldn't be able to stop tinkering and trying to make things slightly better. I'd never finish the thing.

Didn't you once say Nabokov would sketch beautiful drawings in the margins of his work? It always fascinates me the habits and working methods of accomplished writers.

[bottle]

Interesting. I heard Hemingway wrote between 500 and a 1000 words a day; Stephen King 2000 words a day. Is this do you think in terms of a finished product, or just drafts and tinkering? Franz Kafka would write a short story in a single sitting. He wrote The Judgement in a single sitting, starting at 10pm and finishing at 6am.

I don't think I could ever write a book. I wouldn't be able to stop tinkering and trying to make things slightly better. I'd never finish the thing.

Didn't you once say Nabokov would sketch beautiful drawings in the margins of his work? It always fascinates me the habits and working methods of accomplished writers.

I don't think Nabokov drew pictures in the margins of his own fiction, but when he was talking about other writers yeah, he might do that.

I know because Nancy Hale's husband J. Fredson Bowers, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia got me into the UVA library's cork-lined, atmosphere-controlled literary treasure room.

Most spectacular is a tall watercolor of Emma's hat from N.'s teaching copy of EMMA BOVARY. Which he used at Cornell, Wellesley or Harvard or all three.

Whether in N's notes or in another teaching copy-- can't remember which-- there's a diagram of Gregor Samsa the dung beetle's apartment in Kafka's "The Metamorphosis." That drawing looks like it was done by an architect or engineer. Besides being a butterfly collector and the author of LOLITA, N. was a chess expert (and tennis teaching pro) who wanted to know where everything was.

A couple of years ago I picked up a book carrying reproductions of everything I saw. Cost: $1 in a Michigan estate sale: VLADIMIR NABOKOV: LECTURES ON LITERATURE, 385 pages edited by Fredson Bowers with an introduction by John Updike.

The Bowers are gone. I never saw them together for more than a minute but I miss them.

Interesting the different amounts of pages or words that different writers produce and how that works for them. I guess that the more fast and furious somebody writes, the more they need to revisit with a really good second draft. Second draft is often the best even when there are six or seven.

Compared to everybody else, Thomas Wolfe must have been a volcano. He got mad because he thought Perkins got too much credit thanks to his cuts and edits for the excellence of LOOK HOMEWARD, ANGEL (which I am re-reading with nothing but delight right now). My copy has a black loop on the cover indicating that the Brit owners of a recycling bookstore in Winston-Salem decided it was worthless and gave it away for free.

Those bad Brits! But I'm glad I'm the one who got it.

Despite his split from Scribners, Thomas Wolfe (not Tom Wolfe) considered Maxwell Perkins his best friend for the rest of his short life. He got conked on the head (supposedly with a full pitcher of beer) at Oktoberfest, Munich and a few years later died from brain tumors.

[bottle]

An Especially Good Essay from Brent Abel

James Clear is one of my favorite online writers - https://jamesclear.com/ .

I’ve mentioned him before in a few of my posts.

He gets straight to the point, is very clear (pun sort of intended), and James is a tremendous story teller.

In today’s email from James, he wrote …

“The mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead wrote, “Civilization advances by extending the number of operations we can perform without thinking about them.””

Which of course got me thinking about our tennis.

Our skill level in tennis advances by extending the number of operations we can perform without thinking about them.

One of the challenges I’ve faced as a competitor is to try and play my matches with my tennis teaching hat … off.

It’s waaaaay too easy for me as a teaching pro to consciously try and make strokes happen and then also analyze my opponent’s stroke technique.

No bueno …

And even if you’re not a teaching pro who loves to compete, but instead you’re a student of the game who loves to compete, it’s easy to fall into a trap of over thinking technique … especially as you play points.

So I believe it holds true with our skill level in tennis — the more we can automate our strokes, the more we can concentrate on actually “playing the game”.

And to me, learning to play the game — advancing your skill level — is mostly about absorbing and sticking to which shot to shot patterns work well for you and which patterns tend to get you in trouble.

The more you focus on manufacturing stroke technique, the less you learn about yourself in relation to those winning and losing shot patterns.

So how do we actually automate stroke technique so that you can trust it — set it and forget it — in your matches?

You pare out every little technical thing that doesn’t help you become a more consistent shot maker.

Tom Stow used to tell me ... "That little flair on top of your backswing is artificial. Get rid of it".

Mr. Stow's time with me was to teach me how to get as minimalistic as possible with stroke technique.

I thought when I first went to see him that he'd have some kind of totally different way of hitting the ball.

He did.

But yet he didn't add one thing to create that something new.

Instead, Tom removed this and that so that I could end up with a totally different way ...

Winning more matches is simply about putting more balls in play. It’s easy math.

The more complex your stroke technique is … the more that can go wrong and the more your mind will be consumed with manufacturing each and every shot.

The answer is to simplify technique so much that it becomes super easy to automate and repeatable in matches.

This is way easier said than done. Not that I’m letting you off the hook here.

It takes an organized player to sift through the enormous information overload we now have online.

But at some point, if you’re ever going to automate your strokes, you’ll have to stop ‘getting ready to get ready’, stop looking for that golden nugget that you can add to what you already have, and instead, trust that simplicity will allow you to learn how to play shot patterns that are optimal for your uniqueness.

If you’re a young buck of 8 years old, and you’ve got Uncle Tony, and you’ve got all day on the court to work on technique, and you’ve been blessed with an insane level of athletic talent, and you’ve got a burning desire to be world #1, then yeah, make that stroke technique as complex as you want.

But if that’s not you, then let’s simplify, let’s pare away anything not needed, and let’s begin to automate stroke technique so that you can … advance civilization ;-)

The best way to know which parts of your current stroke technique that aren’t really needed is to get yourself on video.

It’s so easy to do now. And it’s the BIGGEST reality check if you’re serious about wanting to become a better tennis player.

You’ll want a coach who gets the idea of simplicity and who has a keen eye for this stuff. Lots of teaching pros out there have this skill.

If you don’t have that person in your area, then reply to this email and let’s see if you and I can work out you getting me a short video of whatever stroke it is you want to simplify.

And on that note it’s time to get out there and help someone else have an amazing day :-)

Brent

[bottle]

In Response to Brent Abel's Good Sense

Changing hats is the ticket. Brent is right about that. When you are a player you are not a teacher. But when you are a teacher you might be a research scholar, i.e., "student of the game," something that maybe should happen two months ahead of play.

The trouble is, that, when you always are trying something new, you occasionally find something that immediately works (not often but it happens). Would you want to incubate it for two months? Of course not!

Present conniptions in my pursuit of Kramerserve come from keeping front leg bent while firing the rear leg so that the .1 second throw will actually pull the front leg straight so that the nose and mouth may be rising a little at contact. (A gross image perhaps but better than if they went down.)

Circumstance forced trial of these court-connected serves along with a bunch of holds, at least that happened today.

The key factor seemed adherence to the notion of a .1 second throw starting from slight bend of arm at elbow and ending at contact.

Rhythm of the whole serve then is down together up together, two-inch arm-lift-and bend, .1 second throw, absorbent follow-through.

Or 1-2 pffuttt and slow.

These serves tried not in practice but immediate combat weren't great but good with a chance of becoming great.

[bottle]

Forgive me my Hortatory Voice

An Irish poet, Eiléan Ní Chuilleanáin, went absolutely batshit when she heard it.

But you see, I had exerience with actual teaching pros, guys and two women who don't mince words.

I guess I like to be told what to do. So I mimic the hortatory voice, turn half of me into an imaginary pro standing next to me and giving me clever orders.

[bottle]

No Toss High Enuf

A frequent problem for overly relaxed and lackadaisical players. It can result in a serve as bad as one's serve at the end of one's first week of playing tennis. Half a century later may be the time to do something about this.

(https://www.feeltennis.net/serve-toss-drill/)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5Q2Lc9AllM)

Here's what I propose for somebody developing basic Kramerserve structure. Although the following solution, addressing other unnamed problems as well, certainly does apply to the drive-off-rear-foot variation chosen by myself, I see it working in other forms too. Probably.

The solution: Not just more muscle and better pro-active mindset but a higher initial follow through to the motion of one's toss.

We western persons tend to be too schematic when designing experience for ourselves.

We break our toss into ridiculous halves. First half: Toss up to release. Second half: Toss from release up to top of follow through.

Reform, sinners!

To begin with, toss past release to close to top of follow through. Just leave a couple inches more for yourself to be pointing with index finger at high point in the planetarium when the one tenth of a second pffuttt begins.

See and feel the symmetry.

The straight hit arm in Kramerserve only rises a couple inches during the toss.

The straight toss arm, likewise, only rises a couple inches during the body and arm bend.

This is something you can practice with tears in your ears from lying on your back in your bed crying over you.

Reps while lying on back: 500 .

Or just five if you are a headstrong person out of a Henrik Ibsen play.

It's two follow throughs, right?

Be pointing at the sky during both.

[bottle]

Philosophy

How can a premise be false when it's pre-mize? Pre mean before. "mise" is the part where we examine the facts.

[bottle]

No Toss High Enuf

It's two follow throughs, right?

Be pointing at the sky during both.

Two follow throughs on every serve, that is. I was in a unique position to evaluate this idea early this morning after I walked through Balduc Park, Detroit, to get to the indoor tennis place since my car is still down.

I have a history of lowering my toss arm too soon or not getting it high enough in the first place and wish to correct this fault. But my wish is pretty intellectual if I can't get to a practice court to install some new action.

No, I'm just going ahead and playing the way I think best. But I need a super cue if I really think I can bypass all necessary repetitions and discipline.

What might bridge the gap tomorrow night is taking the first follow through to within one inch of plumb line down from the sky. With index finger and hand then sliding sideways. I think I conceived of a two inch migration in the previous iteration. Just one inch next, Mrs. sport goddess, please.

In either case, this cue is similar to the image of hanging on to a steel ring to keep the arm up, substantially different only in that continuous motion is maintained.

I really am taken with Mencinger's cue of magnetized hand and ball so that hand seems to keep lifting ball even after it releases it. Suddenly my serves were flying high and bouncing high too.

Despite this, I was getting a little less work on the ball. Am hoping that time will naturally fix that. But a higher initial follow through way beyond ball release also seems the way to go.

Summary takes into account my decision to employ Kramerserve. On the down of down together and up together the toss arm swings out to side, which gives it some early energy. The hit arm falls but down a shallow runway while twisting the racket face open to square. On the up of downtogether and uptogether the straight hit arm only rises two inches. But the simultaneous toss arm really takes off with ice cream cone hand zooming beyond ball release to almost a pure vertical to the sky. Way up there in other words. If you want to do something extra from ball release point your index finger at the sky. Then complete the perfect vertical with one more inch of follow through still pointing up as bod and hitting arm separately bend.