Weight Shift on Serve

[rstrecker]

A topic that I am not sure how to manage in my own serve is the timing of the weight shift and the related (I think) "archer's bow" position. I was looking for some discussion on that and did not find anything.

It sort of looks to me like these vary between pinpoint stances and platform. (I use a platform.) Within great platform serves it also seems to vary. My sense is that Nole and Dimitrov move onto the front leg a lot sooner than Roger and Pete.

Is there any material on this coming or anything somewhere in the archives you would look at for guidance? Any other thoughts on this topic?

Ray

[GeoffWilliams]

As long as the racquet drop is deep, it doesn't matter. Most rec. players are just never deep enough regardless of wt. transfer, stance, form. So the value you will get out of a deeper drop is more than the value of sooner/later wt. transfer. Nole uses: platform, as did Pete, and Fed. The only way to increase drop depth is arch your back more into the archers' bow and reach back as far as possible.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/10/sports/tennis/facing-a-150-mph-tennis-serve.html?_r=0

Notice how Sampras keeps his shoulder and elbow, all the way back, so when his elbow comes forward, it's kept back as far as possible, which creates a higher elbow, more stressed power, a higher margin for error. And he arches his back and scrunches forwards, bringing the elbow and contact point more directly over head in a straight line up/down with his shoulders, than to the right side. The further your contact point is to the right, the lower your elbow will be coming up. And that is why he scrunches off to his left going leg driven fowards.

[tennis_chiro]

Geoff is right. It doesn't make that much difference as long as you get the deep "pro drop" position John Yandell has referred to that puts the racket shaft parallel to the right side of the body. The critical timing is that you come out of that archer's bow and straighten the body to its maximum length just as the racket reaches the bottom of that "pro drop". This upward extension working against the inertia of the racket head and its momentum as it swings down from the trophy position enable you to get the maximum stretch and store the most power possible in the shoulder muscles through external rotation before you go up to the ball with extension at the elbow and internal rotation at the shoulder. In this sense (if you can possibly understand what I am saying), the timing of the shift upward is very important to your power. There are some good articles by Brian Gordon where he goes into all the biomechanics and the power storage in the various elements of the serve and backs it up with some great analytics and graphics.

Then there are other articles by Doug Eng under Tour Strokes about Service Rhythm that go into more detail about the weight transfer.

I am part of a group of us (at least I think I am not alone) that think the weight transfer is an essential part of the rhythm of the toss and without appropriate linkage between the toss of the ball and the "rock" of your weight transfer (whether it is back to front like Sampras or front to back to front like Krajicek or very complicated but consistent like Roddick), you can never have a consistent, reliable toss and, therefore, will never have a consistent, reliable serve. For me, the weight has to be going forward as the tossing hand is rising; separate those two and you lose the lynchpin that holds everything together. I see it as a little more complicated than that, but that is the crux of the matter.

And almost all the fuss that is made about the rhythm of the toss and the weight transfer is about maximum power with little or no regard for the damage some of these motions are doing to the underlying rhythm of the service motion. If you go back to the 60's and 70's and even somewhat later, everyone had 90% or more of their weight on their front foot by the time the tossing hand was extended and the ball was going up. Now a lot of players with very good serves only move to a little past 50% and bring the rest of their weight forward during the leg drive. I don't think the added power, if there is any, is worth the damage to the basic motion and essential rhythm of the toss; but I've never been able to get much support for that position although I have raised the issue on previous occasions.

But try Brian Gordon's articles on the serve in the Biomechanics section and Doug Eng's articles on the serve in Tour Strokes. They should give you a lot of guidance.

These clips will show you something. Observe where the head and the center of gravity is as the ball is released and as the left arm is fully extended. Sampras is more pinpoint in his weight distribution than a lot of people think. Observe the position of the weight when they start the upward part of their leg drive. Fed is the only one of these who doesn't get almost all of the weight forward by the time he completes the toss; he has a true platform thrust with a lot of contribution from the right leg. Many say the best serve in the modern game; but more people give the nod in that department to Sampras. I think there are big differences in the rhythm and the weight distribution of the two serves. Sampras clearly transfers almost all his weight forward as he completes the toss; not Federer. Sampras's hands start higher and his motion is a true up and down together nature although his severe shoulder slant makes it look like a staggered motion; I'd say it is not.

Roddick:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/andyroddick/ar_serve/ar_1st_serve/ar_1st_serve.html?AR1stSDeuceSide1.mov

Sampras:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/petesampras/ps_serve/ps_1st_serve/ps_1st_serve.html?PS1stSDeuceSide1.mov

Krajicek:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/richardkrajicek/richardkrajicek_serve/rk_1st_serve/rk_1st_serve.html?RK1stSDeuceCourtLevelSide1.mov

Federer:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/rogerfederer/rogerfederer_serve/rogerfederer_1st_serve/rogerfederer_1st_serve.html?Federer1stSDeuceSide1.mov

Becker:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/modern_legends/borisbecker/borisbecker_serve/bb_1st_serve/bb_1st_serve.html?BB1stSDeuceSide2.mov

Gonzales:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/golden_legends/panchogonzales/panchogonzales.html?PGServeCourtlevelSide.mov

Williams:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_woman/serenawilliams/sw_serve/sw_1st_serve/sw_1st_serve.html?SW1stSDeuceSide2.mov

I think, on further reflection, it is important to note the timing of Sampras's deep knee bend before his leg thrust. It doesn't happen until after he fully extends the left hand and the toss is gone. The knee bend is not a good variable to include in the toss of the ball. I have always told players to bow, not bend, but if they do go deep, I don't want that to be part of the actual tossing action.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/petesampras/ps_serve/ps_1st_serve/ps_1st_serve.html?PS1stSDeuceSide2.mov

don

[don_budge]

Skinning Cats and Roads leading to Rome...

I am part of a group of us (at least I think I am not alone) that think the weight transfer is an essential part of the rhythm of the toss and without appropriate linkage between the toss of the ball and the "rock" of your weight transfer (whether it is back to front like Sampras or front to back to front like Krajicek or very complicated but consistent like Roddick), you can never have a consistent, reliable toss and, therefore, will never have a consistent, reliable serve.

Krajicek:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/richardkrajicek/richardkrajicek_serve/rk_1st_serve/rk_1st_serve.html?RK1stSDeuceCourtLevelSide1.mov

Federer:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/rogerfederer/rogerfederer_serve/rogerfederer_1st_serve/rogerfederer_1st_serve.html?Federer1stSDeuceSide1.mov

Gonzales:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/golden_legends/panchogonzales/panchogonzales.html?PGServeCourtlevelSide.mov

don

A most interesting post…tennis_chiro. I think that you are a proponent of the back to front weight transfer. At least that is what I recall from watching a video of you serving. I am a proponent of the front to back to front. You are absolutely right that many fine service motions are split along these lines but that is not to say that it doesn't matter.

I believe that it is easier and more fluid to go from front to back to front…as in the videos of Richard Krajicek and Roger Federer. Richard Gonzalez interestingly enough changed his motion during his playing days as many players do. Here he is more "front to back to front" whereas in the video that you posted it appears he is "back to front".

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/golden_legends/panchogonzales/panchogonzales.html?PGServeFront1.mov

[tennis_chiro]

Actually Front to Back to Front

A most interesting post…tennis_chiro. I think that you are a proponent of the back to front weight transfer. At least that is what I recall from watching a video of you serving. I am a proponent of the front to back to front. You are absolutely right that many fine service motions are split along these lines but that is not to say that it doesn't matter.

I believe that it is easier and more fluid to go from front to back to front…as in the videos of Richard Krajicek and Roger Federer. Richard Gonzalez interestingly enough changed his motion during his playing days as many players do. Here he is more "front to back to front" whereas in the video that you posted it appears he is "back to front".

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/golden_legends/panchogonzales/panchogonzales.html?PGServeFront1.mov

Actually, I am very much a proponent of the Krajicek/Stich front-to-back-to-front rock.

Here's that clip of my old serve (30 years ago):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmoqsgiag3g

The reason Gonzales shows as just back to front in that clip is the beginning of the recording is cut off. I put that clip up to stay in keeping with the perspective of all the other clips I posted there. What I was trying to point out was the essential link between the forward transfer of the weight (in either the back to front Sampras rhythm or the back to front to back Krajicek rhythm) and the upward motion of the tossing hand/arm. I definitely prefer the Krajicek/Stich rock. In all those clips, except Federer, the weight is upwards of 90% on the left foot by the time the left hand is fully extended. Federer is moving forward but settles down about half-way to save forward thrust for later in the motion. Furthermore, look at Sampras' knee bend relative to the toss of the ball: the deep knee flexion happens after he has released the ball to get more power - but he is not tossing the ball with his knee bend as one of the variables; that's one of the reasons his serve could hold up its consistency in late stages of matches.

My point here was that regardless of which rock you used up until recently, good servers had a clear link between the toss and the movement of the weight forward and the center of gravity was just about right over the front foot by the time the tossing arm was outstretched just after the ball left their hand and the racket head was moving to the bottom point of the "pro drop" position. Current emphasis on the platform stance has shifted to more weight held back on the rear foot to create more back foot leg drive. I think this may interfere with the linkage of the rock and the toss and I am not sure that the gain in power is worth it if there is actually any gain in power. I always come back to the fact the body works with rotational forces and pulleys and levers to create its power; it can't do that as well if the fulcrum is not solidly set as is the case with those old servers who got all the weight to the front side a little earlier. Plus if you can't get the ball in because you don't have that clear link between the rock and the toss, it doesn't matter.

don

[don_budge]

Actually, I am very much a proponent of the Krajicek/Stich front-to-back-to-front rock.

Here's that clip of my old serve (30 years ago):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmoqsgiag3g

My point here was that regardless of which rock you used up until recently, good servers had a clear link between the toss and the movement of the weight forward and the center of gravity was just about right over the front foot by the time the tossing arm was outstretched just after the ball left their hand and the racket head was moving to the bottom point of the "pro drop" position. Current emphasis on the platform stance has shifted to more weight held back on the rear foot to create more back foot leg drive. I think this may interfere with the linkage of the rock and the toss and I am not sure that the gain in power is worth it if there is actually any gain in power. I always come back to the fact the body works with rotational forces and pulleys and levers to create its power; it can't do that as well if the fulcrum is not solidly set as is the case with those old servers who got all the weight to the front side a little earlier. Plus if you can't get the ball in because you don't have that clear link between the rock and the toss, it doesn't matter.

don

Again…some really interesting comments when taken in context with modern day serving by professional tennis players.

With regards to your motion…I was mixed up with your weight transfer and your stance. It is affirming to realize that you advocate the front back front weight transfer. Would you say that your stance was a pinpoint? I wouldn't necessarily despite the apparent pause that your right foot makes before it is swinging into the court before your left foot does. This is an excellent point that you are making regards the power or speed aspect of serving. The link as you put it…I call it fluidity.

I believe that you make a very valid point about the perception of added power and loss of accuracy. If you watch the great servers of the past their fundamentals were rooted in a motion that was going to propel them to the net…much as your own motion indicates. In this sense the tossing aspect is certainly directly involved in the "aiming" process and the timing process as well. Good solid point on the rotational forces working behind a perfect serving motion. That racquet head movement should be a product of those force during the entirety of the motion.

The perfect service motion is one that is designed to propel the player forwards. This doesn't mean that the player has to follow every ball to the net…even as the Bjorn Borg motion demonstrates in the 1974 classic that klacr posted the other day. His motion has none of the modern day elements that the baseliners all exhibit…kickback doesn't seem to be an aspect of the classic serving motion. Stotty calls it a braking mechanism.

Todays serving tactics sort of preordain these aspects that you discuss of serving nowadays. Players do not follow their serves to the net like all of the videos that you posted. Well at least five of them…excluding Roddick and Williams. The basic nature of the game has been altered and with it some of the fundamentals that used to go along with perfect service motions.

That is a fine service motion that you were showing only 30 years ago. It looks like you mean business going to the net. I would love to see you serving with the Wilson T2000 suped up tennis racquet that you used. Almost a bit "Clark Graebneresque".

[stotty]

The perfect service motion is one that is designed to propel the player forwards. This doesn't mean that the player has to follow every ball to the net…even as the Bjorn Borg motion demonstrates in the 1974 classic that klacr posted the other day. His motion has none of the modern day elements that the baseliners all exhibit…kickback doesn't seem to be an aspect of the classic serving motion. Stotty calls it a braking mechanism.

Weight transfer is something mostly untaught over here. It's one of those things that have fallen by the wayside. These days some things are even considered wrong that were fairly common in the classic era.

When I posted my serve, people said I landed on the "wrong" foot. I hit the ground with my right foot first rather than my left. When I delved into the problem I realised it wasn't wrong at all. Nastase did it. Newcombe did it. I have seen Michael Stich land off either foot. So there you are. It's not wrong. It may not even be outdated. It's probably because players just don't serve volley anymore. Back then, it was probably an anomaly that some players developed as a byproduct of trying to get in quick. I never had a big serve so had to get in quick to cut the angles down as much as possible...I simply couldn't get in fast enough.

Newcombe gets in pretty quick. I just love his serve by the way....one of my all time favourites for repetitive rhythm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePo6KcGQd4M

I prefer classic serves simply because they look so much nicer, and good weight transfer can only help and never harm.

My favourite weigh transfer, however, is Richard Krajicek's. I never really got tennis_chiro's concept of "bouncing" off the back foot until I saw this clip:

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

[klacr]

In the World of Serving Perfection, In the Hemisphere of Weight Transfer On The Serve, Don, Stotty and myself are the founding partners of the Richard Krajicek Fan Club.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[tennis_chiro]

Weight transfer is something mostly untaught over here. It's one of those things that have fallen by the wayside. These days some things are even considered wrong that were fairly common in the classic era.

When I posted my serve, people said I landed on the "wrong" foot. I hit the ground with my right foot first rather than my left. When I delved into the problem I realised it wasn't wrong at all. Nastase did it. Newcombe did it. I have seen Michael Stich land off either foot. So there you are. It's not wrong. It may not even be outdated. It's probably because players just don't serve volley anymore. Back then, it was probably an anomaly that some players developed as a byproduct of trying to get in quick. I never had a big serve so had to get in quick to cut the angles down as much as possible...I simply couldn't get in fast enough.

Newcombe gets in pretty quick. I just love his serve by the way....one of my all time favourites for repetitive rhythm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePo6KcGQd4M

I prefer classic serves simply because they look so much nicer, and good weight transfer can only help and never harm.

My favourite weigh transfer, however, is Richard Krajicek's. I never really got tennis_chiro's concept of "bouncing" off the back foot until I saw this clip:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...LevelSide2.mov

But, Stotty, you definitely "bounce" off the back foot as well in your own service motion.

So neat to look at those old clips. We all certainly marvel at the "modern" game, but there is no question much of the art of classic tennis has been lost. It's exciting to watch the big shots and groundstrokes of modern tennis, but the action in these clips of great old timers is actually greater in the following sense: there is less time between strikes of the ball, even though the ball is going slower; and there is more unpredictable motion as the net player tries to read the pass. No doubt the modern player hits bigger forehands and backhands and returns better off bigger serves or at least seems to (lighter, bigger rackets and slower courts and more responsive strings), but when you see the serve and volley skills that Laver and Newcombe demonstrate in this clip, you (or at least I) have to wonder whether or not the skill that took so long to develop to the level that the best of that day could demonstrate was a greater pure feat of athleticism and even a better presentation for the spectator.

It would be a very interesting experiment to take video of the best matches of the 60's and 70's once open tennis had everyone playing and compare that to the modern game in the following way. Prepare the clips of the best quality you could find and cut it down to a 10 to 15 minute film of representative points of that time which would have to include the aces and missed returns or at least a representative percentage of them; then prepare a comparable film of representative points from modern play. You would have to downgrade the quality of the current film to equalize that aspect of the comparison. After all, there are no HD videos from the 60's or 70's. You would want to have the two clips be representative of their respective eras, so the number of points played for the oldies would be higher because of all the short points and also the short rest period between points and on change of sides, etc. On the other hand, the modern points would have a greater number of hits on average. So you would be creating a representative film of what watching tennis in the two eras like. Then you have to put together an audience that is biased towards neither era.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see how people responded to a true comparison of modern tennis to classic tennis?

don

[GeoffWilliams]

Old shool tennis: way fewer rpms, flat shots that were slower, net attacks, slower serves, slower people, etc. Fastest shots were their put away volleys.

[tennis_chiro]

Old shool tennis: way fewer rpms, flat shots that were slower, net attacks, slower serves, slower people, etc. Fastest shots were their put away volleys.

Lighter, stronger materials made lighter rackets and helped the returner more than the server. Slower courts definitely helped the baseline player. String materials have enabled modern rackets to produce as much spin as the spaghetti strings. What if we had taken advantage of the materials to make lighter rackets, but had limited the racket dimensions in championship play to an increase in racket size to 15% to perhaps 80 square inches; what if we had maintained the court speed that existed then or reduced it no more than 15% of the difference at the time between very slow and very fast courts, because almost everything has gone to very slow by comparison with what we played on in the 70's. Anyone remember playing with regular balls on hardcourts? Those are soft court balls now or the balls the women use at the US Open. What if they had made the bounce at Wimbledon grass courts truer, but left the texture of the grass the same so the ball didn't sit up quite so much? What if they had limited the change in string technology and materials to within 15% of the characteristics that were achievable with gut strings back in the day? Bigger, stronger, faster athletes would probably be hitting the ball a lot faster than they used to, but the essential characteristics of the game would not have changed so dramatically to emphasize power at the expense of the importance of strategy and tactics.

What if...

don

[lobndropshot]

Here is a cool video on a 150 mph serve

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/10/sports/tennis/facing-a-150-mph-tennis-serve.html?WT.mc_id=2015-JULY-FACEBOOK-DOMESTIC-WINBACK_AUD_DEV-0701-0731&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=WINBACKAD&_r=1

[don_budge]

Hawkeye…you have to be cruel to be kind

Lighter, stronger materials made lighter rackets and helped the returner more than the server. Slower courts definitely helped the baseline player. String materials have enabled modern rackets to produce as much spin as the spaghetti strings. What if we had taken advantage of the materials to make lighter rackets, but had limited the racket dimensions in championship play to an increase in racket size to 15% to perhaps 80 square inches; what if we had maintained the court speed that existed then or reduced it no more than 15% of the difference at the time between very slow and very fast courts, because almost everything has gone to very slow by comparison with what we played on in the 70's. Anyone remember playing with regular balls on hardcourts? Those are soft court balls now or the balls the women use at the US Open. What if they had made the bounce at Wimbledon grass courts truer, but left the texture of the grass the same so the ball didn't sit up quite so much? What if they had limited the change in string technology and materials to within 15% of the characteristics that were achievable with gut strings back in the day? Bigger, stronger, faster athletes would probably be hitting the ball a lot faster than they used to, but the essential characteristics of the game would not have changed so dramatically to emphasize power at the expense of the importance of strategy and tactics.

What if...

don

Remarkably thoughtful post.

I'm Hawkeye. I'm calling 'em impossibly close. In my world…the modern professional tennis player would not get one silly millimetre over the standard sized tennis racquet that was used for 100 years. Let's just say that the most iconic racquet of all time…the Wilson Jack Kramer Autograph…would be the standard size. It was good enough for Tilden, Gonzales and McEnroe…it's good enough for Federer, Djokovic and Nadal.

If these athletes are so much bigger, stronger and faster…why would they need any advantage at all?

It's never going to happen. "What if?" is a decent question…my father has a better one…"WHY?".

[don_budge]

The Weight Shift…Modern vs. Classic paradigms

Here is a cool video on a 150 mph serve

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...WINBACKAD&_r=1

Yeah…it's cool. It's a virtual example of what it feels like to look at these "nuclear serves". Plus John McEnroe's.

But I like the fact they included the great John McEnroe's serve. McEnroe…as you know straddled both sides of the fence. The standard/over-sized racquet fence. He was ranked #1 on both sides of that fence. The only player ever to do so…the only player that will ever do so. He was a genius.

Classic serving…as in the John Newcombe and Rod Laver video demonstrated…was much more than a "shock and awe" attack. It was sophisticated tactics. Spin deliveries that purposely gave the server a split second more time to get that much closer to the net or to shrink the size of the court for the returner. Geometrically speaking.

The emphasis on power in a Roddick or Groth serve…or rather speed is a huge unforgivable mistake of the modern game. It has eliminated the sublime from the game. The sublime as in a "Federer Featherer" or a Kenny Rosewall slice backhand. Ilie Nastase and all of the associated touch and artistry. The magic. Gonzalez serving tactics. The game was subtle angles and change of speed and spin. The path to victory was to the net. Or defending against the net player. It was interesting.

In the video…John McEnroe is using a classic Dunlop Maxply to serve it at 112 mph. What it doesn't show is that he was bearing down on the net and going to hit his first volley as close to the net as he possibly could. Just like Newcombe and Laver were doing. This is how the game was played and how it was evolved. This is how the game was meant to be played. Do not make the mistake of confusing engineering with evolution.

Those 150 mph serves are a product of engineering…McEnroe's delivery was a product of the living lifeline that descended from Tilden…and through Gonzalez and all the way to McEnroe. These are the facts.

[tennis_chiro]

More about power

From a link in an email from Will at FYB:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3445225/

the predominant scientific analysis seems to be all about how to generate more power, regardless of the effect on the consistency and accuracy or reproducability over long matches of the resulting serve.

don