2103 Macci on the serve

[don_budge]

Some validity...

First cross sport analogies are ridiculous and have no validty. You can't equate a baseball and a tennis ball and a bat and a racket.

Second if you take the time to actually look at Rick Macci's articles on this site you would see that you have not understood what he is saying and are making inaccurate statements that make you look at the least uniformed, and at worst, malicious.

Don't we have any moderation on this board? It's starting to sound as bad as Tennis Warehouse message board.

Tennis is in another dimension separate from other sports. For one...it is an individual endeavor for the most part therefore the mindset is entirely different. There are physical aspects of swinging a tennis racquet that share similarities with other sports swings. Some universal laws apply. But what separates tennis from the rest is the psychological and the tactical...some would say the spiritual. It's metaphysical and mystical. But that may have gone the way of tradition...into the black hole of technology. Tennis etiquette? What is that?

It does start to resemble TW now...doesn't it? More like television. Time to move on?

[10splayer]

Macci teaches the type of topspin forehand that is used by most pro players today. (That is why the pros make so many forehand mistakes.)

First, let's look at a baseball swing, or a golf swing. At contact point, can you see the solidity of the hitting elbow, a LITTLE BIT AWAY from the "gut" of the body? (I will define the gut as the area between the belly button & hip. the elbow should feel, during the swing, that it can always quickly return to that solid feeling, a solid connection with the gut.) You can see that, during practice swings, a good baseball hitter has his/her elbow solidly close to that gut location at contact with the ball, & actually lets the elbow & bat move in a way in which the elbow is always in a groove with that gut.

Same with golf. Same with cricket. Same with all sports that use a club or ball. Actually, I enjoyed a Tennis Channel show, Destination Tennis, in Rome. The host, Mayleen Ramey, was being taught to use a gladiator's sword. If you notice, the movements of effectively using a gladiator's sword in combat are amazingly similar to effective tennis forehands & backhands, & effective golf & baseball swings.

I don't agree with everything that the famous coach Oscar Wegner teaches, but I like the way Wegner teaches to keep the racket out front in preparing for the ball, in tracking the ball (similar to the way Cibulkova does, for instance....although Dominika has other flaws). This is what I call a forward-set swing, a forward-emphasis swing. Recently, Steve Johnson blasted Tommy Haas off the court with Johnson's forward-set forehand.

But the first thing Macci teaches on the forehand is to destroy that groove between elbow & gut. He teaches as David Nainkin does -- to force shoulders & hips sideways, to get the racket too far back (Macci thinks this is "tracking" the ball). Players taught Macci's way learn to let the ball come to them. Supposedly, players prepare with the racket tip up, & then only have to let the racket drop to start their loop. In reality, players' rackets get stuck in the racket-tip-up preparation, & then players have a hard time getting the racket moving again. It is a backwards-set, backwards-emphasis type of forehand.

Because pro players who use the Macci forehand have trouble re-starting the movement of the racket, I call that type of forehand a multiple piece swing, a multiple segment swing. There is a sad stop in the swing, similar to a stop of

kink in the service motion. Macci's forehand is not a flowing, natural, continuous, 1-piece motion. Teaching Macci's forehand is akin to teaching a kink in the serve.

The Macci, Nainkin style forehand is the reason that today's ATP & WTA players make so many forehand errors, the reason why they have trouble handing short balls well. Federer's forehand does not have as pronounced a Macci motion as most circuit players today. Yet sometimes Fed makes the ugliest forehand errors, due to the slight incorporation of the Macci Nainkin ideas into his forehand. I've seen Roger almost whiff easy balls that are sitting up & only a little bit short, because Roger in his head prepares the racket in his forehand the way Macci suggests.

WBTC,

I appreciate your attempt to clarify, in detail, your thoughts on stroke production. So lets talk about some of the points you make.....I have a few questions

Lets start with this.

Based on the below video, please illustrate to me, how the racquet stops and starts..."a multiple segment swing". Please point out where the hitch is in the loop. How is this anything but seamless?

Incidentally, the term multi segmented is a term that many use to describe kinetic chain principles, whereby different body parts rotate at different times and speeds to maximize end point racquet head speed...not sure your usage here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4VxccAUPto&hd=1

[stotty]

Where is that voice from...

I took a look at the Rick Macci video on the serve. It's good. He gets across all the key points we've now become so familiar with on Tennisplayer through the work of Brian Gordon and John.

What is it with women and serving? Is it that the biomechanical chain is easier to develop in men than women? If so, why? Why is it so much harder to develop serving fluency in women.

As always Rick gives us the critical information that may go some way to improve things...the timing of the leg drive in relation to the swing and what to LOOK for. I think this is the important thing in coaching, where to go look, recognising key positions and their relationship to one another.

You can't help but like Rick. He's unmistakeable with the hat, shades, and voice. What part of the US is his accent from? His accent seems to have the same twang as Tracy Austin? Are they from the same region?

He's a confident fellow, isn't he? He's certain he's right. He's become even more confident and certain with Brian Gordon's science in the background.

I really liked the video a lot. It's definitely the sort of thing all coaches should watch and take things from.

[stroke]

Kyle, thanks for the links to Steve Johnson's forehand. I took a look at them and his forehand to me looks like a Brian Gordon/Macci endorsed type 3 forehand. I certainly don't understand what wbc is getting at. I do remember on an old thread here on tennis player.net, wbc was criticizing the type 3 forehand and then he admitted he had not even read the two articles by Brian Gordon on it. I think Macci does a very good job of explaining why the type 3 forehand is the most efficient way to hit a forehand.

[klacr]

Education

Stotty,

You are welcome. I'm trying to understand what wbtc is trying to explain. I think I see it but I don't want to put words or explanations in his mouth. Trying to give him an opportunity to help all of us so we can learn as well. That makes all of us better and therefore our students and our profession. Big issue with our industry today is coaching education. Just trying to help. That's why I'm on here.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

Sorry if I misused the word segment in a way different than other people use it. I wish I could re-write those words. My point is that I like for the racket to keep moving, rather than start-stop-start. I prefer an all-at-once swing to a start-stop-start swing.

Steve Johnson has changed his forehand somewhat. It used to be the way David Nainkin teaches (& the way Macci sometimes teaches), but now his initial reaction is to set the racket more forward as he tracks the ball, the way Oscar Wegner espouses. To my eyes, Johnson could even tighter up his forehand further, but at least he is making adjustments & trying to improve.

I watched the Federer video. I don't like Roger's initial reaction (where he prepares the racket) as he sees the ball coming to his forehand. You are right that in the easy warmup hitting that Roger is doing in the video, Roger's racket motion is somewhat continuous. However, at 1:10 in the video, you will notice that Roger leaves the racket in the racket-tip-up position for a long time as he runs for the ball. That motion is not continuous, & makes his swing less explosive.

Just as a baseball player keeps his or her bat in a smooth groove, during practice & actual swings, I believe tennis players should always keep their rackets in a smooth groove. (See Cibulkova for a smooth groove for the topspin forehand, but I wish she would abbreviate her huge backswing loop.) But when Federer & other pros are taught to prepare the racket in that racket-tip-up position that is too far back, the racket goes out of an efficient smooth groove. Then Fed & others must make complex adjustments during the swing in order to save the swing. The racket-tip-up, too-far-back preparation sets up players to let the ball come to them, rather than attack the ball out front.

[dimitrios]

I haven't gotten to the FH and BH videos yet. As for the serve video, it certainly seems valid. Nothing groundbreaking here, however. And certainly nothing that required 26 minutes of listening to a guy who routinely loves the sound of his own voice. A lack of discipline. All of this could have been said in, literally, three minutes.

[GeoffWilliams]

Tough to listen to all that. I did not get through it either.

[10splayer]

Sorry if I misused the word segment in a way different than other people use it. I wish I could re-write those words. My point is that I like for the racket to keep moving, rather than start-stop-start. I prefer an all-at-once swing to a start-stop-start swing.

Steve Johnson has changed his forehand somewhat. It used to be the way David Nainkin teaches (& the way Macci sometimes teaches), but now his initial reaction is to set the racket more forward as he tracks the ball, the way Oscar Wegner espouses. To my eyes, Johnson could even tighter up his forehand further, but at least he is making adjustments & trying to improve.

I

watched the Federer video. I don't like Roger's initial reaction (where he prepares the racket) as he sees the ball coming to his forehand. You are right that in the easy warmup hitting that Roger is doing in the video, Roger's racket motion is somewhat continuous. However, at 1:10 in the video, you will notice that Roger leaves the racket in the racket-tip-up position for a long time as he runs for the ball. That motion is not continuous, & makes his swing less explosive.

Just as a baseball player keeps his or her bat in a smooth groove, during practice & actual swings, I believe tennis players should always keep their rackets in a smooth groove. (See Cibulkova for a smooth groove for the topspin forehand, but I wish she would abbreviate her huge backswing loop.) But when Federer & other pros are taught to prepare the racket in that racket-tip-up position that is too far back, the racket goes out of an efficient smooth groove. Then Fed & others must make complex adjustments during the swing in order to save the swing. The racket-tip-up, too-far-back preparation sets up players to let the ball come to them, rather than attack the ball out front.

WBC,

When assessing the quality, continuity, seamlessness,of the backswing loop, one needs to observe the movement (above characteristics) after the hands break apart...The momentum 'Killer" is when there are hitches AFTER the hands separate..In this case, .regardless of whether Roger was hitting casually or running across the court, the backswing flowed once the hands separated and he stepped into the backswing..Not only was it continuous, but the TEMPO was
the same...Think that's pretty obvious..This leads to better TIMING. In fact, i have students "key off" this portion of the swing. To try to maintain continuity and tempo after the hands break....The mind will start to fill in the blanks as to WHEN they should separate to maintain the flow ..Least that's been my experience.


Here's the thing, though, In order to maintain that continuity and tempo, the hands will break apart at slightly different times, in order to adjust to the vast array of incoming ball characteristics. (Time, space, spin, depth, velocity etcl)
The game is not played in a vacuum.

Having said that, the vast majority of times, after the unit turn, the hands will step right into the backswing...

Btw, Im not going to be hypocritical and dog Oscar, but I disagree with MUCH of what he says. VIDEO contradicts many of his claims

[tennis_chiro]

Great Point

WBC,

When assessing the quality, continuity, seamlessness,of the backswing loop, one needs to observe the movement (above characteristics) after the hands break apart...The momentum 'Killer" is when there are hitches AFTER the hands separate..In this case, .regardless of whether Roger was hitting casually or running across the court, the backswing flowed once the hands separated and he stepped into the backswing..Not only was it continuous, but the TEMPO was
the same...Think that's pretty obvious..This leads to better TIMING. In fact, i have students "key off" this portion of the swing. To try to maintain continuity and tempo after the hands break....The mind will start to fill in the blanks as to WHEN they should separate to maintain the flow ..Least that's been my experience.


Here's the thing, though, In order to maintain that continuity and tempo, the hands will break apart at slightly different times, in order to adjust to the vast array of incoming ball characteristics. (Time, space, spin, depth, velocity etcl)
...

I really like this point about no pauses after the hands separate. I have one player in particular and I struggle to get him to limit his initial move to the unit turn and not stick the racket back and pause, actually with two pauses; this seems like a clearer way to present the task. The idea that the hands separate at different times depending on the ball also fits with what I presented in my articles here about timing vs rhythm.

don

[10splayer]

I really like this point about no pauses after the hands separate. I have one player in particular and I struggle to get him to limit his initial move to the unit turn and not stick the racket back and pause, actually with two pauses; this seems like a clearer way to present the task. The idea that the hands separate at different times depending on the ball also fits with what I presented in my articles here about timing vs rhythm.

don

Yes Don,

Those two articles you were wrote were outstanding...I mean really good. But yeah, there really isnt much benefit to a loop, if the racquet starts and stops after the hands break..

I've actually had quite a bit of success with students when i have them focus on continuous movement in that portion of the swing. It really helps clarify when the backswing should start. (releasing of left hand).

You should write more here....

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

We can agree to disagree, but I also need your help.

I don't like the "unit turn" that Macci, Nainkin & most top coaches today teach the top players. I think the unit turn is responsible for relatively inconsistent, inaccurate forehands on the pro tours & elsewhere. The unit turn method teaches students to:
- Release the free hand from the throat of the racket prematurely;

- Track the incoming ball with the racket set too far back;

- Use an unnecessarily large backswing;

- Align oneself to the side of the ball too much, rather than getting behind the ball;

- Stay sideways too long during the stroke;

- Hitting the ball at impact sometimes to the side of the body rather than out in front more towards the net & target;

- Stop the racket after the unit turn, then try to get the racket started again once the ball comes;

- Let the ball come to the student, rather than trying to flow forward & catch the ball at the peak of the bounce.

I give many of the pros credit, because they seemed locked in to making many errors with their unit turn forehands, but over time have tweaked their forehand technique & gotten a little bit away from the unit turn, compared to the way they used to hit the ball (e.g., S. Williams).

Some members here say that the unit turn forehand is only 1 of 3 forehands that Macci mentions. I saw an instructional special on the forehand by Macci, on The Tennis Channel. There, he advocated the unit turn forehand only. Again, here in this thread, in the video link of Macci teaching the forehand, I see Macci talking only about the unit turn forehand.

Does anyone know where i can find the discussion by Macci of Type 1, Type 2, & Type 3 forehands? Thank u.

[stotty]

Don't shoot the messenger

Some members here say that the unit turn forehand is only 1 of 3 forehands that Macci mentions. I saw an instructional special on the forehand by Macci, on The Tennis Channel. There, he advocated the unit turn forehand only. Again, here in this thread, in the video link of Macci teaching the forehand, I see Macci talking only about the unit turn forehand.

Does anyone know where i can find the discussion by Macci of Type 1, Type 2, & Type 3 forehands? Thank u.

You need to go to the root source of what the three forehand types are all about. Rick Macci just teaches (popularises) what Brian Gordon discovered in his research. The three forehand types are discussed in detail in the articles. They aren't a quick read and take time to digest, but well worth the effort if you do.

Good luck!

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/biomechanics/brian_gordon/developing_an_atp_forehand_part_01/

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/biomechanics/brian_gordon/developing_an_atp_forehand_part_02/

[10splayer]

We can agree to disagree, but I also need your help.

I don't like the "unit turn" that Macci, Nainkin & most top coaches today teach the top players. I think the unit turn is responsible for relatively inconsistent, inaccurate forehands on the pro tours & elsewhere. The unit turn method teaches students to:
- Release the free hand from the throat of the racket prematurely;

- Track the incoming ball with the racket set too far back;

- Use an unnecessarily large backswing;

- Align oneself to the side of the ball too much, rather than getting behind the ball;

- Stay sideways too long during the stroke;

- Hitting the ball at impact sometimes to the side of the body rather than out in front more towards the net & target;

- Stop the racket after the unit turn, then try to get the racket started again once the ball comes;

- Let the ball come to the student, rather than trying to flow forward & catch the ball at the peak of the bounce.

I give many of the pros credit, because they seemed locked in to making many errors with their unit turn forehands, but over time have tweaked their forehand technique & gotten a little bit away from the unit turn, compared to the way they used to hit the ball (e.g., S. Williams).

Some members here say that the unit turn forehand is only 1 of 3 forehands that Macci mentions. I saw an instructional special on the forehand by Macci, on The Tennis Channel. There, he advocated the unit turn forehand only. Again, here in this thread, in the video link of Macci teaching the forehand, I see Macci talking only about the unit turn forehand.

Does anyone know where i can find the discussion by Macci of Type 1, Type 2, & Type 3 forehands? Thank u.

Fair enough World. I would second what Stotty advises. No one here, would do them justice. Look through it, and tell us what you think.

[stroke]

Yes Don,

Those two articles you were wrote were outstanding...I mean really good. But yeah, there really isnt much benefit to a loop, if the racquet starts and stops after the hands break..

I've actually had quite a bit of success with students when i have them focus on continuous movement in that portion of the swing. It really helps clarify when the backswing should start. (releasing of left hand).

You should write more here....

Those 2 articles by Don on timing and rhythm were good enough to me to be required reading before tackling Brian's articles on the ATP forehand.