Retro time: Pancho Segura forehand

[gzhpcu]

The great Pancho Segura double-handed forehand...

[tennis_chiro]

biggest shot of his time

The great Pancho Segura double-handed forehand...

I remember hearing from various players and sources in the 60's and 70's that Segura's forehand was regarded as the biggest weapon in the pro game at the time.

I remember seeing him play in his 40's with the barnstorming pros of the mid 60's at the LA Sports Arena. For me, even then, his volleys were the crispest of all the pros. He was an amazing players. Some of his doubles wins later attest to his skill. I think he won a doubles tourney with Connors in South Africa when he was in his 50's.

And I've said before that winning the Huggy Bears in 1988 with Paul Annacone at age 68 was one of the greatest senior accomplishments in any sport. They won $300,000 of which they got over $100,000 (team owners got 2/3). They beat Wally Masur and Anand Amritraj in the finals despite wasting 4 of their 10 bisques in a losing effort in the first set. They entered the third set with just 3 bisques left. Masur (one of the best players in the world) and Amritraj (who had gotten to the quarters in doubles at the ATP Schenectady event just a few weeks before preparing for HB) lost only 1 point on their first 5 service games and that one at 40-0, so they could not be "bisqued" to a break even with 3 bisques. The amazing thing is that in his 3 service games, Pancho lost only one point on his serve. Segura/Annacone finally got the first point of the 12th game and that was the match as they used the 3 bisques they had saved so well.

don brosseau

[gzhpcu]

Great memories Don!

[bottle]

But what's a bisque? Tomato?

[tennis_chiro]

For Bottle and Other Soup Afficianados

But what's a bisque? Tomato?

Here is a link to the full text of the facing page of the inside back cover of the 1991 Huggy Bears program, where I described what a bisque was and how they were used in the early years of the HB tournament, including Segura's great effort in 1988.




As things went on the use of the bisque became very sophisticated in HB. I wrote another complicated,but I thought very enlightening piece on it for the 1996 program (I will try to find it...I thought it was one of the best things i ever wrote), but Nick Forstmann thought it was too complicated and he opted for the following



don

[bottle]

Abducted by Abduction

This is great. Now that I know (gratefully) what a bisque is, could you tell me your opinion of an abduction?

I understand that an abduction isn't a kidnapping but rather a lifting of one's arm from a position straight out from the shoulders line.

My question is, how best should one use this information? Ignore it? Passive arm motion activated by one's gross body can lift the elbow upward, after all. I
think we all agree on that.

But how high should one let the elbow be lifted? Really high? Maybe not too high if one is as flexible as Sampras?

Should one ADD abduction to the elbow heighth one has chosen, and if so, when-- as part of upward arm extension?

I wish I weren't serious about all this.

My confusion, I guess, comes from witnessing good serves where elbow suddenly seemed to rise an extra bit or did I hallucinate this?

I've also heard this abduction referred to as if it's some kind of exotic strength test restricted to very elite players. But anyone can press either upper arm against the ear on that side-- that's not hard, no?

We wouldn't want to "pinch," right, for that would surely screw up anyone's serve?

I'm wondering though. Getting racket tip in lower relation to racket handle seems of paramount concern, and raising the elbow an extra amount seems one way of doing this.

If one shouldn't ignore the abduction idea but actively use it to add an element to arm extension, could stuff be simultaneous or would everything have to be in sequence, i.e. abduction first, triceps extension second?

I could use some common sense on this point. If you were to say, "Just get elbow where you want it, then leave it there," that would seem to make good sense to me. One teaching pro in fact said that already.

But if you were to say, "Go ahead and pinch, just pinch late," that might seem to make good sense, too.

As will whatever you really do say, I'm sure.

[tennis_chiro]

Continuously up and forward

This is great. Now that I know (gratefully) what a bisque is, could you tell me your opinion of an abduction?

I understand that an abduction isn't a kidnapping but rather a lifting of one's arm from a position straight out from the shoulders line.

My question is, how best should one use this information? Ignore it? Passive arm motion activated by one's gross body can lift the elbow upward, after all. I
think we all agree on that.

But how high should one let the elbow be lifted? Really high? Maybe not too high if one is as flexible as Sampras?

Should one ADD abduction to the elbow heighth one has chosen, and if so, when-- as part of upward arm extension?

I wish I weren't serious about all this.

My confusion, I guess, comes from witnessing good serves where elbow suddenly seemed to rise an extra bit or did I hallucinate this?

I've also heard this abduction referred to as if it's some kind of exotic strength test restricted to very elite players. But anyone can press either upper arm against the ear on that side-- that's not hard, no?

We wouldn't want to "pinch," right, for that would surely screw up anyone's serve?

I'm wondering though. Getting racket tip in lower relation to racket handle seems of paramount concern, and raising the elbow an extra amount seems one way of doing this.

If one shouldn't ignore the abduction idea but actively use it to add an element to arm extension, could stuff be simultaneous or would everything have to be in sequence, i.e. abduction first, triceps extension second?

I could use some common sense on this point. If you were to say, "Just get elbow where you want it, then leave it there," that would seem to make good sense to me. One teaching pro in fact said that already.

But if you were to say, "Go ahead and pinch, just pinch late," that might seem to make good sense, too.

As will whatever you really do say, I'm sure.

I was going to say what I always do: "The elbow should go continuously up and forward once it begins to rise from the bottom of the backswing if you do drop the racket from your starting position or from the start of the swing if you go straight up...but wait a minute, Roddick double clutches up - down - up with the elbow (not to mention the racket head movement)". So as you would say, bottle, there are no rules!

don

[bottle]

Thanks.

[stotty]

DON:

This where things get tricky. Some elbows (with Pro players) do dip slightly just before the upward motion; some go up higher than they should then dip down to the correct linear position - wasn't Newcombe's like this. With a lot of aspiring young players these type of faults - if we can call them that - can be catastrophic, yet some get away with it. It all conspires to make life tricky for coaches, as in what to leave alone in a player's serve and what to modify. And if you choose to leave an unorthodox looking serve alone because it seem to work well, will it work at the next level, or the one after that?

Borg looked like a joke when he turned up in the seventies, with his weird style and jerky strokes. Now, did Lennart Berglin have create vision and simply let Borg evolve as he did...or was Borg bloody stubborn, wouldn't listen to anyone and carried on his own way?

No coach of that era would have set out to teach Borg to play the way he did, would they? As JY says somewhere on this website "players innovate, coaches follow". I reckon Borg was stubborn and wouldn't change...just my guess.

Don: I am working on G's serve this weekend...will send you some clips.

[bottle]

I steal from everywhere. Each of these "mistakes" should be tried-- especially by players whose rotors limit them.