1-2 Rhythm: The Serve

[klacr]

Don't mean to detour this thread but...
Is this not the most beautiful shot in the stroke archives? I mean c'mon! The 96' Wimbledon champ is perfection.

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

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[nickw]

Don,
Clearly we are seeing different things. To my eye none of
those guys has 80% of the weight on the front foot at the release--they front toe is still in the air for Pete! And neither does Krajicek:

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

The weight is going to come forward it's a question of when and what that may or may not mean.

There is some study of this by Ben Kibler based on some 3D work that argues the shoulder over shoulder is increased by keeping the weight on the back foot and that this is the major difference between the men and women.

Have to agree with you John, and also interesting regards the Kibler study.

[nickw]

Don't mean to detour this thread but...
Is this not the most beautiful shot in the stroke archives? I mean c'mon! The 96' Wimbledon champ is perfection.

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

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Detours welcome

Interestingly, Krajicek seems very close to starting his weight shift forward at the same time his tossing arm starts moving upwards. Perhaps the weight shift is a fraction later.

[stotty]

When it comes to transferring weight no one does it better than Krajicek. Watch the clip in real time and watch how he rocks back and almost bounces the weight of his back foot to go forwards into the serve. It's poetry. Optimum weight transfer....momentum generating.

What percentage of weight is on Krajicek's front foot at the ball release is hard to say...but a split second later it's nearly all there. But does it matter? Just watch the clip yourself. Has any player ever transferred weight better? I'd wager no.

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

[don_budge]

Rock versus Rock…from Classic to the Modern Eras

In the classic paradigm, you could start on the back foot(Budge, Laver, Sampras) or rock back and forth (Smith, Gonzales, Krajicek), but you always rocked forward to get at least about 80% of your weight on the front foot by the time the ball left your hand in the toss.

I'm postulating the problem is not making that shift until after the ball is tossed.
However, I do consider the front-back-front rock to be the ideal.
Don

Unfortunately, I have no scientific studies or even just a biomechanical breakdown I can point to; it is just my gut feeling. I don't know what the numbers were when I was playing, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't excited about getting 3/5 or even 4/6 first serves in even if they were probably barely over 100 mph. If I hit more than two df's in a match, that was a lot. We swung as hard as we could at second serves and went to the net most of the time on second serves. Of course you couldn't do that today, but the level of consistency and accuracy on serves was so much better. I hate to sound like Oscar Robertson or Scottie Pippen talking about Steph Curry, but basic serve technique definitely changed in the 80's as players reached for more and more power while sacrificing consistency and accuracy and deception. Certainly, there are still classic motions around (Fritz, Krajicek, Isner, Janowicz).

But no, that is not the prevalent motion in today's pro game.

don

Let's just call it 50/50. I was rather astounded when you said 80% of the weight was on the front foot. I was in my office and started to shadow service motion and it seemed to me that my weight was basically squarely balanced between front and back foot in my motion…which is perfect by the way. But further review of my weight raised some questions about the exact weight distribution…it sort of depends upon how you measure it…or word it for that matter.

I am not so certain that it is all that important. I would be willing to concede that the ball leaving the hand might have a range of possibilities…but we may as well call it 50/50 plus or minus. Maybe on the plus side of weight on the front foot. Probably on the plus side of weight on the front foot. Ok…it seems to be on the plus side of the front foot.

More importantly though are your comments regarding the service motions of the past compared to those of the present. More distinctly of course is the distinction between the classic era (traditional sized racquets and serving rules) and the modern era (suped up equipment and jumping into the court allowed).

It strike me as rather odd that only one motion comes to mind…the motion of Richard Carjack. In the days of classic days of tennis serving was more of a science and of course there was a whole book on serving tactics. In those days there were perfect motions by the score. It's like today the absence of truly great rock bands when in the very same era I am referring to there were hundreds of great rock bands. The motion was designed to go to the net and not to retreat behind the baseline. I particularly admire your comment about Oscar Robinson and Jerry West preaching to the new kids on the block.

Not only has volleying and mid court technique and tactics been effectively engineered out of the game…so have elegant serving motions and intelligent tactics. Things certainly did change in the 80's…it's no coincidence either…is it? I don't care for the term "rock" when it comes to service motions…its misleading. Weight transfer is much more meaningful.

I would also add that both Sampras and Carjack are staples of the modern game and not the classic.

[tennis_chiro]

Let me try to make my point a little differently. In Nick's parlance of two phases to the service motion, phase two - the real hitting action - doesn't start until the tossing motion is completed. The tossing motion does not end when the ball leaves the fingers; it is not complete until the left hand reaches full extension. At least you can see that at that point - before the hitting phase has really hit the afterburners - the weight has transferred well forward. This was almost universal up until at least the mid-eighties. And you can see it with Krajicek, Isner and Sampras. But now, with the emphasis on the leg drive off the rear foot out of the platform stance, you see a lot of serves like Sock's where the weight transfer forward is almost completely held back until the phase II action of the hit. For me, this separation of toss from weight transfer which gives a player his sense of rhythm on the serve contributes mightily to lower first serve percentages and bad days serving.

don

[johnyandell]

It's an interesting question and probably has a range of correctness. As Fed's knees bend it seems inevitable that his weight (or his body) shift forward. As to the exact distribution we need force plates!

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/high_speed_archive/phantom/Roger_Federer_HD_HS/index.html?dir=Serve/RF_Toss&stroke=RF_1stS_Ad_Toss_Front1_250fps.mp4

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/high_speed_archive/phantom/Roger_Federer_HD_HS/index.html?dir=Serve/RF_Toss&stroke=RF_1stS_Deuce_Toss_Side3_500fps.mp4

[bdole]

I'm thinking the guys tossing off the front foot have a shorter time of motion. If the ball is in the air less time, they need to already be moving forward into it. Krajicek and Groth come to mind.

On the other end, Federer and Sampras have full windups, wait for it in platform, and thus toss off the back foot to allow the longer time of motion and anticipation.

Seems like it would be an advantage to master both rhythms, but then it would be nice to have two forehands, too.

[stotty]

I still think almost everyone misses the boat in not identifying the essential nature of the link between the weight transfer/rock and the actual tossing of the ball. Anytime I see the separation of those two elements, for example tossing the ball with the weight back and then leaping into the serve or just pushing forward out of the platform stance after the toss, I know there will be a higher incidence of double faults and lower consistency and accuracy in general. Maybe you get a couple of more miles per hour, but I'm not even sure of that, but the trade-off is not worth it.

don

Newk...one of my favourites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlcVqEn3v2s

[biodegradableeric1979]

Krajicek demonstrates the classic weight transfer/rock forward with the toss of the ball, while Federer represents the modern platform attitude of tossing and then leaping into the court pushing off the right side as opposed to already having almost all the weight on the left side when you really fire up to the ball. Federer's toss is just barely linked to the forward move of his weight transfer.

Some stats for their careers and Pete Sampras:
FS%: Krajicek - 58%, Federer - 62%, Sampras - 59%
FSPointsWon: Krajicek - 81%, Federer - 88%, Sampras - 81%
ServiceGames Won: Krajicek - 87%, Federer - 88%, Sampras - 89%
Total Service Games: Krajicek - 7761, Federer - 15972, Sampras - 89%
Aces: Krajicek - 7648, Federer - 9576, Sampras - 8713
Aces/Service Game: Krajicek - .985, Federer - .597, Sampras - .834

don

Good stuff! Do you have these statistics on Roddick?

[tennis_chiro]

Good stuff! Do you have these statistics on Roddick?

Just go to the ATP site and pull up Andy Roddick. You can pull up player stats for his career or individual years. That's where I got those other stats.

And Andy's serve stats are pretty good. His motion was/is very complicated, but he repeated his rhythm like a metronome. He hit almost an ace per game in his career, but only one double fault every 6 1/2 games. And for my money, you can see a clear relationship between the forward movement of his rock and the toss of the ball; it was only after the ball left his hand that he went into his deep knee bend.

don

[bottle]

I'm thinking the guys tossing off the front foot have a shorter time of motion. If the ball is in the air less time, they need to already be moving forward into it. Krajicek and Groth come to mind.

On the other end, Federer and Sampras have full windups, wait for it in platform, and thus toss off the back foot to allow the longer time of motion and anticipation.

Seems like it would be an advantage to master both rhythms, but then it would be nice to have two forehands, too.

I like the statement here about how nice it would be to have two forehands in that I do have two forehands. But I may react to the implicit wisdom here by eventually going with one. Right now I need the two so that when one is bad-- due to my working on it-- I can hit the other.

That's the reality. The romance is that I think I can flummox opponents by switching back and forth. Only once in a while. As soon as one is clearly better than the other I go entirely with it.

[bottle]

The Role of First Roll in an Imitation Don Budge Serve

You will remember, reader, that there are five rolls in this shot. To discuss all five at once would be as silly as to concentrate on all five while one makes one's attempt against three fierce competitors. (I say I play against three rather than two guys since that frequently-- for some reason perhaps unknown to me-- is the case.)

First roll occurs as you start tossing hand up to release the ball. You have a choice. You can twist the racket open as you backswing straight arm toward rear fence, or you can simply twist arm in place thus making the subsequent arm swing more straightforward (I mean straightbackward).

Perhaps you would like to slow down the hitting arm at this point? The twisting in place then is the route for you.

[bottle]

The Role of Double-Roll in the Krazy Glue Backhand

It's a brand new shot if anybody wants one of those. It's called "Krazy Glue" because of its long dwell. The two rolls start after arm gets straight.

First roll closes racket to a bevel well before contact. Second roll-- backward-- occurs as one hits the ball and into the high follow-through. I've never tried this shot, reader-- have you? Report back. "It's a lob," you say. No no you're turning something too little or something else too much.

[bottle]

O man, I was supposed to put these posts up in "A New Year's Serve." No time to make a correction. Have to edit Hope's ad for the estate sale she's running to make a deadline.