-
-
Nah. Mark was a great guy, he died a few years ago. But he had an obsession with this. -
Mark...
Mark was passionate about tennis. I had frequent email correspondence with him at one point. He was a very dogmatic in his views...a little over-focused perhaps, and never one to march in step with others. I liked him immensely. He was one of the great characters in the Internet world of coaching. I miss him dearly.StottyComment
-
Right. A character is a good word for it...He disrupted one of my USPTA presentations when we were looking at high speed video of the wrist on the serve and I wouldn't say he was polite.
What he never could get was that movement of a joint didn't necessarily mean or come from conscious or intentional contraction. He had staked out a position and defended it to the death...
When the video showed no forward flex after contact and I argued that this would end the critical upper arm rotation he got up and walked out.
Very irritated at the time but he did actually do me a favor because this made me look at everything again even more closely! That was about the time I learned about motion dependent torques from Brian. But in his article he used Brian's data without Brian's explanation...Comment
-
John's presentations seem to stir up the crazies. This year in New Orleans during a USPTA function when John was speaking a young and highly "curious" European female (Who I shall not name) practically hijacked his talk for a few minutes when she wanted to know about the forehand backswing. When John offered to show her on her own swing, she began to get cold feet.
JY handled it well. Most of the audience was perturbed at young lady. Preso still rocked.
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca RatonComment
-
I thought I cut her off pretty directly...she was making me angry...Comment
-
what do you guys think of bruce elliot ? He did a presentation for tennis australia and said that the wrist felxion is the second biggest contributor to power and that it is a development process learned as kids get older... The other presenter said a good way to develop it is serving with a smaller (length wise) and lighter racket?Comment
-
alot of the biomechanics seem to quantify different aspects of the serve that contribute to power but not necessarily how they combined together.
I really liked this presentation by macci on the relationship between the leg drive and timing of the racket drop
Comment
-
You could see the issue coming from a mile away. You were fair and gave her a brief moment but you put a stop to it when it became a nuisance. You didn't appear or come off angry at all. Cool as a cucumber.Originally posted by johnyandell View Post
agree on that point bowt. That's where a lot of people get lost and eventually withdraw from biomechanics discussion. Important to know how it all comes together.Originally posted by bowt View Post
I was at that Rick Macci presentation. It was in Orlando at the Grand Cypress resort a few years back during the USPTA world conference. Rick always brings a crowd. Brian Gordon also spoke at that year's event.
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca RatonComment
-
I think one of the things a person has to get used to in tennis (or anything field, actually) if they come up with theories they feel proven to be right with research, evidence etc., is ignorance from others. It's actual a natural thing for humans to immediately lay into people like Brian Gordon, Bruce Elliot or John.Originally posted by johnyandell View Post
I have been guilty of this myself in the past. I immediately try to find someone wrong with a perfectly good theory. I have gradually learnt to keep such knee-jerk reactions in check. But it's a natural thing to do in many ways.
One thing I have learnt from experience is that every coach thinks he has the best way of doing things. We have coaches over here who can barely play the game themselves yet who are convinced they can coach a tour player better than Bob Brett and the likes can....comical really.
StottyComment
-
The ignorant are the ones with the most self-confidence...
The savants are humble...Comment
-
What Mark and a few other did was make me look closer at this whole issue. So despite the histrionics and hard feelings of some of all that I am still grateful to them.
If Bruce Elliot and others are correct that 30% of the racket speed comes from wrist flexion, isn't that conclusive that players "snap" the wrist?
From the high speed video it's clear that the wrist is neutral at contact and out into the continuing arm rotation and followthrough. Why don't you see any forward wrist break after the hit if that is true??
The physicist Rod Cross explains that in the upward swing the racket actually snaps the wrist. The weight of the racket and the elbow extension and upper arm rotation generate far more force than the forward wrist flexion possibly. This goes with Brian's description of dependent torques.
In his forehand articles Brian goes further. He says players inhibit the natural forward flexion of the wrist to control the exact racket face angle. I wonder if the same thing doesn't happen on the serve?
What the video does show is that the upper arm rotation continues after the hit and that the wrist remains in a neutral position through this rotation. One thing I am sure of is that consciously snapping the wrist cuts off this critical rotation.Comment
-
Wristy business...
What about the idea that the wrist "snaps into alignment"? Why does it have to snap right through after contact? Isn't the impact of the ball enough to stop the wrist in its tracks so to speak?
I understand and believe in the idea that snapping the wrist deliberately through the ball would break smooth upper arm rotation.
I think the other side of high speed video is that we are dramatically slowing down something that actually happens in a split second. That split second (in real time) is so fast you have to ask if the wrist has time to anything different than what we are seeing even if it wanted to? It would be nice to see someone deliberately snap their wrist through their serve then slow it to 500fps and see what it looks like. Has this side of the argument ever been filmed in high speed?
You can see why it's a hotly contested issue. Because when you serve it's so hard to feel what the wrist is actually doing or what it's contribution is. Motion dependent effects (which I strongly believe in) in a way makes it more difficult to isolate one particular aspect of the body and accurately quantify what its contribution is. All tennis strokes are made up of a series of events, events that are dependent on one another. It's complicated. It's where I lose my way.Last edited by stotty; 11-19-2015, 04:07 PM.StottyComment
-
Good idea on the filming. I've heard the "ball stops the snap" theory. I'll try the filming next time I get the chance and post it. What we currently see is the wrist stay in line with the arm. I would be surprised if an extreme forward snap didn't show the break much sooner.
So far as losing the way...easy to do. But if the positions are right in the motion it may not matter what we actually call it or tell the student. I have simply found that the extension position at full rotation tends to make everything else take care of itself.Comment
-
from my experience playing and serving I feel absolutely no wrist movement servingComment
Tweet
Comment