April Issue

[johnyandell]

Everyone,

We are grinding away on the April issue! We expect to publish on April 5 (or 6???). A little taste of what's coming:

Brian Gordon on the serve wind up in 3D
David Bailey begins his new series on the "Contact Move"

Marcos Baghdatis in the Stroke Archive
A first look at Novak Djokovic's forehand in the Interactive Forum

The Return of Your Strokes!

PLUS:

A new kind of Advanced Tennis article that mixes audio and video on the core elements of the forehand and boils down what the average player can learn from the pros

AND a report on the Osmosis Clinic from Indian Wells.

Plus the final installment on the one-handed backhand discussing Hand and Arm Rotation.

We'll also have an unexpected new portrait of Roger Federer from Greg Swendsen, filmed during Roger's loss to Guillermo Canas at Indian Wells.

See you in a few days.

[johnyandell]

Make that the 7th!!

[marty]

Thanks

[carrerakent]

J. Gregory Swendsen's photo display

isn't it sad, kinda sick of someone, none of us really care who J. Gregory Sendsen (someone so likely ashamed of his first name that he used his initial) and is anxiousness to jump all over every opportunity to capture and document a great tennis player having a "down" time. it's pretty sad when people revel in the demise of another person. Like Roger Federer is supposed to be above failure, shame, pain, loss, ...geez, we should be so pathetic to put him under a microscope. I think it's more of a shame for this website that we PAY for to be putting such shameless photo-journalism in our faces...pathetic!

[johnyandell]

Uh, I think you missed the point.

[amar]

Each A Gem

Mr. Yandell,

I just want to thank you. Each article in this months issue is a gem ! Truly !

Regards,

Amar

[gracie1000]

I just cannot get enough of your site. Thanks so much.

Gene V.

[mntlblok]

Great issue

The material just keeps getting better and better.

I noticed that a couple of the articles this month addressed the issue of ball height to a greater degree than I've seen in the past.

My own personal experimentation has me thinking that the relative heights of the hand and racket head from the start of the forward swing to ball contact are equally important.

The differential between hand height and racket head height at the bottom of the back swing strikes me as being the determining factor in both how much topspin is applied, and likely also much of what determines the shape of the follow through "wipe" (on both the forehand and the backhand).

I've noticed in the high speed videos that, unless the ball is quite high, that the players hand is always slightly above ball height at contact, but also slightly above the racket head. The hand height also doesn't seem to change much through the forward swing, regardless of the amount of topspin to be applied.

It also strikes me that the "flatness" of the trajectory of a topspin stroke is primarily a function of the path of the hand in the forward swing. - especially as it compares to the height of the ball at contact.

On page 49 of Vic Braden's book, he states "You must lower the hitting arm, the wrist, and the racket as a fixed unit, so that your hitting hand is also 12 inches below the incoming ball, on the same level as the racket head." The high speed videos don't bear this out. This is from an older book, and maybe things (and Vic's ideas) have changed since then, but it has certainly not helped me change to the type of follow through that John advocates and that all the pros use.

Since endeavoring to keep my hand above the contact height and to vary the amount that I drop the racket head below the ball (depending on how much spin I want to apply), I've gained consistency in the forehand stroke, flattened the trajectory out, and (I think) made my follow through look like it is supposed to. As I've applied these variables in the same manner to my topspin backhand (which hasn't been a problem), I find that the theory holds - suggesting to me that the theory is robust.

I hope this makes sense - at least to some. I'm looking forward to seeing if Brian's work bears this out. I apologize to any and all who find this to be totally nuts, and I apologize to John for another of my painful to read posts. (I really did try to keep it short).

Kevin
Savannah

[BrianGordon]

I hope this makes sense - at least to some. I'm looking forward to seeing if Brian's work bears this out. I apologize to any and all who find this to be totally nuts, and I apologize to John for another of my painful to read posts. (I really did try to keep it short).

Kevin
Savannah

Kevin-

Makes perfect sense to me - and is quite perceptive I must say - and I will say that while other hand path approaches are used for complicated and perhaps contraindicated reasons, my data will show that your general theory (hand does not drop much below contact level, if at all) holds for many of the higher level players I've quantified - exceptions relate to the CHOICE of joint rotation(s) allocated to derive VERTICAL racquet speed, and exceptionally high contact points (high balls) - Brian

[hyperwarrior]

Hi Mr. Yandell,

I think the osmosis concept is pretty cool. I love it.

[mntlblok]

Kevin-

Makes perfect sense to me - and is quite perceptive I must say - and I will say that while other hand path approaches are used for complicated and perhaps contraindicated reasons, my data will show that your general theory (hand does not drop much below contact level, if at all) holds for many of the higher level players I've quantified - exceptions relate to the CHOICE of joint rotation(s) allocated to derive VERTICAL racquet speed, and exceptionally high contact points (high balls) - Brian

Your web site inspired me to get out my washable Crayola marker, one of John's high speed videos of Fed's forehand, my computer monitor screen, my cheapo photo software (CompuPic), and digital camera. I put some dark green dots, periodically, on the monitor, marking where the butt of his racket was and where the tip of his racket was at various spots in his forward swing, and also where the incoming ball position was. I then tried to match up some of those spots with the software on a photo that I took of the monitor screen. This url will show what I came up with. Maybe it will help to explain what I'm trying to say. http://www.flickr.com/photos/7604265...7600094800395/

I happen to think that (though still not thoroughly tested) this differential in hand and ball height at impact is what generates the shape of the "wipe" to follow. I'd love to see this portion of the swing represented by that "Rainbow Arc" concept.

My software is not designed to really do this sort of thing. I had to "insert" text for each "x", ".", and "o" that I marked on the photo. I wonder if it would be worth my time to buy and learn some other software. I strongly doubt it if this sort of thing turns others off as much as it does John. It's clear to him that I'm barking up the wrong tree. Might be.

Kevin Quixote
Savannah