Have a Question for Me?

[gzhpcu]

Hi John,
The book is called, "Fundamentals of tennis" by Stanley Plagenhoef, Prentice-Hall, 1970. If you can't find a copy anymore, let me know, and I'll send you mine.
Regards,
Phil

[johnyandell]

The great Plagenhof! Yes I've read it--forgot about that part in the back with the trajectories. The PTR named an award after him. He was the pioneer and we are only really starting to follow in his footsteps!

[gzhpcu]

John,
This is what I meant:




Of course, in those days they did not jump when serving, so it would be great to have an update....

[johnyandell]

Huh. I'll check my book when I get home--I'm traveling now. I don't remember that. Maybe Stanley did two books? Would be interesting to understand what that graph means. Might take you up on the offer after all.

[gzhpcu]

John,
As I understand it, the graph shows a number of points where the ball is thrown on the toss in relation to the feet.
Hoad and Kramer, for example, seem to have more of an element of topspin in their serves than Gonzales. Ralston seems to toss the ball the farthest ahead.

[johnyandell]

Right! I found my copy and see it now. It just goes to show--he knew more about the players in 1970 than we know about the players today...

[kenknight]

John-

Would you say that the advice at the TW (Tennis Warehouse) forums is valid and should be taken seriously? I follow the strokes in here, and read the articles thoroughly. It helps me a lot to see what's actually going on.

However, I have found some good information there. There are some posters (such as Bungalo Bill, Kana Himezaki, whatever) that seem to have informative and genuine knowledge of the game.

Would reading and attempting to incorporate that information help me, or would you say taking advice in words would probably get me confused? There are certain threads that were really a pleasure to read ("Forehand Consistency", "Why your volleys suck" if you want specifics), but had a great deal of debate concerning validity and the content itself.

Would you happen to agree with or support any information on certain websites or the TW forum? I'm trying to help both a younger brother and myself develop, and I certainly would like to not get him (and I) into any bad habits.

Thanks,

Ken

[johnyandell]

I think the TW Forum is great, and I post there myself from time to time for fun. Bungalow Bill is a very knowledgable and tireless student of the game, as are Mahboob Kahn, Marius Hancu, and some others. They are all subscribers here, and Bungalow has a great article in the works for us on the one-handed backhand.

I admit that I often don't try to follow the threads across the posts--but this is because it's much harder to visualize what many of people are saying than it is to look at video. A lot of the debates are spirited but would be settled or at least a lot shorter and clearer with imagery.

Still it's the place with the most spirited discussion I know of in the world. My only cautionary note is that anything that you find there can (and should) be tested by looking at actual strokes. AND that's what we can do here!

We are planning to introduce some more structured discussions in our Forum with imbedded movies and Flash, probably later this year.

[kenknight]

Thanks very much. The debates and people are certainly spirited, and amusing to read.

I remember reading Bungalo Bills analysis of Haas' one handed backhand. It had lots of images (I believe they're down now), and really helped me work out the mechanics and what I should be doing during the shot. I saved it onto my computer, and still reference it.

The other posters you mentioned (Mahboob and Marius) I have seen here. On the TW forum their insights and advice has helped me greatly as well, and are easy and simple to test and apply.

I'm looking forward to the discussions!

-Ken

[gzhpcu]

John,
I have a question regarding a serve with an element of topspin: one tosses the ball more to the left, the impact point is lower, and there is more of a brushing up action (up and out). Is there any super slow video around showing this clearly?

The hitting arm is coming up from the "scratch your friend's back" (as Vic Braden describes it) position, initially on edge and shortly before impact, begins to pronate opening up, and then facing outwards after impact.

I guess that the angle between the racket shaft and the forearm at impact is smaller for the topspin type serve (since the racket is still coming up) as opposed to a flat serve.

Is the angle between the racket shaft and the forearm for a slice serve in between that of the two? or beyond that of the flat serve?

Am I also correct in assuming that the impact zone is always the left hemisphere of the ball (seen from the back)? and more precisely the lower left hand quadrant? The lower in this quadrant the ball is hit, the more the element of topspin.

Thanks

[johnyandell]

I think basically I agree with most everything you state, with these caveats. Technically the contact is probably "lower" measured from the ground. but by probably a couple of inches at most. BUT the arm is still fully extended at the elbow. I wouldn't think of lower contact. Hit up and extend to the ball--as you said the toss creates the different contact point.

Look at the Sampras 1st and 2nd Serves in the rear views in the Stroke Archives for the best examples.

So far as the exact contact point on the ball, not sure about the "quadrant" concept. Could be correct. We need to film at about 10,000 frames a second to check that. I think it's more the line or angle of the swing. This is indicated by the angle between the racket and the arm at contact. The more the shaft tilts back to the left, the higher the topspin component...

[ignite]

That idea of the lower left quadrant is pretty much on the money.

As you hit a topspin or particularly kick serve you really want to hit up and across the back of the ball. This gives both the element of topspin but also some side spin so that as the ball hits the ground it will move to the left of a right hander, particularly useful on the backhand side of the court.

The hitting position should be lower to promote hitting up the back of the ball more, if the hitting position is too high then there will be less loop on the serve.

Anthony

[gzhpcu]

Thanks. What I am wondering it how much lower the impact point is for a serve with some topspin as opposed to for a flat serve, and the difference in angle between the racket and the forearm.

[johnyandell]

Don't really know about the height. Look at Sampras from behind and tell me if you can really tell much difference--we're talking a contact point 9 or 10 feet above the court. It's at best a scientific question, rather than a coaching question. And yes, someday we will quantify that, I hope.

Same with the angle of the racket. Look at Pete's arm. It's fully extended.
I would focus on the toss and the extension and let the other things happen to the extent they happen.

[gzhpcu]

I know, but I am still curious. I was discussing this with a friend of mine who really thought he was hitting a serve with an element of topspin a lot lower than a "flat" or slice serve. I really mean a lot: about a foot. Seemed to extreme to me. I saw little difference when he served.

Maybe it is just the the trajectory of racket? More of "inside - out" then with the other serves? Maybe just hitting the ball slightly earlier while it is still coming up from the wrist pronating?