Thoughts about Tennis Tradition...

[tennis_chiro]

Not quite that far back

Thanks Bottle. I forgot about Tilden who apparently used it quite a bit. Funny that you have to go that far back to find a model for the forehand slice, whereas the backhand slice is still popular on the tour today. Stotty must be right its the harder shot of the two to master. Still if a player could bring out a low skidding foreand once in awhile it would surely throw off his opponent.

You don't really have to go quite that far back. The summer after my senior year in high school (1966) when I was really just trying to learn to play, my coach sent me to see Jack Kramer's coach, Bob Harmon. I never did learn what he was trying to teach me and, frankly, didn't recover to learn to hit the forehand decently for over 30 years when it was really too late. He didn't really emphasize either topspin or slice, just turning the body through the ball. Here is a clip from the stroke archive of Kramer's slice approach:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/golden_legends/jackkramer/jackkramer_sa.html?JKFHSliceFront.mov

But if you really look at all of his forehands in the archives, most of them are slices. He was famous for pushing that slice into his opponent's backhand corner. I don't have video, but I don't think it was that uncommon of a tactic in the 60's and even well into the 70's. I'm reaching a little with my memory, but I think you would find players like Ralston, Gimeno, Graebner, Ashe and Osuna using the shot to great advantage. The winter of '70-'71, I was the pro at the Vanderbilt Tennis Club in Grand Central Station in NY and I got to practice just a little with Ralston, Ashe and Graebner, but my first introduction there to a "big time" player was when they trotted out this investment banker who was more than 20 years older than I was for a practice match. He just about knocked me off my feet with the depth and pace of his groundstrokes. I didn't know he had won Wimbledon and the Australian 20 years earlier. He could hit a forehand slice into the corner that made you want to dig a hole in the court to get it back. Dick Savitt had a tremendous slice or flat forehand.

http://www.nj.com/tennis/index.ssf/2011/07/politi_former_wimbledon_champ.html

Of all the pros I hit with that year (including Laver, Rosewall and Emerson - when they were getting ready for their $10,000 winner-take-all matches on the same surface in Madison Square Garden), his ball seemed the most difficult to handle.

BTW, Dick was a very successful investment banker. All the years I was in NY, Dick had just about the best box at the US Open, 1st row -right behind the server. Nice guy too.

So it's not that long since a slice forehand was used, but except for people like Santoro, it does seem lost. My old student, Paul Annacone did a pretty good job with it, but he couldn't hit a regular baseline drive with the big boys and had to rely on the slice and chip to get to the net.

don

[chuck62]

The rarest shot

Thanks Bottle. I forgot about Tilden who apparently used it quite a bit. Funny that you have to go that far back to find a model for the forehand slice, whereas the backhand slice is still popular on the tour today. Stotty must be right its the harder shot of the two to master. Still if a player could bring out a low skidding foreand once in awhile it would surely throw off his opponent.

[bottle]

Three Forehand Slices

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/golden_legends/billtilden/billtilden_sa.html?BTFHSliceCourtLevelSide1.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/golden_legends/billtilden/billtilden_sa.html?BTFHSliceCourtLevelSide2.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/golden_legends/billtilden/billtilden_sa.html?BTSliceFHFront.mov

[bottle]

~

I was interviewing a rowing coach in his kitchen one morning after his varsity schoolboy crew just lost the national championship by a whisker. At the same time they lost a free trip to Henley, England since sponsors aleady were lined up.

While the coach, Charles Butt Sr., was helping me with the magazine article I was about to write, the telephone rang.

It was the captain of the crew. I couldn't hear his end of the conversation, but Charlie said, "Tastes like ashes, doesn't it? And it should. If it doesn't taste like ashes you weren't trying hard enough."

[don_budge]

Theo loses 18-16 in Super Tiebreak...

tradi’tion n. body of beliefs, facts, etc., handed down to generation to generation without being reduced to writing; the process of handing down.

Returned to the club today to see some real tennis...while Monfils defeated Nieminen in the finals of the Stockholm Open in three sets.

Theo lost the first set at love but battled back to take the second set 7-5. In our series we play a "Super Tiebreak" if the players split the first two sets...for all of the marbles. The first to ten and winning by two wins the match.

The two opponents battled back and forth in what turned out to be an epic struggle. Theo won the 9-9 point to go up 10-9 but could not capitalize. They went back and forth...until Theo's opponent took advantage of a short ball and placed it squarely in Theo's backhand corner where he could not manage to return it. Final score 18-16 in the Super Tiebreak.

Theo managed to stay composed on his way to the net for the obligatory handshake but when that little piece of business was squared away he collapsed sobbing into his hands...and he was unable to stop. I was watching from behind the glass partition behind the courts as his father trotted over to console him. After a couple of minutes I went over to see if I could shed a little light on the subject.

"Theo", I said to him...his face still buried in his hands. "It's Steve. I came all of the way from Stockholm to see you play." No response, more tears. "Theo, it's Steve. You're ok, stop crying, you're ok. I am proud of you. You tried your best. If you would of won one more point the other boy would be the one crying. You're ok...it's alright." No dice.

His mother came over and eventually...it was a good ten minutes, maybe even fifteen he managed to stop sobbing and the three of us went over to the other side of the court to sort things out. He's eleven. I told the mother that it was probably better for him that he lost. The other boy just gave it a big "Yeah!" went off to pound some lunch and that was that for him. Theo, on the other hand, had to process the fact that he was number one, exhausted...plus he had to process coming out on the short end of the stick in an 18-16 marathon tie-break. I have never played an 18-16 tie-break. Mumsy and I had a nice little philosophical discussion about what good training tennis is for life...it's not always a bed of roses, it's not always a trip to the beach. Theo had a couple of cookies and I saw him smiling and laughing with the other boys who were playing in the doubles about a half an hour later. Kids.

The whole experience sort of shocked Theo. He'd never been there before. He was in uncharted waters. The drama really piled up. All of us tennis players know what it is like to lose a close one. You survive. You find a way. Wouldn't it be funny if one day he is in the Wimbledon finals playing against the American number one...going the distance to five sets, finding himself in a marathon tie-break and winning. The smile on his face will bear just a bit of a pained expression when his memory of "that day at Skultorps" snuck its way back into his noodle.

Sorry for the repetition...just shuffling the papers around. Rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.

[chuck62]

The elusive forehand slice

DB,

Looking forward to your thoughts on how to execute the forehand slice. I play alot of doubles and have had alot of success with a backhand slice approach, but can't seem to get the same confidence in an underspin forehand. So any advice you have would be appreciated. I'm a big believer in having a variety of weapons to use against any given opponent. As I study the archive, I see that Greg Rusedski and Navratalova also used the forehand slice as an approach shot. In some of the old footage on the TC it looks like Evonne Goolagong is hitting a pretty forehand slice as well, in fact she seemed to be able to hit just about any shot she wanted from the same continental grip.

[don_budge]

Slice forehands...funny you should mention that.

tradi’tion n. body of beliefs, facts, etc., handed down to generation to generation without being reduced to writing; the process of handing down.

chuck62 and licensedcoach...so great to see you guys in this neck of the woods. Super, super posts and one that I have been mulling over a bit. What about that slice forehand?

My prize pupil, Gustaf, has recently begun to show some of what I suspected to be true of him. He has a nice set of Jante Law ingrained in him from Swedish society...he is as smart, as nice, as good looking as the Swedish winter night is long. And he has been hanging with a Motor City original tough guy for the past three years...he has an Eight-Mile, Federeresque sneer on his face. Quite a look for a nice Swedish kid.

I switched him to a one hand backhand two years ago at the age of fifteen. He has just turned seventeen. Yesterday, in practice, he was coming over it with the elegance of a true Budge-esque drive and what pleased me most...was the Rosewallien slice he was knifing. In a way it was sort of sad for me...I no longer stand a chance against him. My inability to move and get in position severely limits me...against youth. He is better than he knows and with the revelation about the Rosewallian backhand there is no where for me to go...his forehand is rather overwhelming. Despite my personal sadness about my own limitations now, my pride and my happiness for him is...priceless.

We are going the Williams Sisters approach here...grooming for the mens game. Juniors are just a bit of practice. You know...it takes a lot more time and work to train a kid to play tennis properly. It's not just strong grip forehand and two hand backhands. To teach all of the nuances such as slice backhand, perfect service motion with all of the variety of spin and tactics, and all of the rest of it is a long and arduous process. A tough road to hoe. But when you get a glimpse of it coming to fruition...it is really a sight to behold. It's more or less up to him now. He is becoming a man...and he is doing exactly what I trained him to do. He is playing all court tennis. He is making decisions and thinking for himself. I hope that one of those decisions is going to be...kick ass and take names. It is another piece of the puzzle when winning becomes a huge part of a rather complex equation.

Just a little update...as the world turns.

As far as the total picture goes...coincidentally we are now polishing the forehand volley and the underspin forehand approach. This work we are embarking on now is going to be a huge linchpin. I am going to be publishing my thoughts...it helps me to hear myself think.

Thanks for your thoughts guys...they came at a perfect time. Now we have an underspin backhand...we proceed to the next piece of the puzzle, the weakest link in the chain...which is, of course, a work already in process. It's how you build a classic tennis player!

[stotty]

Sliced Connors.

Yes, the forehand slice does seem to be obsolete these days. The shot is far more difficult to execute well than a sliced backhand, I think.

Yeah, I have a visual memory Connors hitting a kind of inside-out sliced spin on his forehand approach shot. He seemed to hit across the face of the ball as well as under it. Anyone else remember Connors doing this? Or is it my grainy, visual memory confusing him with someone else?

[chuck62]

forehand slice anyone ?

Impressive homage to the venerable Rosewall backhand slice guys. Don't think I have ever seen a stroke with better grace or balance. Having seen the effectiveness of the backhand slice, even today, we see Federer using it to get the Joker out of his rythmn. Wouldn't it make sense for a player to have a decent forehand slice in the arsenal, that would stay low and skid out of the strike zone ? If so, is there any decent instruction out there on how to hit one ? I can't remember seeing anyone hit an offensive forehand slice these days, seems like they all use the defensive squash shot. Last offensive forehand slice I can remember was by Jimmy Connors. Is the shot totally obsolete ?

[bottle]

Wonderful Stuff

Wonderful stuff. Much more important than that I'm in it is all of the ideas in ALL of this material for me or anyone to hit this basic shot more easily and effectively including the when, where and why of it.

I think it funny that I can say that Rosewall's slice always looks the same in movies, and you point to this, and next thing you know we and others are finding variations all over the place.

For instance, in the Waltke article, Rosewall takes the racket tip quite steeply up, in the Cruz article only up to 45 degrees. This makes me think more about tennis_chiro and his insight about how one can use grip change to turn the racket over.

Do you want a little more drop in the motion? How about more whang from farther back? Also what are we to make of Rosewall's left arm?

Jim Kacian, haiku editor and former tour player, once kidded with me about the artistic license at the end of John McPhee's great book "The Game." That book ends with Arthur Ashe hitting a topspin backhand winner with both wings outthrust like a phoenix. But Ashe didn't hit his backhands that way! His left arm wasn't around a girl he was about to take home from a dance (Donald Budge's expression except for the part about going home). But his left arm was similarly curved if behind him, more like Ken Rosewall's left arm in a typical backhand slice.

The Waltke article doesn't provide the best camera angle to see this but the Cruz article does.

Rosewall is so balanced and swinging so easily that his curved left arm counters by two inches and no more.

Well, if you can calm down an insane horse by lowering its head, maybe you can give some structure to your slice by adopting this finish.

This seems preferable to making excuses about evolution, age, sciatica or talent. ("Ken Rosewall is a genius and you're not, you peon!") Better engineering, yes. I'm all for it.

[don_budge]

Watch the hand...which the racquet head is an extension of

tradi’tion n. body of beliefs, facts, etc., handed down to generation to generation without being reduced to writing; the process of handing down.

The "Muscles" slice backhand...

Watch the hand...it is quicker than the eye.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/classiclessons/trey_waltke/the_slice_backhand/the_slice_backhand.html

"In the Trey Waltke article, first up in the "Classic Lessons" section just to the left of here, racket tip stays level to the court immediately after contact, too, in the repeating video of Waltke's own tremendously effective slice."-bottle

This video was cherry picked to demonstrate Trey Waltke slicing a backhand in a petri dish. In all of these shots he has perfect balance, plenty of time and a ball in perfect position in order for him to demonstrate the objective of his technique lesson...which is a very sound one.

"But down below, where there's a plethora of still photos of Rosewall all in a cluster, one of them shows a sudden plunge of the racket tip from contact before everything goes up in a similar way."-bottle

Here is the reality of tennis...a subtle truth. This is an actual shot...possibly played in practice, but Ken Rosewall has not necessarily cherry picked this sequence and for good reason. Now we can see what happens under more game situation like conditions. This guy can apply leverage to the ball from any angle. The first picture shows Rosewall making a backwards movement because the ball is coming a bit deeper than he anticipated, hence he is adjusting his body and his swing to accommodate the bounce and speed of the ball. You can see from Rosewall's stance that he is playing a defensive shot, he is going to play this ball barely in front of his hip, with a combination of spin, placement and subtle pace to a place in the court where he has calculated that his opponent can do the minimum amount of damage to him on the next shot...as he did not have the time to line up his feet as he would have under ideal shot conditions so he does what all great champions and tennis players do...he ad-libs. He never really gets his weight onto his front foot, at least not not in the sense of going forward as he optimally would as his footwork and his momentum are going too much sideways, but you can see that just like Federer in the wonderful world of Yandell video "Forehand not Gone", he automatically moves his back foot into position behind his front foot in his best attempt to assimilate perfect hitting conditions...to hold his balance and to line up his shot. Here is a Great Master of the Game at work.

"All this material shows Budge and Rosewall getting arm straight sooner than Waltke, who starts straightening at same time but doesn't finish till shortly before contact."-bottle

This business about the "straight arm" is a very interesting point...but it actually does not have much to do with the actual shot production. What is fundamentally important is to observe the path of Rosewall's hand on the racquet...notice how it it follows on a pure parabolic path from the beginning of his forward swing until he finishes his follow through. Waltke's point of the "L" that the arm forms in the backswing and maintains throughout the swing is fundamentally spot on. Waltke's hand also is on "track" throughout his swing and is traveling at the same speed as his shoulders, which is the most important fundamental aspect of the execution of any tennis shot...get the racquet, which is an extension of the hand, on track. The wrist is going to play its part as usual as tennis_chiro puts it..."the passive hinge". Perhaps it is easier to imagine the racquet head being an extension of the hand if you use the ping pong paddle as the tool instead.

The arm is going to bend a bit depending on the length of the backswing and the amount of turn that the player is putting on his torso so at some point the arm is naturally going to flex at the elbow...largely because of the movement in positioning the body to a moving and spinning ball. In golf, this front arm is basically going to maintain its straightness, at least among professionals and for good reason. Number one, the ball is lying still on the ground so it is necessary for the arm to maintain its precise distance from the ball so that it will return the club head precisely to the ball. One must take into account the size of the golf club head also to realize the importance of the straight arm.

In a tennis shot the single arm backhand is a swinging appendage and it is the weight of the racquet head that will govern the straightness of the arm. As the hand is making its descending journey along the track that is basically parallel to the shoulders, the gravity of the racquet head is going to dictate the straightening of the arm at some point in the swing...and not some conscious effort on the part of the player.

Incidentally...when "Rosewall swings the open racket like a tray of canapes before he turns it over", it doesn't necessarily mean that something will happen more abruptly. It is only the Master manipulating the face of the racquet...everything is in place for the unfurling of the swing for the racquet face to meet the ball in the manner that he has designed it to. A tray of canapes...how bottle-esque is that? Nice play...Johnny!

The point of the attractive Swiss femme fatale leaning on the ball is the key to it all...she's the icing on the cake. Notice how Rosewall's weight is simultaneously sinking into his front leg at the very same moment that his racquet and his hand is sinking into the ball. Notice how his shoulder is lowering the boom on the ball at the same time. Sheer poetry in motion. By "leaning" on the ball with the simultaneous racquet head tracking the ball via the path of the hand you have a created a nice tasty recipe for a perfectly pitched "ping" on the strings...an underspin masterpiece. Voila!


With regards to Federer's slice...go down to "The Puzzle of the Slice", which is really no puzzle at all if you understand some basic engineering principles and the effects that they have "created" on the game of tennis...take a look at Roger's racquet and "hand" action on this shot.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strategy/john_yandell/wimbledon_2008_a_different_story/wimbledon_2008_a_different_story.html

Roger is a Great Master as well. He is not a slave to technique. Here he is altering his stroke to fit the circumstances and produces the perfect shot for the moment. I really like his action here...and if I was his coach I would have him using this shot against Djokovic and Nadal whenever the situation dictated, which means mixing it up with deep balls with variety of pace and spin, in order for the Swiss to get the Serb and the Spaniard just a bit out of kilter and off balance, in order to deliver the payload...the knockout blow.

I am puzzled why Federer does not use this tactic more often...but it is quite possible that there is something that I don't understand about the effects of the engineering on the game...the combination of frames, strings and court surfaces that may make this an unacceptable percentage tactic at that level of the game. Be that as it may...Trey Waltke is probably correct in his assessment that for 99.9% percent of the population this is still a great tactic.

[bottle]

Yes

A nice "Ahem." I now admit, after some fresh looks, that the filmstrip in the Sergio Cruz article shows Rosewall's racket tip staying level to the court immediately after contact before it rises to the right.

In the Trey Waltke article, first up in the "Classic Lessons" section just to the left of here, racket tip stays level to the court immediately after contact, too, in the repeating video of Waltke's own tremendously effective slice.

But down below, where there's a plethora of still photos of Rosewall all in a cluster, one of them shows a sudden plunge of the racket tip from contact before everything goes up in a similar way.

I'm not even sure of how to do this. I'm trying to figure it out! I'll go to a tennis court by Lake St. Clair in ten minutes! But whether I do figure it out,
it happens, and is testament to what we all know and assert, that this is a tremendously versatile shot.

Oh, also, in one of these various sequences-- don't care which-- Rosewall swings
the open racket like a tray of canapes before he turns it over = a more abrupt turning over. I still hold out for my idea that the turning over will be done before contact, which leaves two options: 1) blocked contact or 2) manipulated contact if these terms make sense.

Still haven't made it to the court. Still am editing through addition. What somebody like me wants to do, if studying the Cruz and Waltke articles, is continue to the link at the bottom of the Waltke article, which gets you to Sutherland slice.

All this material shows Budge and Rosewall getting arm straight sooner than Waltke, who starts straightening at same time but doesn't finish till shortly before contact.

Another topic to think about (along with whether Cruz fantasized a Detroit club) is whether to lower front shoulder for this shot or keep shoulders level like Muscles.
Tilting shoulders down is certainly one way to beef up contact with a weak continental. Another way is to roll arm a bit more. No matter which option I elect twenty minutes from now, I'll never forget a club championship I witnessed
at the Crooked Run Racquet and Fitness Center in Front Royal, Virginia.

This was a top flight mixed doubles tournament. One of the competing women was Swiss and very attractive and from the diplomatic corps in Washington, D.C.
We kidded about the relative height of mountains in Virginia and Switzerland.

What did she have for shots? Everything seemed ordinary, except for her backhand slice, and she and her partner got all the way to the final. Somewhere in the middle, around the quarter-finals, they played a match that wasn't so good.

She forgot to get her front shoulder down, she told me, didn't dig enough and lean on the ball, but by the final she was doing that again.

[don_budge]

Hmmm...Sergio Cruz, Ken Rosewall, Roger Federer, Carl Jung and a couple of things.

tradi’tion n. body of beliefs, facts, etc., handed down to generation to generation without being reduced to writing; the process of handing down.

http://www.tenniscruz.com/content/view/27/27/

I have this preoccupation with being "polite"...perhaps a victim of tennis etiquette. I originally posted in the "New Year's Serve" but once again checked myself on the basis of formalities and posted this in "Thoughts...". I don't care to step on bottle's toes...or anyone else's for that matter. I wonder what makes me tick? I know that I am not a nutcase. At least Frankie, my chocolate lab, assures me that I am not.

Such a relevant article with regards to the conversation we have been having about one handed slice backhands and the like, that more or less started with the Bernard Tomic thread. I must say...this conversation is so much more interesting to me than the ad nauseam discussions about topspin forehands and the technique that produces them. Isn't it wonderful to see Ken Rosewall and Roger Federer side by side stroking the tennis ball. To the author’s credit he actually touches on tactics...and the influence of technique on tactics. I don’t know...call me quirky.

“My favorite part of the whole Cruz article is where he describes how he and his buddy were at some courts and followed their ears to the best "clink" they heard, which was provided by Ken Rosewall's contact with a tennis ball. If people just pursued the best clink of which they are capable they might develop well! Let clink determine all, in other words, especially the details.”- bottle.

“In 1988 Jim Courier and I were entering an indoor facility where players were preparing for the Detroit ATP tournament.We could hear the resonant sounds of tennis balls being struck on dozens of courts but, we could not see the courts nor the players yet. A particularly clean sounding stroke attracted my attention and I said to Jim, "There is someone here that hits the ball cleaner then anyone else!"! We went to the court where this special resonance emanated from, and to our surprise...that someone was Ken Rosewall."-the author.

Interesting that you were attracted to this bit about the “clink”...I referred to the “ping of the string” in the 2011 US Open thread...just for funsies. For the life of me though...I cannot remember a 1988 ATP event in Detroit and I don't know of any site there that has "dozens" of courts...I am quite certain that I would remember that. It's before the fuzzies and the cobwebs started to form in my noodle. Perhaps there was a Senior event that may of even taken place at my club in Dearborn...The Fairlane Club. I find it curious if the author has not made a bit of a foggy memory issue here or perhaps he has "misspoken" ala Hilarious Hysterical Clinton. Misspoken was her way of admitting to being caught in a bold face lie. It's a euphemism...or not. Does it have any bearing on the article? Does truth have any bearing on anything anymore? Would it matter if he and Courier traipsing around some fictitious tennis club in the Motor City searching out some fabulous "clink" is only in his imagination to generate a basis for this article? Hmmm?

Anything done in the backswing should only serve to twist the rubber band that is the collaboration of your body, racquet and mind...the genetic makeup of your technique...it should only twist the rubber band so that there is no conscious effort required when you allow the rubber band to unwind “naturally”...of it’s own volition. tennis_chiro is absolutely right...dear old Kenny is not manipulating his forearm in the unwinding process, it is behaving on it’s own based on the physics of his winding up of his backswing.

The author makes some good valid points regards the differences in the Rosewall and Federer backhands but fails to ascertain the fundamental reason behind them. He makes the universal error these days in giving mankind too much credit in the “evolution” department with his “Evolution of the Game” synopsis comments. Mankind does not get much credit in the evolving department in the don_budge book on Anthropology and Mythology these days...it appears man is “devolving” in a rather pronounced spiral...right into the “mulch pile”. Is that too harsh? Not at all...man is too dependent on his devices and his oversized racquets. His yacking about the speed of the game and the court coverage is a lot of smoke...it’s the usual nonsense, it's only engineering and quite possibly drugs. It's only man's propensity to interfere with the nature of things. I think my post in the “Tomic” thread..."The bounce, the equipment and the ability to spin the ball...a sequel to Tilden", could of been substituted for his “Evolution of the Game” section...he may of summed things up nicely and very neatly with my help.

Perhaps it is boring for the reader to be constantly reminded that this is not evolution...it is engineering by definition. At no point does the author make any reference to the change in equipment unless his reference to “weapons of mass destruction” is an oblique reminder. The author is another victim of the “shock and awe” modern philosophy of man...it only serves to deceive which only serves for bigger lies to follow. It’s so insidious...that the sum of it all, is a disinformation society that practices indiscriminate warfare around the world. It‘s the Afghanistan thing. It’s all related...the cosmos ties it all together in it's own internet, before there was the internet, the "Jungian Collective Unconscious" the cosmos' own thread was/is entitled...”The Truth”. Rest assured it still exists even if it is buried in a huge pile disinformation...and sound bites and gigahertz.

Ahem...the frame that is missing in the Rosewall sequence is the frame between 5 and 6. Here we are left with only an approximation of where he is meeting the ball with his racquet. Where is the Yandellian VideoScope when you need it? The point here is that this point...”it” in the jargon of the don_budge world of tennis, that one moment in time and space where everything is perfect...may fluctuate to reflect the type of shot and the amount of spin that the old maestro Rosewall is producing.

Your observation and subsequent remark about his backhand “always looking the same but never described the same” is a beauty...and in your "bottle-esque" speak and manner, you have arrived at an important “truth”. It has all of the appearances of being the same, but it is the subtlety with which dear old Kenny will manipulate the swing to make the ball behave in subtle yet dramatic different fashions. It’s rather amazing how much he could do with underspin...by applying the same fundamentals to his variety of swings. We have lost so much in terms of subtlety. I certainly can understand how "shock and awe" and the playing with "weapons of mass destruction" are more appealing to the masses...based on our fascination with computer games, and virtual reality and virtual morality and the like.

I think that on the surface this is a pretty good article but if you dig a bit...there are some rather interesting discrepancies...which after all may only be summed up under the rather broad category of...”The Truth in Tennis”...and this article is a reflection in the world of Cruz.

The strength of it are in the pictures...and the comparison between good old Kenny Rosewall and the living proof...Roger Federer.

[don_budge]

To my friend...regards our conversation.

I was having this conversation the other day with a friend of mine...a younger man in his early thirties, I guess that dates his time of birth around 1981. Somewhere around there. We were discussing a couple of issues surrounding the sport of tennis. It wasn’t really a conversation...we were exchanging e-mails as it was. He’s a tennis player, or rather more specifically a tennis coach,he really knows his stuff...so he really knows how to go for the jugular...you know, hit you where it hurts. Tennis players eventually learn where the "soft" spots are. I am not one hundred percent certain if his comments were made to stimulate the conversation or if he really believed in what he was saying. For whatever reason that his intentions were...it made me think.

We were discussing an article that was entitled “Why Serve and Volleying has Become a Lost Art”. The conclusion that the author came to was that the reason that serve and volley doesn’t exist anymore was due to the fact that kids start training at too early an age where it isn’t practical to teach them all of the nuances of the game that are required to play all court tennis...which you dear readers know that I am a proponent of. I certainly cannot argue with the premise of the article, that the early expectations of young tennis players are sort of diametrically opposed to learning all court tennis...because that would mean sacrificing some early “success” as measured in terms of rankings in the relative age divisions, which makes it a difficult sell for parents and therefore coaches...we had no difference of opinion regarding this premise.

This business of grooming young children to be competitive tennis players really runs against my philosophy of life as it is today. I have my objections. I have my doubts about the modern ways. I believe that children are too young to be groomed for much of anything before the age of ten in 98% of the population, but the percentage gradually rises as the child gets older. Certainly there are exceptions and there is such a thing as a prodigy, I don't argue that, but I maintain they are few and far between. My question is...should we conduct our tennis programs in search of and for the betterment of that 2%? Or should we do what is more practical and even more sane with regards to the physical, mental and emotional health of these children...shouldn’t we target the whole population of tennis playing children in terms of recreation, health and happiness instead of the purely competitive model? Traditionally speaking...this is the way the sport was promoted way back when, say in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

Back in this period of time, tennis was more or less promoted as a family oriented recreational activity. Perhaps Mom and Dad had a couple of old wooden racquets lying around and every once in a while they would go out and bat the ball around. Chances are their children would tag along and they could amuse themselves at the park on the swings and seesaws, perhaps on the jungle gym or in a sandbox..or perhaps just sitting quietly, curiously watching Mom and Dad bat the ball around on the tennis court. Little Johnny or Suzie would watch for a period of time, but as normal kids do, they get a bit antsy...and another normal thing they do, they want to imitate Mommy and Daddy. They begin to want to play tennis. I know. This is how I started. Those are some really fond memories...when Mom and Dad were together and I was a boy. My Dad was "The Man"...not Stan Smith or Ilie Nastase or anyone else for that matter.

So...before you know it, Mom and Dad are batting it around on one court and Johnny and Suzie are messing around on another court, or messing around hitting against the wall, or maybe it’s not even on the court...maybe they are using paddles and another kind of ball to hit it back and forth. The die is cast. The hook is sunk. Eventually little Johnny and Suzie are not so little anymore and they make a decision to pursue the game of tennis...in the traditional sense. They eventually become old enough to make some decisions about their lives. So there you go julian1, Tim Mayotte, USTA, President Obama and the rest...give the family something to do besides knocking themselves out trying to put the next meal on the table. Make it a family recreational activity...not a preoccupation with a professional pursuit for children before they are ready. Our government is too preoccupied with other concerns and has no time for such trivial thoughts as peaceful, meaningful and family oriented activities. Stop the world!

If it were up to me...this aspect of life would be very high on my agenda. Perhaps our government has blown the window of opportunity and we continue to spiral right into the abyss...like the water in the toilet spiraling to the sewer. This is the way we should of been thinking back in say...1989 when “The Wall” was torn down and the Cold War supposedly ended. I know I was. I submitted a proposal to the Ford Motor Company that they courteously responded to...they were not interested in altruism...they were in the business of making cars. Making profits. There was a window there...to do good things. They blew it. Unfortunately, “The Machine” has other interests and they are not always in the American people’s best interests, as they are so often heard to tout. Whenever I hear the American President...such as a Clinton, a Bush or an Obama say something to the effect of “the American people want...”, I cringe as to what comes next after that statement. Normally it is something not in their best interests at all.

When tennis was treated as a family recreational activity, such as in the ancient decades of the 1960’s and the 1970’s, America was very strong in the world of tennis...well, we were strong generally speaking. In 1971, of the top 100 players in the world, 25 just happened to be Americans, 16 were Aussies and 7 were Brits. They were all basically serving and volleying by the way. The game wasn't all souped up. The tennis culture back then was not overtly preoccupied with producing great junior champions. No, they were more preoccupied with getting Mom and Dad involved in the game to give them something to do in their leisure time. The parents joined tennis clubs. You know, to get some exercise, to laugh a little, maybe even get a little angry on each other when they played mixed doubles together...eventually it was renamed “mixed troubles” for all of the animosity it produced. But in spite of themselves...Mom's and Dad's were having parties on Saturday nights playing mixed doubles into the wee hours...there was Men’s night on Friday night and the boys were having a beer or two with some pretzels at the club afterwards and not getting into any serious trouble...and then there was Ladies Day, which was everyday during the week, where the good looking tennis pro was having a field day in more ways than one. Somehow out of this concept of family recreational activities there were enough children taking up the sport to create a population of players where eventually some became competitive tournament players, and then a certain number eventually became college players, and of these another number eventually became professional players. Not always in that order...but you get my drift. It’s only a numbers game. Where's the mystery in that?

If you put enough monkey’s in a room with enough typewriters...sooner or later one of them will type out the King James Version of the Bible. Oh hell, even if they don’t get it right in the end it’s a lot of fun to watch them try. It’s fun to watch the children play...the more the merrier. The modern philosophy of immediate preoccupation of becoming the next so and so is stupid! It's supposed to be about having fun...not busting balls from the get go for a living. The more that children play...the healthier society is.

Back in the 1960’s and 1970’s there were many public tennis courts and believe it or not...many of them were being used. In the city where I grew up in a suburb of Detroit, we had three high schools and a community college and each had a set of at least eight tennis courts, the community college had ten. During the summer of 1971 I remember queuing up for a court with my father or driving in our little black VW Beetle to the next location because the queue was too long...too long of a wait. Each high school and the community college had varsity tennis teams with tennis coaches of at least minimal ability. During the summer each of the high school’s hired a couple of the best local junior players to work in the recreation department to supervise the tennis courts and conduct competition and tournaments for all levels of players...not just tomorrow's Superstars. At the community college there was a coach who spearheaded the program more or less for the entire city...he was an enthusiastic, traditional, Tilden/Gonzales loving, all court, charismatic, handsome tennis aficionado, who passionately loved to teach tennis. Surprised? There’s your recipe for success. A large population of willing students of all ages and abilities...and the Pied Piper or The Music Man. A charismatic teacher.

Obviously times have changed. For those of you that are not old enough to remember those days...it’s not your fault. Blame it on those responsible. Connect the dots. The three little dots. Keep in mind one thing as we go hurtling pall mall into the future. All change is not for the better. Training children to be professional tennis players is a sad and desperate measure. Truly pathetic.

So my friend...I hope that you are beginning to see there is a difference between a 1971 VW and a 2006 BMW. That Beetle may not go nearly as fast as the Beamer...but it is still on the road! But you are right...the Beamer will probably still be on the road in 2046. Hmmm.

More to follow...Part 2. Equipment and Athletes.

[tennis_chiro]

Johhny_Rattlesnake?

You are a piece of work, Johnny_Rattlesnake. The partner I won my gold ball with is part Apache. He played like it too. As good as anyone I ever saw inside the service line. Had to be to win a gold ball with me. But no groundies. He returned serve from a foot behind the service line, half-volleying the serves of some pretty good players and beating them to the net. In the mid 70's he had the long hair too. He should have played it up to get onto the Riordan circuit. But that's another story...

It would have been nice to have Bin Laden in a nice clean trial, but that would never have happened. By the way, you leave out the fact that he clearly put out videos under no apparent distress that he indeed was responsible for the things we accused him of. Clearly, there are way too many things covered up and needing of a little disinfecting sunlight. But those commandos were probably under strict orders to take no chances if there was any resistance at all. Let's not get the conspiracy theorists started on another fairy tale. There's enough real problems (like the story the ex-FBI agent came out with this week that there was a lot more Saudi involvement then we ever heard about).

My irritation is that while there seem to be lots of places in the world where, as Stotty might put it, a little American intervention seems warranted, we only get really involved when it involves our own financial interest. For one tenth or perhaps one fiftieth of the cost of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we could have been better off just sending in a few drones to kill Saddam and his cronies in Iraq and the leaders of the Taliban tribes in Afghanistan, for just a small cost, we could intervene in Africa and same millions, maybe even tens of millions of lives from poverty, disease and tyranny. We might even have been able to build some markets where we could have sold products or even created some manufacturing systems that could have thrived with our direction while raising the quality of life for those people. The cheapest way to solve the problem in the Middle East would be to just take the money we spend to maintain that situation and use it instead to raise up the standard of living of every Palestinian. Turn their part of the desert into an oasis. It must cost us upwards of $100,000 per Palestinian over the last 50 years. The real cost we pay per gallon of gasoline is probably double what you pay in Sweden, but the M/I complex is doing just fine, thankyou. What if we had just invested that money in building them up. Nope. We go to war and end up ... well, if you get to read Bottle's "Last Words of Richard Holbrook", you'll just get more worked up. I started, but it just gets me more upset.

Instead of using intervention for good, we have created enemies. We make pacts of cooperation with hoodlums like Karzai and send drones in to kill innocent participants in weddings. Collateral damage. Not to the damaged. And the cost: a broken economy and a generation of young men we need in the future who are shattered and irreparably changed by their participation in these "elective" wars.

These "get them over there before they get us over here" nuts have caused unbelievable damage to our culture, our economy and our principles. I don't think the founding fathers would approve of the Bush "adventures". There is a reason there is so much acrimony and inability to get anything done in Washington. Too much of our government is based on a policy that counts others as less than ourselves. That is not America!

The soldiers fighting for Saddam Hussein could have cared less about the United States. They certainly didn't care about Saddam. The fighters we kill in Afghanistan are mostly doing what their tribal leaders and mullahs tell them to do. The people sending those suicide bombers survive and even thrive. By and large, they live in the same conditions they lived in in the Middle Ages. Except now they have guns and IED's.

No...let's not do this. Let's leave the Tennisplayer forum a politics-free zone. Please.

don