Sampras Heavy Ball

[yekim]

LOVE YOUR WEBSITE !!! Interesting articles on the Sampras serve and heavy ball. I agree with your studies and like all the angles. One thing I think you left out was the tool that Sampras used. His racket was very heavy and strung very tight. Two important factors that have a great deal to do with the heavy ball. I don't do any tests but I'd imagine that would definitely account for something in the overall picture.

I'm curious if you have ever heard of the "chong method" ? Years ago I remember watching Sampras play and Mary Carillo commentating on the fact that Sampras didn't start popping his serve til he learned the Chong Method. I've never heard her say that again or anyone else for that matter.

Some observations to me on the similarities of the Sampras & Federer serves. They seem to have the same position with the legs in the air. It looks like they are clicking their feet together. Their body seems to contract on the hit. I've been watching and studying tennis for a long time and haven't really seen anyone else with these positions. Would you agree ? Have you seen this on other great servers ? Is this taught or just a natural result of good mechanics ?

Thanks for a great site and would love your feedback !

[jlkm2219]

There are similarities between Sampras and Federer serves. But I think that Sampras moves forward with his body more than Federer. Federer contracts his body using his abdominals while Sampras jumps forward using his legs like running to the net. In both cases there is a huge upward aceleration that causes a very high speed at the contact point. Both players serves are relaxed and smooth.

[johnyandell]

Well a lot of people have talked about that racket. And it's more than possible that it had a role. But weight alone in a racket doesn't always work as a positive--can be the opposite. Swing speed is a much bigger factor. Which is a way of saying we can't really quantify how much is which. If you can swing a heavy racket just as fast as a light one--well the heavy one will add more.

The so-called "chong" method refers to the serving stance and the body turn. The way Pete turned his body away from the net. And yes, Federer is very similar. If Pete was a 3/4 McEnroe, then Federer is a 3/4 Pete.

But if you look at most good servers at contact, the positions are more similar than different--note that the commonality is that the torso is still partially closed to the baseline--you also see this in Roddick.

AND jlkm I'd be circumspect about making statements about what muscles players are contracting when compared to whom. You could be right--or wrong--but really there is no way to verify something like that. At best it should be stated as an expression of opinion not fact.

[CraigC]

2 cents

I believe the Chong method is one of the funniest myths out there. I'll not say who taught it t me, but suffice it to say he had a pretty strong influence on the Sampras serve. Chong is the sounds your heels make when they click together as you drag your back foot forward. This facilitates holding your body turn. Now I know you are going to say that Sampras's foot stays back and does not platform and I agree, but I am 100% certain that I just explained the Chong method.

CC

[johnyandell]

Huh. That's not the way Sandy Mayer said Pete Fisher explained it to him...so I guess we are third hand or so...

[yekim]

Oh yeah ! Heavy Racket( head heavy), tightly strung, and very thin gauge string ! I forgot to mention the string and the head heavy racket which I believe will increase the racket speed to a degree as well as the weight of the shot. I've noticed James Blake has started to beef up his racket with some lead tape. He seems to have taken his game to another level recently.
So John, how did Fisher explain this method to Mayer ?

[johnyandell]

That's what Sandy said. He keeps threatening to write an article about it.

I'd be careful with that lead tape--remember if it slows down the swing it's doing more harm than good.

[moderntennis]

Check out Tennis-Warehouse's archives for an article by Nate Ferguson, Pete's stringer. The racquet was exactly evenly balanced, not head-heavy.

[johnyandell]

How myths get started. Interesting info.

[jlkm2219]

AND jlkm I'd be circumspect about making statements about what muscles players are contracting when compared to whom. You could be right--or wrong--but really there is no way to verify something like that. At best it should be stated as an expression of opinion not fact.

I'not a tennis expert but a tennis player (club player) who love to investigate all about tennis mechanics and technics so I can transmit my (limited) knowledge to my 15 y/o son who plays tennis very well. Hopefully I will send to Tennisplayer videos of his strokes so you can help us.
Watching Federer's video rogerfederer_1st_serve/rogerfederer_1st_serve.html?Federer1stSDeuceCourtL evelSide1.mov you can see that in the contact moment, Federers body is not straight. Is in a concave position compared to Sampras in the video ps_1st_serve/ps_1st_serve.html?PS1stSDeuceSide2.mov, where his body seems to be in a straight position and stretched.
Notice that Pete lands about one feet closer to the net than Federer. That make me think that Sampras serve is more like jumping to the net in a. larger angle than Federer, who, in my opinion, generates power contracting his abs toward the net.
Finally, watching the videos, seems to me that Sampras has more torso rotation than Federer.
You're right, this is my opinion, but watching the videos, I think that I'm very close to the facts.
Thanks God we have these tools to analyze the mechanics of the best players in the world. Obviously, sometimes our analysis make us obtain wrong conclutions.

Best regards and, once again, great site.

[cburr]

Pete's heavy hitting

John- you've rekindled my interest in reading tennis articles; yours and a number of others have been fascinating. I notice that both Ruzedski and Roddick bring their head down earlier than does Sampras and, I think, Federer. I suspect this is true particularly on their flatter, sheer speed-off-the-racket serves. I notice also that Pete lands a little further into the court than Greg. I conclude that the driving up of the legs and head up are two factors in the increased topspin.
Reading Welby Van Horn's article on the serve, I couldn't help but wish that Pancho Gonzalez's serve could have been video analyzed. Welby notes the change in the footfault rule in 1969 (?). Pancho's serve was as fluid as Pete's. Since he did not jump into the ball he generated great power with his hip coil which then unleashed into the the shoulder and arm movement.
The only good player I ever played who varied his height of toss, number of bounces before the serve, and placement of toss was Whitney Reed. His seve was not his best shot however his variety and touch were renowned in NorCal and elsewhere.

[johnyandell]

I can only say excellent--the purpose of the site fulfilled??

[danquest]

clear definition ?

Hi John,
Reading the articles I didn't get a clear definition of what the heavy ball is.
My own coach told me about 20 years ago it feels "heavy" in the racket when the counter movement is not generating enough speed or spin to fully reverse and transfer to the ball. Playing table tennis, it's called "a bite" (when the ball seems to bite the racket and it's not possible to counter the speed/spin of this incoming ball)
Is it what you mean ?
If this is the same, it's really relating to the opponent. I mean Nadal is less likely to get an heavy ball from someone else but may give some heavy balls to fed's BH in Paris...
what do you think ?

[johnyandell]

Right because I don't think there is yet a clear definition.

Again a ball that is "heavy" against you may not be for another player. It's some combination of speed, spin and trajectory. We are slowly putting the pieces together. but the physics of the bounce is very complex and developing the data is difficult.

[petegrif]

I think this matter of the 'heavy ball' is fascinating. It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion about it but that a few things are very very clear:
a) when we are analysing what a heavy ball is it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever HOW the ball was struck or with what. John's article is correct. Once the ball leaves the racket the physics is in a sense simple - the only energy that the ball has that can possibly transfer to the opponent's racket and hence be sensed by the opponent is a combination of speed and spin. I couldn't care less is somebody hit the ball between his legs with a length of pipe, once it leaves the pipe it is just a ball in motion travelling at a given speed with a given amount of spin. You may be interested in how to best strike the serve and how to tape or string a racket etc to better generate speed and spin but that is an entirely different question from whether the ball generated is or is not heavy.
b) the question of trajectory is different in kind from speed and spin. The trajectory does not (directly at least) change the amount of energy imparted to the ball and whilst it will change the angle of incidence when it hits the court and hence the angle of reflection off the court it is hard to see how this will make the ball heavier. It may make the ball harder to play but that is something else (see below). The truth of this may be seen if we consider that a net player can comment on how heavy his opponent's shots are but as he is plucking them out of the air it is difficult to see that it is anything other than speed and rotational energy that the volleyer is experiencing.
c) the ease or difficulty of playing the opponent's ball obviously includes the amount of energy behind the ball but one suspects that there are many aspects of an opponent's ball that may make it more or less difficult to play that have little to do with the weight of the ball. So just saying that the opponent's ball was hard to play doesn't meaningully equate to the ball being 'heavy.'

I think there is an important difference between a 'heavy' ball and a ball that is difficult to play and that this difference is directly related to the amount of energy imparted to the ball and that there are only two dimensions of such energy - speed and spin. The rest is not real, not quantifiable and rapidly assumes the status of myth.