The "Body Fly" shot - a Fantasy

[don_budge]

hockeyscout...

So tell me, where did Nick Bolletieri, Peter Graf, Richard Williams, Mike Agassi, Wayne Bryant, Toni Nadal, Walter Bartoli, Pete Fisher and Patrick Mouratoglou play?

You have a valid point. Nothing is cast in stone…it seems. But I know next to nothing of any of the gentlemen you mention here. This is why in my original post here on this thread I made the following statement in which you have decided to run with in the entirely wrong direction…

But "Dreaming" is for free…whereas "flying" will get you killed. I love a good fantasy…just not when it applies to the fundamentals of tennis. But on the other hand I think that I would sorely miss the contributions of both GeoffWilliams and hockeyscout if they were not contributing. There is much room here…in the world of tennis. For all thoughts…no matter how strange they might appear to be.

…you see even if I don't agree with your approach to tennis or life or whatever…I leave open the possibility and the probability that there are other roads other than my own that will deliver you to the Promised Land.

All of my students learn to play tennis. I am not in the position to be a development coach. I do not have the resources to do so. I am however intellectually capable of doing just that. In my opinion it is probably more challenging to teach beginners how to play than to coach accomplished players. It requires endless patience.

My explanations are with words that seem to make sense to a lot of coaches here on the forum. I use some of the video resources here on the forum to support what I say but much of what I do is as you say "only with words". But this is an art also and one that you apparently do not appreciate or are intimidated by. On this forum countless times I have entered into discussions and contributed meaningfully without being shouted down and accused of "taking people's money unethically"…or as you have so wit-fully identified me as "don_budge, the tennis coach who's kids cannot play".

I will never understand in all of my life why you insist on engaging in such an antagonistic relationship with me…my only guess is you are envious. It's your problem and my advice to you is to get help to deal with it.

You put words in my mouth. You twist the things that I say. All that I am guilty of is answering the thread that you started with regard to your daughter. I was only trying to help. When it became obvious that you weren't listening or you didn't need my help I stopped communication with you. I didn't persist or stalk you. But the question for you is…Why? Why are you so gonzo on trying to discredit me?

By the way…I don't care. Not even a little. You are there and I am here. How could you possibly matter to me? You want to fight me? You see…you are a hockey player and you are ready to drop your gloves and I want nothing to do with you. Or rather I want nothing to do with your nonsense. If you wish to conduct yourself like a gentleman…I have absolutely no problem with you. Think things over and remember…"It isn't the strongest that survives or even the smartest…it is the one that adapts the best."

Good luck in life and I hope for the best with your daughter but I fear that you are instilling your combative attitude in her and it might not serve her so well in the future. You seem to be about as mean a person as I have ever met in my life. But as you say…what do I know?

[hockeyscout]

.

[hockeyscout]

Angry Federer ...

Not to angry:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-pjB2i9azg

[don_budge]

Bill Tilden on the "Body Fly"...

Found some clips of Del Potro's big forehands. He does leave the ground, but in the way Stotty and Phil are advocating; he does not launch himself at the ball, his upward momentum simply takes him off the ground; please notice his head is moving very little forward as he does this.

At the US Open with Federer in 2009:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RcxYFBOehU&spfreload=10

don

Those two forehands in the first clip are something else. It's one thing to be stabilised and hit shots like that but to hit with so much power running wide with the your weight moving laterally as in those two shots is nothing short of incredible. He must be awfully strong as well.

As don_budge has said countless times, it's all about positioning.

I remember that match between Federer and Del Potro. I have posted a clip a couple of times where Federer is cussing out the umpire in the match. Pretty funny stuff. Heat of the moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i7wDNhJrc4

But Stotty and tennis_chiro…he certainly blazes a couple of forehands here. And back to back points too…amazing. Interesting footwork and weight control. A beautiful example of these two very important fundamental aspects of playing tennis.

From Bill Tilden in "How to Play Better Tennis…a complete guide to technique and tactics":

"One universal feature is to be found in the games of all great players. They never seem to be hurried. Watching such stars as Donald Budge, Fred Perry, Bobby Riggs and Jack Kramer one gains the impression that they glide or float to the ball. They never rush at it or SNAP at it. Lesser stars and mediocre players always seem to be going at top speed, but they are often late for the shot. Their racquet work is crowded and hurried. The reason lies in the method of starting footwork. The champion starts with the correct foot and spaces his run so he arrives with the correct foot in position to hit, whereas the average player just runs at the ball to get there any way without care in preparation on the way over. All footwork should be used to bring the player to the ball with his weight under such good control that he can use it as he wishes when he hits the ball. Whenever it is possible to reach a shot without running, walk to it and keep the body perfectly poised. When the shot requires you to run do your fast running first so that you can slow up and gain control of your weight and body position before you hit the ball. Never jump or leave the ground with both feet or one foot if you can keep both placed firmly on the ground. The more solidly you are set the easier it is to hit the ball solidly.”

Tennis is golf on the run. I learned more about tennis from teaching and playing golf then I ever learn from playing tennis.

The key operative word in Tilden’s speech about footwork is “if”. Never jump or leave the ground with both feet or one foot if you can keep both placed firmly on the ground.

This is another pearl regarding tennis fundamentals not to be disregarded by any serious tennis teacher, player or student. The key operative word may just be in play any percentage of the time during the course of any tennis match. But Tilden differentiates between the “great” and the “mediocre and lesser”. The great are gliding and floating whereas the others are lunging and “body flying” all of the time.

Keep in mind that this was written when tennis was being played with wooden racquets and canvas sneakers and not with Prince racquet and Nike Air’s. Stability was even more important with less margin for error. With the new equipment the player is given way more artistic license which in the hands of the uneducated it can come back to haunt you just the same. After securing the fundamentals and mastering the same the athlete will naturally progress “into their own”.

It is the duty of the teacher to instill these fundamentals so the the student will have this opportunity down the line to create their own game as it suits them.

[hockeyscout]

Okay don_budge, whatever you say.

[tennis_chiro]

I can't tell. Is that an open or a closed stance?

don

[stotty]

Watch and learn...

I think this leaving the ground business has a lot to do with contact height and how hard the player intends to hit the ball. Just go into the archive and watch Federer's clips. On lower balls he seldom leaves the ground. On waist high balls or above he may leave the ground (or not) depending how hard he's hitting hit.

Stance is also a big issue it seems. On all his neutral stance forehands he keeps his left foot on the ground.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/rogerfederer/rogerfederer_forehand/rogerfederer_fh_center/rogerfederer_fh_center.html?FedererFHCenterNeutralStanceSide.mov

I didn't bother to work out percentages in the archive but he seems to hit more forehand on the ground than off it.

This is pretty much the best forehand you will ever see so why not study and learn from it. If a girl could learn to the this kind of thing, it would be a game changer. No woman has ever come close to hitting or utilising her forehand the way Federer does.

I love this Federer clips in the archive because they show him absorbing opponents shots...soaking pace up, something people don't often appreciate. You only get the spectacular playbacks on TV rather what is truly going on much of the time.

This game is all about control...being in control wherever and whenever you can...not losing it.

The vector momentum of the racket head is perfectly aligned with the outgoing path of the ball. And when you get the opportunity to hit a big shot, it's not a question of hitting harder; it is a question of releasing the energy of your swing in the direction of the target. The shot is going to have less spin and a lower margin of error, but it is going to have real "pace". There is so much emphasis on hitting topspin today that many players do not understand how to hit through the ball and release with speed. With today's equipment, they can get away with that shortcoming to a point. But understand, when Djokovic hit some of those zingers in the third and fourth sets, he was not swinging harder; he was just releasing the shot. Murray actually said something without understanding exactly what he was saying (or maybe he did understand), when he said that the way Novak was hitting the ball, it didn't take as much energy for him to hit his big shots. Djokovic was hitting with tremendous "pace".

don

The great are gliding and floating whereas the others are lunging and “body flying” all of the time.

[10splayer]

Yes, its great.

Nice clips.

Watch and learn?

What?

From 2014 ball?

Sorry, that will it work in 2028 ball.

It would be great to see everyone on here showing examples of what they mean using their own students, instead of Roger Federer. That would really help.

Regardless, fundamentals. I hear this a lot. I hear it from the judo and boxing coaches here, and I see the results in their athletes, so I get where they are coming from, and when they see my kid play they get where I am coming from, and we can then all have meaningful dialogue on what is happening as the results are right in front of our eyes, and it validates what we say about fundaments is true, and working well in real time (and just not theory). Most of the time we do not discuss fundamentals, we talk in terms of the "new" and the "next", and not what pro's are doing right now. For instance, the super man punch in MMA, us coaches talk about how we can expand that principal, and come up with a new that no one is experienced in defending against next. That's kind of how we roll.

Everyone says they are teaching them in the UK, USA, Russia and Ukraine but where are the great athletes compared to the NBA, NFL and soccer people who have access to billions of dollars of science and research, and are on the cutting edge of development. Those guys are teaching fundamentals. Tennis. No. Its a long ways behind. If you have ever taken certification to coach an Olympic sport, you'd laugh at the garbage tennis Ukraine has in place to "certify" their coaches.

In fact, John Yandell should have his own tennisplayer.net certification because I really hold what the federations are doing for certification in low regards compared to what you need to go through to coach track and field. Now, these associations can't be blamed, as lets face it tennis is a poor cash strapped sport. It'd be cool to see someone step forward and put together a certification program like John Yandell that actually had some merit to it because any guy can get him license and start claiming he is a tennis coach when he does not know the first thing about development. I call those coaches "weekend warrior tennis coaches", and they are scary to watch, and I worry they'll rip a kid arm out with some of the whacked out stuff they are doing, as do the other coaches here who are certified in Olympic disciplines, and are black belts like me.

As John Yandell pointed out, Jimmy Connors backhand would not be effective today against Nadal. I love Connors backhand. So, what he said was an eye opener, and it stunned me. And, he was right, 100 percent.

He also pointed out, people who don't know any better will come up with a new. Tennis has such an opportunity for the new, as its really behind other sports in terms of research and money invested.

Anyways, that is what us coaches from other sports believe looking in, and we could be right, or we could be wrong, so I'd guess the guys like me will be judged on how successful we are with our athlete first driven model.

As I say, the proof is always in the players you are developing, and whether or not they are winning, and the rest is just talk.

This current stickman version of tennis that is not built upon correct NFL - NBA movement models will not stick in my opinion.

Think of it this way, this is Chris Everett in 1990 teaching the forehand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9WOcEIjGJQ

Well, that is how five year old American's were taught in 1990, and in 2010 their games would not have held up with these types of fundamentals.

The ones that made it were doing the new, and not paying attention to what Everett was doing as it was not the correct way tennis should be played. Yes, look back at the clips, tennis was not supposed to be played the way it was played in the 1970's and the 1980's. And in 2028, what worked in 2014, will be out of left field. Its just a fact.

That is the challenge of coaching, how can you find a next? Those who do, win. Those who don't are following the pack, and never emerging.

And you think football and basketball players hare "highly" trained comparatively to tennis players? Are you nuts? Have you actually ever played football? You're a self proclaimed expert on every sport...Have you ever played these sports or been a part of a team? or is just your babble, classes that you took.

Cause trust me, if you actually played on a football team, you'd know, that getting half the players to even remember the plays is a tall order.

Do you think what Michael Jordon did out there was "highly" trained? You're seriously off your rocker..I'm actually not sure why NBA coaches are even at the games.

[hockeyscout]

.

[10splayer]

Yes, I have played. And, yes, NFL and NBA players are more highly and scientifically trained than tennis players. Have you ever seen a NFL playbook? Do you know anything about how complex an NBA defense is? Michael Jordan was an expert in movement, he was the first player who figured out elongation techniques which were eventually copied by every player. He trained all day, every day, and was the most focused athlete mentally until Kobe came along. Do you really believe the science in tennis is as advanced as other sports? Seriously? That's news. Billions have been invested into the science of producing NFL, NBA and Olympians in track - field, and nothing has been put into tennis.

It's obvious, that you didn't make all that money in the debating profession. Jordon figured it out all right, but not from people like you. That's the whole point.

Let's make a little gentlemen's bet. The loser has to shut their pie hole for a month. And I bet I know who Don Budge is rooting for btw.

Let's look at the backgrounds of the greatest basketball and football athletes over the last two decades and evaluate whether or not they were a product of extensive, knowledgable , coaching backgrounds..(Bobby Hurley would be an example)

Here's one. Marcus Dupree. Do you think Barry Switzer taught this 18 year old to do this? Or do you think it's because he was 6 foot 3, 235, ran a 4.45, benched 400 pounds/10x? About all they had to do with Marcus was teach him to catch the pitch and find the 2 hole.

http://youtu.be/KFovA5v20GE

[10splayer]

I think this leaving the ground business has a lot to do with contact height and how hard the player intends to hit the ball. Just go into the archive and watch Federer's clips. On lower balls he seldom leaves the ground. On waist high balls or above he may leave the ground (or not) depending how hard he's hitting hit.

Stance is also a big issue it seems. On all his neutral stance forehands he keeps his left foot on the ground.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/rogerfederer/rogerfederer_forehand/rogerfederer_fh_center/rogerfederer_fh_center.html?FedererFHCenterNeutralStanceSide.mov

I didn't bother to work out percentages in the archive but he seems to hit more forehand on the ground than off it.

This is pretty much the best forehand you will ever see so why not study and learn from it. If a girl could learn to the this kind of thing, it would be a game changer. No woman has ever come close to hitting or utilising her forehand the way Federer does.

I love this Federer clips in the archive because they show him absorbing opponents shots...soaking pace up, something people don't often appreciate. You only get the spectacular playbacks on TV rather what is truly going on much of the time.

This game is all about control...being in control wherever and whenever you can...not losing it.

Yes, yes, and yes Stotty. This is a great, on point, post. Agree with it in totality.

[stotty]

Yes, yes, and yes Stotty. This is a great, on point, post. Agree with it in totality.

It's the versatility of Federer's forehand that makes it so great. Nadal's is more secure but Federer can do more with his. He has the most incredible feel...which is unteachable of course.

It's hard to imagine forehands getting any better than Federer's or Nadal's. I suppose equipment could advance things but technically they are just superb.

What I like most about John's archives is many of the clips show the bread and butter stuff...not than the typical, spectacular action replay shots. In the archives you get to see Federer coaxing the ball in a couple of the clips.

I can't get on with this body fly stuff....simply can't subscribe to it.

[hockeyscout]

What really happens ...

[don_budge]

Fundamentalism…the foundation from which to build

From Bill Tilden in "How to Play Better Tennis…a complete guide to technique and tactics":

"One universal feature is to be found in the games of all great players. They never seem to be hurried. Watching such stars as Donald Budge, Fred Perry, Bobby Riggs and Jack Kramer one gains the impression that they glide or float to the ball. They never rush at it or SNAP at it. Lesser stars and mediocre players always seem to be going at top speed, but they are often late for the shot. Their racquet work is crowded and hurried. The reason lies in the method of starting footwork. The champion starts with the correct foot and spaces his run so he arrives with the correct foot in position to hit, whereas the average player just runs at the ball to get there any way without care in preparation on the way over. All footwork should be used to bring the player to the ball with his weight under such good control that he can use it as he wishes when he hits the ball. Whenever it is possible to reach a shot without running, walk to it and keep the body perfectly poised. When the shot requires you to run do your fast running first so that you can slow up and gain control of your weight and body position before you hit the ball. Never jump or leave the ground with both feet or one foot if you can keep both placed firmly on the ground. The more solidly you are set the easier it is to hit the ball solidly.”

The key operative word in Tilden’s speech about footwork is “if”. Never jump or leave the ground with both feet or one foot if you can keep both placed firmly on the ground.

But Tilden differentiates between the “great” and the “mediocre and lesser”. The great are gliding and floating whereas the others are lunging and “body flying” all of the time.

Keep in mind that this was written when tennis was being played with wooden racquets and canvas sneakers and not with Prince racquet and Nike Air’s. Stability was even more important with less margin for error. With the new equipment the player is given way more artistic license which in the hands of the uneducated it can come back to haunt you just the same. After securing the fundamentals and mastering the same the athlete will naturally progress “into their own”.

It is the duty of the teacher to instill these fundamentals so the the student will have this opportunity down the line to create their own game as it suits them.

I find it amazing that this description of tennis footwork aptly describes arguably not only the most aesthetically pleasing player of the modern era but the most successful as well. The most durable and the winningest. It also describes his surrounding cast at the top echelon of the game…if only in a microscopically lesser manner. Lesser stars.

The Tilden description of the great player is obviously referring to Roger Federer even though it was written in 1950. The most telling example between the great and the "other" would be the comparison of Grigor Dimitrov (the clone) and Roger Federer (the original). Even though Grigor has done a credible job in mimicking much of the Federer game he cannot do the same thing with regard to the Swiss Maestro's elegance and ability to set up to the ball…on the move…on the fly…or even standing still.

It is possible that the game may attract more "athletic" players in the future but that doesn't mean that it will change the fundamentals of the game. All fundamental changes to the game in the modern era are directly attributable to equipment and court surface. Other than that all changes are apt to be cyclical in occurrence with the current all-backcourt game replaced by a power net attack game if the surface or equipment is modified or change. It will not be because of human evolution or new super species of athlete.

John Yandell may have said that about Jimmy Connors backhand but that doesn't make it a fact. It is still speculation and I am not so certain that the Connors game would not match up to Nadal's and I am quite certain that it would with both players using the old equipment. If Connors were using the new equipment I certainly wouldn't rule him out either. That boy had some kind of competitive spirit…even though he was certifiably a "mama's boy" in the very sense of the word.

Connors movement to the ball and on the ball was another perfect example of durability as he holds the record in this regard in many ways. He perfectly fits the Tilden description of the great player and how he moves to and on the ball. Nadal has yet to fully determine his final standing in the record books…particularly if they happen to review his urine tests in the future. More speculation however…but his ever changing physique has been fuel for rumour. There are blogs devoted to his suspicious behaviour.

It's interesting to consider the teaching paradigm that I frequently quote here on the forum. Interesting in the sense that for instance how Jimmy Connors fits neatly into it…he certainly qualifies as one of the dots. The reference to Richard Gonzales as the model is one of multi dimensional aspects of the tennis players. It is not only for his style but for his emotional aptitude for the game. The winner instinct if you will. It was Jimmy Connors himself who has been quoted as saying that if there was one player he would have play a match for if his life depended upon it…it would be Richard Gonzales. Not that you can teach this aspect of a tennis player to anyone…you can only do your best to instill it.

The same might be said for Jimmy Connors. No matter what one might say about him subjectively he certainly had this essential aspect about him. Win at any cost…to himself. He inflicted a lot of pain on himself as he turned that intensity inwards on himself and it cost him. In many regards. But when he was playing a match…I cannot remember a single instance when anybody may have accused him of "tanking" or not giving one hundred percent.

There is nothing new under the sun…particularly when it comes to tennis fundamentals. Everything from 1920 on when Bill Tilden wrote the Bible on tennis "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball" is directly related and can be connected by the three dots. It is as I have maintained…The book is Bill Tilden. The model is Richard Gonzales with the Don Budge backhand. The coach is Harry Hopman and Roger Federer is the living proof. Eventually it comes down to footwork, grips and a bunch of other infinitesimal fundamentals. Things that have little or nothing to do with other sports or anything else for that matter…other than tennis. Tennis specific.

What goes around comes around…and so the world turns. A year is only a measurement of time. The time that it takes for the earth to travel around the sun and return to the point from where it came. The tennis ball goes back and forth over the net…over the years. It's funny…I was perusing "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball" and there is a picture of some fellow hitting an ATP 3 forehand back around 1920 or so.

Fundamentalism is not a dirty word. It is the foundation from which to build. A game such as Roger Federer's that encompasses not only the athletic, but the aesthetic and the frictionless machinelike yet artistic interpretation. These models come along once in a generation or so…they always have. From Tilden to Budge to Gonzales to Laver to Connors to Borg to McEnroe to Sampras to Federer. All of the slightly lesser "stars" as well. It's all connected…by the three dots. One might make an argument for the two handed game in the modern era…but it is as I said…all related to equipment changes. Not that the twohanded game is not a viable option…if just a slightly inferior one.

The coach might somehow assume the role of the architect…at least that is how it used to be. Nowadays there is the team…to go along with the extra racquets, bags and other necessities that the modern tennis player needs to take on the court with him nowadays to play a simple tennis match. This thread largely went in the direction of the Recovery Step articles…the Body Fly is largely mythological in nature or something that is employed as a gimmick by lesser players. Very good players no doubt…but lesser than the very best.

With all due respect to hockeyscout, even though you show none in return…even your impressive upbringing and personal history will not change the history of this great game. But it it does…if somehow your daughter is hoisting the Wimbledon trophy over her head sometime in the future, doing whatever it is that you are training her to do I will congratulate you…if the old man is still kicking. But not before. Nothing personal of course. But it won't happen unless at some point you hone in on the fundamentals of the game…which includes footwork and grips…which only is the prelude to tactics and spinning the ball.

But that being said doesn't make you "wrong" in my estimation…just so you understand. It only makes you somewhat unconventional or even unorthodox from my point of view, which are not dirty words in my book either. In fact…as you have noted many actually might think that good old don_budge is "revolutionary" but actually what he is defies description. Unless you use the word "fundamentalist" in your description…but that is only the beginning. He is an enigma…not in the least sense dogmatic in the end. Fundamentals are the foundation from which to build upon.

It's inevitable that everything is a derivative from Bill Tilden. He discovered or even invented the "modern game" of tennis. He wrote about it long ago and it has stood the test of time. Like it or not…it is one of those ironic facts of life.

[stotty]

John Yandell may have said that about Jimmy Connors backhand but that doesn't make it a fact. It is still speculation and I am not so certain that the Connors game would not match up to Nadal's and I am quite certain that it would with both players using the old equipment. If Connors were using the new equipment I certainly wouldn't rule him out either.

This was a small exchange between John and myself. All conjecture of course as these things can only be played out in our minds. John thought Connors would struggle taking the ball as early as he did in his heyday against Nadal and would end up hitting over the baseline. I thought it may not be so bad for Jimmy as that slightly opened racket face might enable him to hit under and through the ball better than most, as he would not have the battle of reversing the topspin to hit back with topspin as per the rest of the tour. If anything the incoming topspin might actually aid Jimmy's unique backhand a little...but then there is so much of it to deal with, topspin that is...4000rpm.

But of course you are right, Nadal couldn't hit that forehand with a T2000 so Jimmy wouldn't have to face it anyway...