Pitching from the stretch

[faultsnaces]

Ok, so this is not about tennis, but maybe there is some element of interest and application to tennis here....

Interesting article in today's WSJ on how it's now becoming "a thing" in Major League baseball for pitchers to pitch "from the stretch" (rather than full windup): https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-bas...dup-1492008747
If you search a bit on the 'Tube, you can find a few good videos illustrating the difference between a full windup pitch versus pitching from the stretch.

Kind of reminds me of Roddick's serve vs a more conventional / traditional full motion, and the interesting point to me was the simpler motion leads to improved precision.

Ok, discuss amongst yourselves.....

[gzhpcu]

I find also that the simpler the motion, the less chance of making an error. The full motion looks more elegant, in my opinion. I know John orefers the full windup.

Many servers make a slight pause at the trophy pause, so one wonders what the initial windup served. Some players abbreviate even more than Roddick and start from the trophy pose. Agassi did this in 1993 when he had a shoulder injury and did fine.

Many pro players have shorter windups nowadays.

[johnyandell]

First there is never an actual pause at the trophy position. Second what is often described as simpler is usually not. Far more difficult to achieve your maximum racket drop because you have to rely on world class external shoulder rotation with the "simple" backswing. The racket should be a few degrees shy of entering the drop or at the drop when the legs are fully coiled. The "simpler" abbreviated backswings typically prevent this.

[curiosity]

................................................. "The racket should be a few degrees shy of entering the drop or at the drop when the legs are fully coiled. The "simpler" abbreviated backswings typically prevent this."

JY, there is a widely admired coach with opinions usually remarkably close to your own who recently expressed the following view as to where the racquet should be when the legs are "fully coiled," or "at full knee bend." I can say I subscribe to both paragraphs below, with certain additions for another day:

"(A)ccording to Brian Gordon and Bruce Elliott that the timing of the backswing is critical in maximizing the role of the leg drive. The explosion upwards from the legs accelerates and increases the backward or external arm rotation. That in turn increases the force of the forward and upward internal rotation. But if the racket enters the backswing too soon or too late this benefit is reduced."

"The ideal position for the racket at the full knee bend according to Brian is--guess what--the position of Fed and Sampras. This is a little shy of the trophy position like 20 degrees or so. Roddick on this marker was a freak. But one reason so many people suffer (one among many reasons) with abbreviated backswings is that the leg drive starts too soon and the effect upon the external rotation is dissipated."

Hope you're rested up from your travels....

[johnyandell]

Uh, aren't those my words?

[curiosity]

Uh, aren't those my words?

"The racket should be a few degrees shy of entering the drop or at the drop when the legs are fully coiled. The "simpler" abbreviated backswings typically prevent this." -from post #3

vs.

"The ideal position for the racket at the full knee bend according to Brian is--guess what--the position of Fed and Sampras. This is a little shy of the trophy position like 20 degrees or so." -from another board, but yes, you.

I just thought one of these might be the preferred answer. I am, as ever, desperate for certainty as I reform my tennis technique. (I note you don't have the "utterly befuddled" smiley face available for my use...perhaps I'm the only one who often needs it?)

It is true, though, that when I'm serving "a few degrees" and "20 degrees or so" may well both fall within my "that's close enoiugh!" band.

[johnyandell]

Yeah I did say that--so what's not clear?

[curiosity]

Yeah I did say that--so what's not clear?

Clearly I get, understand, the problem with the abbreviated take-back. That's not my question.

But when the question is "what is the optimal racquet position when the legs are maximally coiled at the bottom of the knee bend?" We are given two answers. One is "when the racquet is about 20 degrees short of the drop. The other offered is, "when the racquet is a few degrees short of the drop."
–So what is 'unclear' is whether the 20 degrees or "a few degrees" is preferable."

To me your first description was preferable. It makes clear that the preparation is dynamic, and that the leg extension takes a bit longer than the racquet throw-back to get going, so that if we hit full leg coil and extend, our racquet will still be over and going down in time to benefit from the leg extension, in time to get extra ESR and get some UB rotation and shoulder pivot to power the swing under,back, up.

The "racquet should be a few degrees from drop when the legs are fully coiled" offers this ambiguity (to me, not likely to an expert...): Are these two versions suitable for different levels of player? I see your first description (20 degrees) as suitable for a dynamic skilled player with good timing. I see the second recommendation as suitable for a player wanting increased accuracy, and willing to give up just a bit of ESR through (call it early drop or late leg launch).

Many remember Steffi Graf going through an occasional tough time serving, in which she would serve from a trophy position and close-couple (I don't know a better term) the leg launch and racquet drop. It seemed she picked up a bit of placement and reliability, though she lost a bit of ESR depth and its consequent.

Before long, though, her confidence would come back, she was tossing high again, and the earth was spinning on its axis.

[johnyandell]

Anywhere from a few to 20 degrees!

[curiosity]

Anywhere from a few to 20 degrees!

Ah, the freedom to make my own mistakes... Didn't mean to be snarky. I just felt there was a missing piece that would tell me which I should use. Clearly that missing piece is my knowledge as to how fast I extend the leg, and how fast I can get over and into drop. On my deathbed they're going way, either in eulogy or scorn, "he was still fiddling with his serve and groundstrokes." Amen.

[bottle]

Ah, the freedom to make my own mistakes... Didn't mean to be snarky. I just felt there was a missing piece that would tell me which I should use. Clearly that missing piece is my knowledge as to how fast I extend the leg, and how fast I can get over and into drop. On my deathbed they're going way, either in eulogy or scorn, "he was still fiddling with his serve and groundstrokes." Amen.

According to the late Mark Papas, there is a rebellion against somebody's father for his lifelong fiddling around with his serve over all other considerations in life-- in one of the DIRTY HARRY films, maybe the first.

[johnyandell]

Curiosity--not sure the difference of a few degrees means that much--just interesting that Pete and Fed both look about the same degree off the trophy position.

[don_budge]

Ok, so this is not about tennis, but maybe there is some element of interest and application to tennis here....

Interesting article in today's WSJ on how it's now becoming "a thing" in Major League baseball for pitchers to pitch "from the stretch" (rather than full windup): https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-bas...dup-1492008747
If you search a bit on the 'Tube, you can find a few good videos illustrating the difference between a full windup pitch versus pitching from the stretch.

Kind of reminds me of Roddick's serve vs a more conventional / traditional full motion, and the interesting point to me was the simpler motion leads to improved precision.

Ok, discuss amongst yourselves.....

All tennis players that I know of are serving "from the stretch" position. They are all facing "third base". I couldn't read the balance of the article without subscribing to the Wall Street Journal...which I have zero interest in doing. But the premise seemed to be promising.

I looked at Andy Roddick's motion...

https://www.tennisplayer.net/members...euceFront1.mov

...and it looks to me that his motion is traditional in the sense that the hands do go "down together and up together". What makes it a bit unique is that in Roger Federer's case his motion is deeper in the sense that the hands are lower in the down together phase. In fact Federer has a somewhat idiosyncratic backswing as well as he starts the racquet in an already down position.

https://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/roger_federer_09/rf_serve/rf_1st_serve/rf_1st_serve.html?RF1stSAdCourtLevelFront1.mov

Roddick's hands to indeed go down together and then up together and what makes it appear to be "unorthodox" is that the hands do not push away from the body as Federer's do in the traditional sense or conventional motion. I tell my students "down together and out together". After a closer look at Roddick's motion I conclude that it isn't so much unorthodox as it is abbreviated. The drop of the hands is much shallower and as a consequence of this timing the push away from the body is less pronounced in the backswing phase. But he does achieve an incredible lineage of his elbows and shoulders in his ready to go forwards position.

The "full wind-up" motion of a Roger Federer (classic service motion) gives the player more rhythm and an easier cadence to hold. The motion going backwards serves to get all of the ducks in a row...all of the respective vectors of energy. That is the service that the backswing provides.

A full wind-up throwing or pitching motion starts with the right handed pitchers right foot on the rubber (forwards) with the left foot behind so that the pitcher is facing home plate (the opponent).