Pandora's box of tennis technique

[EricMatuszewski]

Have we opened a pandora’s box?


When I was a teenager and took up tennis, one of the things that gave me hope was that I could distinguish myself and become successfull, because of my perseverance to figure out the complexities of the strokes.

I was never going to be a championship powerlifter or a sprinter because I didn’t have the right genes for those endeavors. Not enough fast twich fibers, not anabolic enough, etc. No matter how hard I trained there was no way around those genetic factors in these much more simple sports.

Sure, there is some technique involved in powerlifting and sprinting, but, a Gustavo Kuertan, despite winning three French Open's would never be a world class or even a regional class powerlifter or sprinter, those sports place too much an importance on muscular genetics.

But with tennis, I could use my brain…

I could figure out what most didn’t have the persistence to figure out. I could learn the anatomy of the human body and figure out the best way to use it to make the ball do what I needed it to do.

So I could “stand out” in tennis because of my character (that is, the persistent part anyway). And likewise anyone else with that persistence could become successful as well. This is one of my favorite qualities of tennis.

But as the information that I and others like myself have worked so hard to discover, floods the internet, I wonder have we done some harm to the sport?

If we all have easy access to perfect technique, what will separate competitors in the future?

Will it all come down to muscular genetics, like bodybuilding, powerlifting and sprinting?

Or will some quality of character still make the difference in who lifts the trophy?

[gzhpcu]

Eric,
I feel that free flow of information can only make things better. It helps to make the less talented better, have a better technique and be less prone to injuries.

I believe that only a small minority has the patience to try and think things out. The average club player just wants to play and stagnates at a level appropriate to the level of their technique (which can be pretty baroque in some cases... ).

At the pro level, I feel the really gifted players will instinctively do things right. If you look at pro tennis, there are many distinctive styles. The game keeps evolving, the equipment keeps evolving. There is no standard, perfect technique.

We must also be realistic enough to adapt the technique to our biomechanical limitations (hip flexibility, upper arm flexibility, motor speed, etc.). I believe a player must also take this into consideration when choosing the implementation of a certain technique. It must be the one most appropriate to his/her physical makeup.

In my opinion, things will only get better. This site just makes information more accessible to a broader audience of tennis players who think and want to improve, instead of just a small number of players in tennis academies.

Thanks again John!

[johnyandell]

I don't see technique being perfected at many levels. I think the Stroke Archive can be a pandora's box in another way.

Now if we can see most details of the strokes, what do you focus on and copy and at what age? Gonzo has a huge forehand. Is it because of that huge backswing? (Or in spite of it?)

I see a lot of kids focusing on the extremities of advanced pro technique and they aren't advanced pros. Check out Pete Sampras's forehand age 10 in the Lansdorp article. No extreme closed face backswing. But there are 10 year olds out there who are modeling that backswing because they want to be like Pete.

Yet at the end of the day I must agree with Phil--more info opens the door to better tennis. If I didn't think that I'd be in the wrong business, that's for sure.

[mdhubert]

Nobody opened the Pandora's box, it oppened on its own ! OK, John helped a little bit, but the technological evolution has led to this. My opinion is that previous generations would have loved to be able to access such a huge amount of technical information so easily ! And this kind of approach interests only people who want to progress, and this is a limited number of people IMO. As far as competitors are concerned, I'm pretty sure that tennis is such a complete game that the mental aspect will always make the difference at the top level. This is the beauty and the legacy of this sport: it is played by human beings, betrayed by their emotions at critical moments. McEnroe vs. Lendl 84, Lendl vs. Chang 89, those were mental battles more than anything else at the end, and they are the matches we remember. Federer unable to close out the match against Nadal in Rome is certainly more impactful than some of his thrashings in slam finals. So at the end, it's a chess game and a gut battle, disguised into a formidable physically demanding sport requiring high technical skills. It has so many dimensions no technical evolution will be able to harm it IMO.

[EricMatuszewski]

Mdhubert,

quote: So at the end, it's a chess game and a gut battle, disguised into a formidable physically demanding sport requiring high technical skills. It has so many dimensions no technical evolution will be able to harm it IMO.unquote

that is a beautiful take on the sport. Bravo!

[EricMatuszewski]

Phil,

I agree with the "instinct" comment about pro technique.

For example...

Lately I've been hitting with a Division 1 college player that has only been playing for 4 years. I've known him since he started playing and gave him a little technique advice from time to time, but mostly just encouragement.

What's amazing is that he has very close to top level pro technique, without having taken formal instuction.

I think that he like the rest of my most successfull students is just a quick modeler.

A quick modeler can get a pose (much like in Martial arts or dance) right in 5 seconds whereas a poor modeler takes repeated adjustment by a coach to get a pose right.

this seems to be the quality that makes the most difference in the "talented" player.

I've seen this phenomena repeatedly as I've watched beginners become tournament players. The quickest modelers progress the fastest and eventually look like they are just naturally born that way. The point is that the "natural athelite" label is a misnomer.

The athelite must get information to progress. Had Federer been brought up without ever seeing another athelite he would not even have become a local champion much less a world #1.

My theory ...

"Natural" athelites are simply quicker modelers. This quality of becoming a quick modeler can be taught much the same as it is in martial arts and dance. With regular practice, children get better at it.

To sumarize...

I agree that better players make things look instinctual, but these instinct like response patterns were trained probably thru modelling.

[johnyandell]

I agree.

There are lots of stories from top players that support that. Lendl once told me he made huge jumps when he was a 10 year old ball boy watching top Czech players.

If you ask McEnroe how he learned, he says: I just watched Laver and tried to do what he did. Mary Carillo told me that Mac's game actually looked more like Tony Pallafox his coach at Port Washington--same deal.

This is why the imagery revolution is a positive. The picture leads to the feeling.

[vmiller]

But as the information that I and others like myself have worked so hard to discover, floods the internet, I wonder [B]have we done some harm to the sport?

I think it still requires persistence to fully understand this flood of information, and even more persistence to successfully apply it. For example, if you read an article by Bruce Elliot, you may come across a technical term like "Internal Rotation". The average person probably doesn't know what that is. Do they have the persistence to find out so that they can understand the article? Do they have the persistence to seek out other articles on the same topic to learn from alternative explanations? Do they have the persistence to take this new material to the courts and spend hours, weeks, and months trying to gain the physical feel of it? In many cases, I think not. Even with the flood of information, I think persistence still carries an advantage, and in terms of the sport, having better information available to more poeple will likely lead to further innovation.

Personally I am grateful for the flood. While I've impressed myself with things I've figured out on my own, my game would not be what it is without the information that is currently available on the internet.

Last week, I had a 4.0 friend tell me he was switching from a continental grip to an eastern on his forehand to get more topspin. I asked him to show me the two grips, and in reality, he was trying to switch from a semi-western to a full western. He must have missed the flood. And you know what? He's one of the most persistent tennis players I know!

[leis]

There is an opposing philosophical camp that stresses the "feel" of technique rather than the "analysis" of technique(to avoid "paralysis by analysis"). I personally think that the two philosophies are not mutually exclusive, but can work hand in hand through proper coaching.