Interactive Forum February 2012: John Isner Serve

[johnyandell]

John Isner Serve

No doubt John Isner has a monster first serve. Here it is in glorious high speed, high def for you to study. If you look at his arm action you'll see he has a fabulous racket drop and massive hand and arm rotation. But note his unusual starting stance with the shoulders slightly open and his ultra wide stance. Check out the pinpoint stance as well. Note the timing of the feet leaving the court. But what does this do to his shoulder rotation? How does his torso angle to the baseline compare to Federer or Sampras? And what about that head position? Your thoughts please?

[johnyandell]

Quicktime Version

[vrc10s]

Isner doesn't have nearly the shoulder coil of Sampras. Isner turns away from the net much less and is is facing the net much more at contact. Isner has a much bigger kick back.

As John Yandell said great racquet drop and arm and shoulder rotation.

It helps to be 6'9"!!

[gzhpcu]

Adding to what vrc10s said, Sampras tosses the ball more to the left, gets more lateral lean, getting more topspin element in his serve.
After impact, his hitting arm elbow bends more and stays up longer, which seems to me also indicative of heavy spin.
His head seems to stay up longer after impact...

Saw him play Daviscup against Federer last weekend. Awesome serving...

[cburr]

Isner's power serve

Great footage! I think this is a first serve by Isner and is a pure power serve in that he is hitting almost completely flat which Pete almost never did and Federer rarely does. I would like to see a second serve when Isner kicks it for comparison.

Isner's stance is relatively (as well as absolutely because of his height) wider and reminds me of Ivanisovic, another power server. Isner's stance is similar to Pete's in that the relationship of left foot to right foot is almost identical and significantly, when Isner comes to the pinpoint stance, his hips are rotated back so that he will be able to uncoil into the ball and this counteracts his being more open with his shoulders. That openness is partially a result of Isner's tossing arm going more toward the net (i.e. across the baseline) than Pete's or Roger's - this is a power server's toss and allows greater shoulder turn to more openness with the shoulders at contact.

Additionally, it seems to me that Isner's grip is a little more toward the eastern forehand grip than the continental grips of Pete and Roger. He is not over as much as Becker used to be and also he has his wrist bent in the beginning and during take-back as one would with a continental. This "slightly forehand" grip allows for a flatter contact.

I am guessing that he rotates the heel of his hand slightly toward the top bevel or bevel 1 on his second serve when he kicks and that his shoulders do not open to the same degree when he kicks the serve. I would also expect to see the same amount of knee bend on his second serve or perhaps a bit more; in any case I think his knee bend is significantly greater than many power servers like Ivanisovic or Richard Kraichek (wrong spelling) and in that sense he is like Roddick.

I am intrigued by John Yandell's question about the timing of Isner's jump; I think John Isner is probably leaving the ground a little earlier which allows him to rotate his shoulders more open than Pete does.

[johnyandell]

C Burr

Think you are definitely right about the open shoulders. But as we see in many pro motions that is probably a function of the sliding pinpoint stance which reduces the amount of turn away from the ball.

What I meant regarding the feet was how both feet seem to leave the ground at the same time. That's not always true with pinpoint stances. My question was whether he as getting more back leg push because of it.

Actually it's a bit of a trick question. As you can see these are all first serves in the ad court. The funny thing is that he back leg comes off later when he serves in the deuce. We'll see that when we put up the rest of his game in the Archive.

[synergy]

Racquet drop

I am wondering if racquet drop is the thing we should be saying when we see the racquet in that position. I cringe when I see young players trying to actually drop there racquets when hitting serves and overheads. The racquet gets in that position because of the movement of the arm and shoulder.

[florian80]

The first thing I see is the typical fluid motion of great servers with the racket moving from right to left without any stopping whatsoever.

Additionally he turns his hand more than most players just after the racket drop so that the racket is not just alongside the right edge of his body but even a bit further on the outside, pointing almost slightly to the right fence. This then results in greater movement in the other direction towards contact and in the end greater acceleration. Roddick is the other player that comes to my mind that turns the hand that far

[cburr]

months later response

C Burr

Think you are definitely right about the open shoulders. But as we see in many pro motions that is probably a function of the sliding pinpoint stance which reduces the amount of turn away from the ball.

What I meant regarding the feet was how both feet seem to leave the ground at the same time. That's not always true with pinpoint stances. My question was whether he as getting more back leg push because of it.

Actually it's a bit of a trick question. As you can see these are all first serves in the ad court. The funny thing is that he back leg comes off later when he serves in the deuce. We'll see that when we put up the rest of his game in the Archive.

Thanks for your response. I have looked at this footage again and see your point about the two feet leaving the ground at the same time in pinpoint stance: different than Ruzedski, LeConte, Ivanisivec. He get off the court as far as Federer or Ferrer and lands remarkably well inside the baseline given that the two foot push-up tends to go straighter up. He must be getting more power. He's expending a lot of energy to serve like this since he's a big man.

These sequences seem to be to the deuce - does have a high kickback. Wow. Great footage of a great serve.

[tennis_chiro]

Check that internal rotation

I just had to pipe up here when I saw a comment from my old doubles partner, Chris Burr. I met Chris almost 30 years ago (Feb '83) when we played in the final of the Santa Monica 35's. There wasn't much senior play in 25's or 30's in those days, at least not in SoCal, so we were just getting our feet wet in senior tennis. I was feeling pretty positive after taking Chris to a 3rd set tie-breaker, but that was to be the only time I got a set off of him. I think he went undefeated in SoCal that year and earned the number one ranking. But I was able to convince him to play doubles with me and got my only SoCal Sectional championship and #1 ranking as a result! His play was as crisp and sharp as his commentary is here.

A lot of great points being made and questions being raised about pinpoint stance and drive up off the ground for power, but I think a couple of key pointers offered up by this video are not getting enough attention. I think Florian is on to a very important element of a great serve: the movement of the head of the racket over onto the plane of the shot in the racket drop so the momentum of the racket can be developed more efficiently toward the target. Also, in spite of the fact Isner seems to have a very weak continental grip and almost closer to an Eastern forehand, he gets tremendous internal rotation. I always try to get my students familiar with the classic post-contact position of Sampras's racket face and shaft with the head pointed down and the face almost perpendicular to the net; I want them to recognize there should be a full 180 degree turn of the racket face through the hit. But take a good look at the last of these slomo serves of Isner. Go to the contact point and back up 19 clicks and you will see the racket came through more than 90 degrees of internal shoulder rotation as it approached the contact point from the "drop", probably about 120 to 130 degrees. But then after the contact, go again 19 clicks forward and you will see Isner didn't just come back to perpendicular to the position at contact; he seems to have gone 60 to 75 degrees beyond that; that's a total internal rotation of well over 270 degrees, perhaps as much as 300. That's amazing, especially with that grip. I've got some clips I got of Isner from the 2009 Farmer's in LA at 210 and 420 fps. The video is not as clear, but he really does get that much internal rotation. I think players should be paying more attention to this source of power and less on how much they can get off the ground with their leg thrust.

At the same time, it is important to note that when Isner meets the ball with his feet a full foot off the ground (maybe more), he's meeting the ball probably a full 2 feet higher off the ground than I ever did (at just under 6'). The height of the bounce of the serve is a function of how much the spin has forced its trajectory downward, but mostly it's a function of how far the ball has dropped. Now, understand that gravity can only contribute speed as a function of how long the ball is in the air and regardless of what height the ball has dropped from, traveling at 140 mph, it only has so much time to gain speed from gravity. But to get that ball down to the ground from that higher height, Isner is able to hit the ball down at a steeper angle. Another way to look at it is to think of vertical velocity of the serve. At 140 mph, the serve only has about a third of a second to get down to the court. Instead of dropping 9 1/2 ' from my contact point, John's serve is dropping almost 12 feet in the same amount of time (assuming incorrectly that I could hit the ball that fast). John's serve has to have almost 25% more vertical velocity to get in the service box and that is one reason the ball is going to jump that much higher. Just think "angle of incidence = angle of reflection" reduced by the COR of the ball's bounce. To me, this is a much better reason to execute Isner's leaving the ground to hit his serve than the idea that his legs are driving up to give him additional power. While that may be true, I think the trade-off in consistency from such a difficult feat as well as the associated fatigue argue against trying these gravity defying service actions. Of course, being 6' 9" is a whole different story in any case.

don

[stotty]

I think this has been a great study of Isner's serve, and I agree with much of what has been said. The thing is how can coaches quantify what parts of the chain are delivering what in terms of power? How much power, percentage-wise, is coming from that colossal drive up to the ball? How much from the racket drop...racket speed....and sheer physical strength? Are they all equally responsible or do some elements deliver far more power than others? Are these things actually quantifiable...or can we only rough guess how much power is coming from where? Where's BG when I need him?

When I get kids to drive up to the ball, they get more power, but not hugely more.

Krajicek had a wide base which closed up to a pinpoint stance on execution, but he didn't so much drive upwards like Isner as much as forwards into the court (designed for S&V I guess). His feet leave the ground at the same moment. I like Krajicek's serve, it's fluid, it has great rhythm...it's silky.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/richardkrajicek/richardkrajicek_serve/rk_1st_serve/rk_1st_serve.html?RK1stSDeuceCourtLevelSide2.mov

At the end of the day, isn't a well placed 130mph enough?

[tennis_chiro]

Brian already did a lot of the work

I think this has been a great study of Isner's serve, and I agree with much of what has been said. The thing is how can coaches quantify what parts of the chain are delivering what in terms of power? How much power, percentage-wise, is coming from that colossal drive up to the ball? How much from the racket drop...racket speed....and sheer physical strength? Are they all equally responsible or do some elements deliver far more power than others? Are these things actually quantifiable...or can we only rough guess how much power is coming from where? Where's BG when I need him?

...

Stotty,
I'm guessing you've already seen Brian's series, but perhaps you forgot the extent of his breakdown. It's already a couple of years ago. Some time when you have an afternoon suddenly rained out and you have a lot of spare energy, sit down and tackle Brian's detailed presentation in his series on the serve

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/biomechanics/brian_gordon/upward_swing_part_1/upward_swing_part_1.html

entire series at:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/biomechanics/scienceofbio.html

The particular article I have given the link for here directly addresses the questions you are asking. I wouldn't say it quite gives a complete answer, but it goes a long way toward understanding the contributions of different parts of the service motion. I dare the series of articles could be used for a sizeable portion of a college level and perhaps even post-graduate level biomechanics course. You kind of need to study the series for a couple of weeks just to be able to formulate the right question to ask BG. Every once in a while I revisit, but I haven't been able to devote enough time to satisfy myself that I understand what he has presented there.

don

[stotty]

Stotty,
I'm guessing you've already seen Brian's series, but perhaps you forgot the extent of his breakdown. It's already a couple of years ago. Some time when you have an afternoon suddenly rained out and you have a lot of spare energy, sit down and tackle Brian's detailed presentation in his series on the serve

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/biomechanics/brian_gordon/upward_swing_part_1/upward_swing_part_1.html

entire series at:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/biomechanics/scienceofbio.html

The particular article I have given the link for here directly addresses the questions you are asking. I wouldn't say it quite gives a complete answer, but it goes a long way toward understanding the contributions of different parts of the service motion. I dare the series of articles could be used for a sizeable portion of a college level and perhaps even post-graduate level biomechanics course. You kind of need to study the series for a couple of weeks just to be able to formulate the right question to ask BG. Every once in a while I revisit, but I haven't been able to devote enough time to satisfy myself that I understand what he has presented there.

don

Thanks for that, don.

Yes, I had read the articles. It's complex stuff, and you're absolutely right, a coach needs to read them over and over a number of times to become fully familiar.

Having skimmed a few of the articles over again, it seems like serving and quantifying what's producing what power-wise is an individual business. No two serves are alike and different models can both produce the same fantastic speeds as each other. Like BG says there is no "silver bullet".

Very interesting to reread "the contributions of joint rotations to racket speed" in the article. I need a software that can measure angles in my students' video clips.