A New Teaching System: The Serve: Technical Elements

[teamstrager]

The Truth of the Pitch!

I regret that I’m joining this thread late. It made me laugh out loud when I saw that someone had raised “The Myth of the Pitch,” because just two weeks ago I sent John a three-page email rant about tennis coaches that talk baseball and don’t know what they’re talking about. Whoever said that “The Myth of the Pitch” is dead wrong falls into that category.

The only fault with “The Myth of the Pitch” is that it barely scratches the surface. Here’s a description of a tennis player serving (and please keep in mind that this applies to the way virtually EVERY tennis player serves, whether it's in the U.S., Japan, Cuba, or the Dominican Republic): The sever stands completely sideways to his opponent, not three-quarters, not nine-tenths, not at a 45 degree angle, totally sideways to the baseline and the net, and they ALL do it that way, there’s not one exception, every single tennis player puts his feet totally parallel to the baseline and his body completely sideways to his opponent. Every single tennis player in the entire world then lifts his front leg up so that his knee goes above his waist, then drops that leg back down and out, leading with the heel and thrusting it forward into the court, while also pushing off with his back foot, until his front foot hits the court about four feet (or more) inside the baseline, at which time, the braking action of that plant foot on the court’s surface triggers his whole upper body to come forward as it rotates into a completely open position with the arm (and the racket) still dragging behind. And then when all of that linear and rotational kinetic energy has traveled up the arm, he finally strikes the ball with his racket, extending his arm straight out in front of him toward his opponent, causing his torso to become completely parallel with the court as his back gets as level as a table, at which point the server's rear leg automatically swings up as a counterbalance, with his back foot going up over the level of where his head is now--keeping in mind that the server's head is now at or below the level of where his waist was when he started. And, as I said, 99.9999% of servers around the world serve that way!

Oh wait. That’s not a description of a server! It’s a description of a pitcher—but the two motions are sooooo “biometrically similar” I just got them completely confused. COME ON!!!!

[tennis_chiro]

Hey John, Roddick's Kinetic Chain was pretty efficient.

Raul,

Good question. I think it's the opposite. If you look at Sampras and Fed they are both partially closed. This is related to the stance and the turn away from the ball in the windup. In my opinion the role of the torso rotation is maximized when still moving at contact. Most all the women are wide open at contact. Roddick has a great serve obviously but it is based more on his arm action and legs in my opinion. Fed and Pete have more complete use of kinetic chain.

John, you must have seen your Northern Cal neighbor's video analysis of Roddick's serve. Whatever else anyone might think of Bob Pritchard's analysis, it is pretty good fodder for the argument that, on the contrary, Roddick used the elements of the kinetic chain much more completely than Federer. The numbers for external rotation of the arm and rotation of the hips say Roddick was actually getting much more out of the kinetic chain. And he did top out at about 20 mph faster than Federer. Whether or not he was as efficient and accurate may be another question.

For those of you that haven't seen it, just remember to take the analysis with a grain of salt or skepticism. In any case, there is some great video of Roddick's motion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLf_MJXzBVg

don

[johnyandell]

TC,

Yes I have seen this. I have no doubt that Roddick has more backwards or external arm rotation than probably anybody--excpet maybe Pete. One of the problems though with the conclusions here is that the author is making angle measurements down to the degree from 2D video. You really need the three dimensional perspective of Brian G. to do this if you want to claim more than an estimate or "about."
Second I think this analysis is wrong about the angles of the hips and shoulders at contact. Our high speed video shows that like Sampras or Fed, Roddick is closed at contact partially.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/high_speed_archive/pro_men/andy_roddick/andy_roddick_v1/andy_roddick_v1.html?AR1stSDeuceRear-0264427-0001.mov

And Sharapova and the other women are open. He's clearly wrong about that.
Sharapova is more closed at times than other women which is probably one of the things that makes her serve better, but still you don't see the men in this position at contact:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_woman/maria_sharapova/ms_serve/ms_1st_serve/ms_1st_serve.html?MS1stSAdFront3.mov

No doubt Fed and Pete also turn further off the ball than Roddick. If Roddick did he would be more closed at contact as well in my view. So although he gets incredble leg drive and his arm action is supernatural, not sure he is using his torso as well as the other two. But that reduced turn also goes with his lower toss and faster motion--and obviously it was very effective--to say the least.

It's all subject to opinion but my take is that Roddick makes use of that flexible shoulder and abbreviated motion to develop incredible racket speed--but for just those reasons he is not a good model for other players.

Here's something about the hips and shoulders and the angles that is quantitative:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/avancedtennis/john_yandell/sampras_serve/sampras_serve_hip_and_shoulder_rotation/

[DougEng]

John, you must have seen your Northern Cal neighbor's video analysis of Roddick's serve. Whatever else anyone might think of Bob Pritchard's analysis, it is pretty good fodder for the argument that, on the contrary, Roddick used the elements of the kinetic chain much more completely than Federer. The numbers for external rotation of the arm and rotation of the hips say Roddick was actually getting much more out of the kinetic chain. And he did top out at about 20 mph faster than Federer. Whether or not he was as efficient and accurate may be another question.

For those of you that haven't seen it, just remember to take the analysis with a grain of salt or skepticism. In any case, there is some great video of Roddick's motion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLf_MJXzBVg

don

Just saw this. See John's comments. I agree with John. Mr Pritchard's numbers are inaccurate (and at least one top sport scientist also concurs).
He is correct on explaining kinetic chain but the numbers are incorrect. In addition, it is questionable if hip speed will be responsible for greater speeds on the serve as research tends to contradict his suggestion that hips are a major contributor. This doesn't mean they are not essential since they act as an important link from the ground forces to the last links for racquet head speed (shoulder and arm). He has to sell his hip trainer so this might help some people, especially golfers and some tennis players who don't know how to use the body correctly.

[tennis_chiro]

More than a little grain of salt

TC,

Yes I have seen this. I have no doubt that Roddick has more backwards or external arm rotation than probably anybody--excpet maybe Pete. One of the problems though with the conclusions here is that the author is making angle measurements down to the degree from 2D video. You really need the three dimensional perspective of Brian G. to do this if you want to claim more than an estimate or "about."
Second I think this analysis is wrong about the angles of the hips and shoulders at contact. Our high speed video shows that like Sampras or Fed, Roddick is closed at contact partially.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/high_speed_archive/pro_men/andy_roddick/andy_roddick_v1/andy_roddick_v1.html?AR1stSDeuceRear-0264427-0001.mov

And Sharapova and the other women are open. He's clearly wrong about that.
Sharapova is more closed at times than other women which is probably one of the things that makes her serve better, but still you don't see the men in this position at contact:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_woman/maria_sharapova/ms_serve/ms_1st_serve/ms_1st_serve.html?MS1stSAdFront3.mov

No doubt Fed and Pete also turn further off the ball than Roddick. If Roddick did he would be more closed at contact as well in my view. So although he gets incredble leg drive and his arm action is supernatural, not sure he is using his torso as well as the other two. But that reduced turn also goes with his lower toss and faster motion--and obviously it was very effective--to say the least.

It's all subject to opinion but my take is that Roddick makes use of that flexible shoulder and abbreviated motion to develop incredible racket speed--but for just those reasons he is not a good model for other players.

Here's something about the hips and shoulders and the angles that is quantitative:
http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...lder_rotation/

As I pointed out in my comment, take Pritchard's analysis with a grain of salt and a little skepticism. I've always felt he was playing a little fast and loose with his numbers derived from just 2-D analysis. It's still great fun to watch the video. It would be nice to have the same 3-D analysis Brian did on more of those elite servers. My experience tells me that the hip turn is, however, very important. I think it enables the server to get into the proper "power position". I haven't got any data to back it up, but I feel like the power derived from that turn is much more important than the power derived from bending the knees for a deep leg thrust. In reality, you need both, but I see too many kids struggling with inefficient kinetic chains when they are trying so hard to get huge thrust from their legs. I feel they need to master the rest of the chain before they start applying leg thrust that propels them a foot off the ground. You can serve over 100mph with almost no leg thrust (Schlaken!), but it's murder generating anything significant without a good sequenced release of the chain from hips to shoulders to etc.

BTW Doug, I bought one of Pritchard's Power Hip Trainers, but for my golf swing. I think his concept has some validity, but the machine is very difficult to get to work. I couldn't get the damn thing to stay connected to my hips. Never got around to modifying the rigging enough to give it a good try. Still hope to. I need some distance on my shots these days! I also do my own version of "microfibre reduction" when I do Graston Therapy (GrastonTechnique.com). But I charge about $40 per treatment instead of $400 that it looks like Pritchard charges (without any kind of state license as far as I can tell either).

In any case, the more articles you can put up like that last one about Pete's serves with all the numbers, the better. It would be nice to see some more of those with comparisons of more top ten players.

don

don

[johnyandell]

Don,

You don't ask for much do you? We are going to try to do some additional 3D in Cincy. Little more difficult than our usual magic. OK exponentially so...ok borderline impossible...ok we may pull it off...

JY

[tennis_chiro]

We're spoiled! We've come to expect nothing less,

Don,

You don't ask for much do you? We are going to try to do some additional 3D in Cincy. Little more difficult than our usual magic. OK exponentially so...ok borderline impossible...ok we may pull it off...

JY

You see, John, you've spoiled us. Here's the motto used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Seabees") during World War II:

"The difficult we do immediately. The impossible takes a little longer."

And no, I wasn't there!

don

[DougEng]

As I pointed out in my comment, take Pritchard's analysis with a grain of salt and a little skepticism. I've always felt he was playing a little fast and loose with his numbers derived from just 2-D analysis. It's still great fun to watch the video. It would be nice to have the same 3-D analysis Brian did on more of those elite servers. My experience tells me that the hip turn is, however, very important. I think it enables the server to get into the proper "power position". I haven't got any data to back it up, but I feel like the power derived from that turn is much more important than the power derived from bending the knees for a deep leg thrust. In reality, you need both, but I see too many kids struggling with inefficient kinetic chains when they are trying so hard to get huge thrust from their legs. I feel they need to master the rest of the chain before they start applying leg thrust that propels them a foot off the ground. You can serve over 100mph with almost no leg thrust (Schlaken!), but it's murder generating anything significant without a good sequenced release of the chain from hips to shoulders to etc.

BTW Doug, I bought one of Pritchard's Power Hip Trainers, but for my golf swing. I think his concept has some validity, but the machine is very difficult to get to work. I couldn't get the damn thing to stay connected to my hips. Never got around to modifying the rigging enough to give it a good try. Still hope to. I need some distance on my shots these days! I also do my own version of "microfibre reduction" when I do Graston Therapy (GrastonTechnique.com). But I charge about $40 per treatment instead of $400 that it looks like Pritchard charges (without any kind of state license as far as I can tell either).

In any case, the more articles you can put up like that last one about Pete's serves with all the numbers, the better. It would be nice to see some more of those with comparisons of more top ten players.

don

don

Hi Don,

Yes, I imagine the hip trainer might be more critical for golf and baseball. So you are certified in the Graston Technique. One ATC did in for me to help a knee injury (post-surgery). It worked a little. Not as effective as another technique. There's is a good amount of scientific skepticism on GT. What's your take, being certified in it?

Doug

[tennis_chiro]

Certification Is Not Enough

Hi Don,

Yes, I imagine the hip trainer might be more critical for golf and baseball. So you are certified in the Graston Technique. One ATC did in for me to help a knee injury (post-surgery). It worked a little. Not as effective as another technique. There's is a good amount of scientific skepticism on GT. What's your take, being certified in it?

Doug

Doug,
Unfortunately, Certification doesn't mean that much. I have lots of certs. Probably will get more now that CA is requiring us to do 24 hours of annual relicensing postgrad work instead of 12. For Graston, it just meant doing 2 weekends and taking an exam that was pretty straightforward for a chiropractor. It was only a few hundred dollars each weekend. But you had to pay $2700 for the set of Graston tools. When I took the first course over 10 years ago, I opted to buy the tools because I was so impressed with the results. I've done a lot of soft tissue work and been trained in all kinds of techniques: Shiatsu massage, Nimmo deep tissue work, trigger point therapy, applied kinesiology. I've had quite a bit of Rolfing done to me. One of the weekend seminars I took over 20 years ago doing one of the first 100 hour certification courses to sit for the Certified Chiropractic Sports Physician exam was offered by Mike Leahy who founded A.R.T. (Active Release Technique) a short time after that. I've used the techniques Leahy taught us to work on numerous rotator cuff injuries. ART is one of the gold standards in deep tissue therapy now (and costs about $5000 in gold to take the courses). Graston is a lot like ART, but a lot easier on the thumbs. This is coming from someone who is not certified in ART. It's also a lot easier on the patients. The thing I liked right away about the Graston tools was that I could feel things I couldn't feel with my bare hands. The explanation is that you are feeling scar tissue and adhesions between the muscle and the sheath in which the muscle is supposed to slide freely. Those adhesions would have been a natural sequela of your knee surgery. You need to get rid of them, but the body doesn't like to give up any of its tissues. Pritchard at Somax calls them microfibers which he "reduces" through microfiber reduction.

In any case, I've found the Graston Therapy to be very effective. Sometimes even miraculous. Unfortunately, it does not work as well as I would like on tennis elbow. Great for the muscles well away from the site of the inflammation, but the attachments at the epicondyle (medial is tennis elbow, lateral is golfer's elbow although a bad backhand can easily give you golfer's elbow) need a lot of time to calm down and heal. On the other hand, I've had great luck with Graston for rotator cuff problems. Patients who had problems for months or more made tremendous progress in just a couple of weeks and as little as two treatments. But be careful. The therapist needs to be knowledgeable and conservative. The tools give the therapist tremendous leverage. I'm pretty careful, but even I have made patients very sore the next day. That is also part of the treatment. As well as breaking up the adhesions, the therapy stimulates growth and production of fibroblasts and the microtrauma initiates the healing cascade. Actually following through fully with the treatment protocol includes icing and exercising to emphasize increasing range of motion. I'm most successful when I am working in the belly of the muscle as opposed to the origin or insertion. However, you often don't have that option and have to get very close to the bone.

I'm aware there are some studies out there that discount a lot of the claims, but there are also good studies that support those claims. It's being used by other health care providers besides chiropractors and there are a lot of clinicians and patients who swear by the results. An awful lot of professional sports teams are employing Graston. It seems to me it gives superior results with a lot less patient as well as provider discomfort.

The patient is usually a little sore the next day and needs to employ ice and exercise. But if there is a long standing stiffness or reduced range of motion associated with an injury or even healing process, Graston should definitely by one of the first therapies to try.

don

[bottle]

omigod

[bch1]

Serve Technique

The best serious of videos going over all points of the serve I have ever seen!

Bryan Hiner

[johnyandell]

Bryan,

Thanks. I think so myself. Glad you agree!

John Yandell

[stotty]

I have been working my way through the series again and have a question about direction, placement.

When I was a kid information was handed down by better players. One thing that was continuously handed down in my generation was the key to direction.

Back then the better players would tell us to delay opening the shoulders to serve down the middle (deuce court) and open them a fraction early to serve wide. I am talking minuscule amounts.

We all took onboard the advice and, might I add, have accurate serves.

Now was it baloney we were told back then or was there something in it that triggered positive things to happen? Just curious...

[johnyandell]

Stotty,

Great question and the point was also made by another poster. You know what? I am not really sure. I plan to go back and look at some placements from various camera angles and see. We know that the angle of the racket head and it's path is the final determinator, but can that be created in multiple ways?
One of my big insights personally in working on this series was how Fed and other top servers (though not all) got the full arm rotation on all the placements. Thought that was quite interesting with the advice about around across and around and through etc that you often hear about placements.
That is what caused me to look into the hand and arm rotation differences. Maybe the shoulders is another way to produce the same. (Of course anyone could do the same investigation in the stroke archive and post the links...)

[stotty]

Stotty,

Great question and the point was also made by another poster. You know what? I am not really sure. I plan to go back and look at some placements from various camera angles and see. We know that the angle of the racket head and it's path is the final determinator, but can that be created in multiple ways?
One of my big insights personally in working on this series was how Fed and other top servers (though not all) got the full arm rotation on all the placements. Thought that was quite interesting with the advice about around across and around and through etc that you often hear about placements.
That is what caused me to look into the hand and arm rotation differences. Maybe the shoulders is another way to produce the same. (Of course anyone could do the same investigation in the stroke archive and post the links...)

Thanks for that. I did wonder. I have an orthodox serve and it feels for all the world that my shoulders are playing a part in direction.

I must say despite all the years I have been coaching I find the serve immensely complex. To me it's all a bunch rotating segments, pulleys and levers that at times take a great deal of fathoming and understanding.