PDA

View Full Version : Do you understand what Tricky is talking about?


BeHappy
10-04-2007, 05:02 AM
This is in no way a slight at tricky, but I genuinely can't understand what he's talking about because he has invented a lot of terminology/jargon that I have never heard before.I'm just wondering if I'm alone?

fantom
10-04-2007, 05:32 AM
I was going to say the same thing a few days ago. His understanding of proper stokes is obviously good, but he uses too many musculo-skeletal words. We're tennis players, not physical therapists!!!

smoothtennis
10-04-2007, 08:42 AM
I understand Tricky's terms because I took the time to really get out the racket, and observe what is happening in my strokes. At first, I didn't understand some of the terms, or concepts I'll admit.

I studied martial arts for 5 years, and at least in our school, we slowly discected all the physcial and structural elements that produce the power in stiking, blocks and postures. Joint positions, where the weight is balanced, where the weight transfers, where the elbows are placed for optimal structural integrity, etc. It is slow, it takes time and observation, and work.

With this background in another sport, then, I was able to see what Tricky was describing. Then I started feeling what he was describing, such as the pre-stretch going on in the forearm during the initiation of the forward movement in the forehand. Some lightbulbs started going off.

I have retooled my forehand, and I am amazed at the results honestly. It has taken my game to a new level - I genuinely mean that too. I owe a great portion of that to Tricky and EricW, whom I corresponded with on these threads to work out some of these concepts. Hey, as a result, I am planning on playing 4.5 in my next tournament, so I'll see where that takes me.

I also have many years behind me on examining strokes, technique, and so I was primed to hear what he was saying.

Tricky - a big thanks from over here bro!

ananda
10-04-2007, 09:17 AM
he certainly lives upto his username!
hats off to tricky for the second time today.

tricky
10-04-2007, 11:07 AM
Well, the push/pull thing I totally understand why it's confusing. It's terminology taken from weightlifting (i.e. "pull day" ,"push day"), but Bolliterri also describes the FH as being a pull, and the people at Easitennis informally talk about it being a "press" or "punch."

I could use linear vs. rotational, because that's also how it's described in baseball swings. I could also use ATP/WTA because, for the most part, the popular examples you see corroborate So I apologize about that. :D

That said, if you find yourself "hooking" your FHs often (i.e. the elbow coming up and out of the swing plane), even in your finish, you have a problem related to the above issue, and you'll have consistent problems with control, depth, and spin. Things that can't be solved by using more of your hips and legs or a deeper shoulder turn.

The other terms aren't original. For example, you can do searches here for "smile" or "pendulum", it's the textbook backswing associated with the 1 hander.

he certainly lives upto his username!

Yeah, I get that a lot here. :D I'll probably stop.

LafayetteHitter
10-04-2007, 11:45 AM
Often times the guys with the ideas that are different may have the revolutionary idea that others should be trying.

mrcalon
10-04-2007, 11:46 AM
I voted yes, but really I only understand sometimes!

BeHappy
10-04-2007, 11:49 AM
Often times the guys with the ideas that are different may have the revolutionary idea that others should be trying.

I'd like to try, I just don't know what he's saying.

anachronism
10-04-2007, 02:05 PM
the observation of the pronation in Federer's forehand backswing was genius. thanks Tricky!

VaBeachTennis
10-04-2007, 02:34 PM
I voted yes. Tricky has some good advice and he can be pretty technical. That's where dictionary.com & google come in to play.

Mountain Ghost
10-04-2007, 02:51 PM
Though I have yet to read a term or a concept of Tricky’s that I myself would use on a lesson court, I really don’t understand the purpose of singling out his descriptive methods as a thread topic or as a (concealed) point of personal contention by the OP. I find him to be smart, quite generous with his time and not at ALL antagonistic.

Even though I don’t use his terminology and I prefer more concise, down-to-earth and universally-familiar ways to visually describe “correct” technique to my students, I do think there is a place within the ever-expanding knowledgebase of modern tennis for observations and analyses such as his . . . and I encourage his continued efforts.

Bottom line, however, I find simplicity can work in magical ways. Sometimes just a few simple words on a well-chosen root-cause solution can “cure” many seemingly unrelated flaws that would otherwise require extensive time and distracting energy to explain or to work through.

MG

BeHappy
10-04-2007, 02:55 PM
I really, really, really, really don't have any personal problem with tricky whatsoever, (you know this tricky don't you?), it's just frustrating because I know he knows what he's talking about, but it's just so hard to understand when someone's inventing terminology as they go along, it feels like learning quantum physics, to me at least.I was just wondering if I'm the only one.That really was the only purpose behind this thread.

I'd just like to add that I absolutely agree that he is smart and generous with his time, and I would never be antogonistc with a fellow student of the game.

I have nothing but respect for him.

WildVolley
10-04-2007, 03:15 PM
I don't think this is really an attack on tricky.

He's a generous poster who has interesting thoughts about how to hit the modern forehand, but his descriptions usually lose me quickly. Even simple concepts like pronate and supinate are confusing to me once you start moving your arm all around.

I need pictures. Perhaps he should set up his own tennis website. I'm sure it would get some hits.

BeHappy
10-04-2007, 03:22 PM
I don't think this is really an attack on tricky.

He's a generous poster who has interesting thoughts about how to hit the modern forehand, but his descriptions usually lose me quickly. Even simple concepts like pronate and supinate are confusing to me once you start moving your arm all around.

I need pictures. Perhaps he should set up his own tennis website. I'm sure it would get some hits.

I'm the same, need to pictures to understand the words.

drakulie
10-04-2007, 04:20 PM
I sometimes have an extremely hard time understanding his posts, but he does put a lot of effort and time into them, and they seem to help a lot of people >>>> so hat's off to him! :)

habib
10-04-2007, 04:50 PM
Tricky is practically impossible to understand! I, and I'm sure many like me, am particularly confused by his use of "the." I mean, christ Tricky, talk some sense, ok???

tricky
10-04-2007, 05:02 PM
nd I'm sure many like me, am particularly confused by his use of "the."

Eh?!? (10 chars and a question mark!)

BeHappy
10-04-2007, 05:09 PM
Tricky is practically impossible to understand! I, and I'm sure many like me, am particularly confused by his use of "the." I mean, christ Tricky, talk some sense, ok???

boo!
get off the stage ya bum!!!

lol ;)

tricky
10-04-2007, 05:15 PM
I really don’t understand the purpose of singling out his descriptive methods as a thread topic or as a (concealed) point of personal contention by the OP. I

It's Gorilla being Gorilla (i.e. he's curious but also very direct.) If he really has an issue with your explanations, he's going to let you know. (BTW folks, remember to hit that one-hander with bent arms and LOTSA wrist!) ;)

Often times the guys with the ideas that are different may have the revolutionary idea that others should be trying.

I definitely agree. But nothing I say is revolutionary; it's just overcomplicated! :D (But seriously, the walls of text aren't original. It's just badly worded! )

Nah, it's something BeHappy's asked me to do a number of times, about attaching images to the words for proper descriptions. (Because really most of it is self-evident once you actually see it.)

In any case, this is as good as any to informally talk about U/smile patterns and C backswings. Probably not that useful per se, in improving strokes, but it kinda gives you a "big picture" of all the variations in the game.

Smile patterns and C backswings

This is a good 1H BH thread about the "smile pattern", and it covers the C backswing as well.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=100686

Almost all strokes in tennis tend to follow either a U/smile or a C/circular pattern. You can also interpret the Roddick takeback as being a (upside down) smile pattern, and the traditional takeback as a C pattern.

The general ideas goes like this:

1) There is no such thing as a true straight takeback, be it BH, FH, or serve. The takeback must fit either a C or U, circular or smile. If it's really flat or abbreviated, it's going to look straight from the 3rd person. But you will still feel the shape in your backswing.

2) Smile/U backswings are best suited for strokes that are "vertical" or should stay in roughly the same plane as the weight transfer.

3) C/circular backswings are best suited for strokes that are more "lateral" or across the body. Natural fit.

4) Sometimes you see a "mismatch", especially on the BH side. This isn't a bad thing either, because it lets you create great inside-out and DTL shots. But as a normal shot, you won't get the same power, and your mechanics will feel a little "unnatural."

For example, a lot of people learning the normal 1H BH have problems with keeping their forward swing in a straight down-to-up motion, and often open up unnecessarily. They also have issues with measuring the contact point consistently. Almost all of these people who have this problem use a C-backswing with their 1H BH. When they switch to the smile pattern, everything clicks.

Likewise, you rarely see people use a smile pattern with FHs anymore, since almost everybody swings across the body. This was more common when people used to hit a classical, closed/neutral stance FH with the wood (i.e. that's how I learned it.) If you tried to use a C-backswing with an old school swing, it probably felt awkward, as if the closed stance was constricting your body to "turn."

There's a lot more to do this, but that's the general idea.

tennisace432
10-04-2007, 05:15 PM
I understand 90% of what tricky writes.

Tricky is a genius. You're one of the best posters around. I'm sick of all that old instruction out there. "Just bend your knees, watch the ball, get into the d bend to hit a monster forehand..."

If tricky actually invented the push pull concept, well that's smart.

Anyone trying to understand tricky, better have watched lots of slow mo vids, gone through tp.net, hi-tech, and several other sites. Understand biomechanics, pronation, supination, flexion, extension, etc...

Basically, this guy understands lots of stuff about technique and how the muscles works.

tricky
10-04-2007, 05:24 PM
Tricky is a genius. You're one of the best posters around. I'm sick of all that old instruction out there. "Just bend your knees, watch the ball, get into the d bend to hit a monster forehand..."

Seriously, if you could see the "visual" version of my wordy rants, you'l be like "oh, well yeah. 1000 words for that?!?"

For example, the thumb-wrist thing is really, really obvious when it's properly shown, because almost immediately most of your stroke will feel really different than what you're accustomed to, if you switch this. Then you'll be like "oh, okay, now I see how the other side lives."

Other than that, it really is "bend your knees, watch the ball, and double-hitthe ball with your 3rd eye." Swear . :D

Tricky is a genius. You're one of the best posters around. I'm sick of all that old instruction out there. "Just bend your knees, watch the ball, get into the d bend to hit a monster forehand..."

Seriously, if you could see the "visual" version of my wordy rants, you'l be like "oh, well yeah. 1000 words for that?!?"

For example, the thumb-wrist thing is really, really obvious when it's properly shown, because almost immediately most of your stroke will feel really different than what you're accustomed to, if you switch this. Then you'll be like "oh, okay, now I see how the other side lives."

Other than that, it really is "bend your knees, watch the ball, and double-hit the ball with your 3rd eye." Swear . :D

The one thing I'm truly proud of is figuring out Roddick's crank dat dance (i.e. that weird *** footwork that goes along with his serve.) That was hard. Oh gawd that was hard.

tennisace432
10-04-2007, 05:32 PM
Tricky,

While on the topic of thumb wrist. I need help with the 2hbh. The angle stays at 180 for the smile pattern, right? Why do guys like safin still able to have such a high racket tip at the height of the takeback?

tricky
10-04-2007, 05:33 PM
Are you taking the racquet back with your hands or elbows?

BeHappy
10-04-2007, 05:53 PM
It's Gorilla being Gorilla (i.e. he's curious but also very direct.) If he really has an issue with your explanations, he's going to let you know. (BTW folks, remember to hit that one-hander with bent arms and LOTSA wrist!) ;)



I definitely agree. But nothing I say is revolutionary; it's just overcomplicated! :D (But seriously, the walls of text aren't original. It's just badly worded! )

Nah, it's something BeHappy's asked me to do a number of times, about attaching images to the words for proper descriptions. (Because really most of it is self-evident once you actually see it.)

In any case, this is as good as any to informally talk about U/smile patterns and C backswings. Probably not that useful per se, in improving strokes, but it kinda gives you a "big picture" of all the variations in the game.

Smile patterns and C backswings

This is a good 1H BH thread about the "smile pattern", and it covers the C backswing as well.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=100686

Almost all strokes in tennis tend to follow either a U/smile or a C/circular pattern. You can also interpret the Roddick takeback as being a (upside down) smile pattern, and the traditional takeback as a C pattern.

The general ideas goes like this:

1) There is no such thing as a true straight takeback, be it BH, FH, or serve. The takeback must fit either a C or U, circular or smile. If it's really flat or abbreviated, it's going to look straight from the 3rd person. But you will still feel the shape in your backswing.

2) Smile/U backswings are best suited for strokes that are "vertical" or should stay in roughly the same plane as the weight transfer.

3) C/circular backswings are best suited for strokes that are more "lateral" or across the body. Natural fit.

4) Sometimes you see a "mismatch", especially on the BH side. This isn't a bad thing either, because it lets you create great inside-out and DTL shots. But as a normal shot, you won't get the same power, and your mechanics will feel a little "unnatural."

For example, a lot of people learning the normal 1H BH have problems with keeping their forward swing in a straight down-to-up motion, and often open up unnecessarily. They also have issues with measuring the contact point consistently. Almost all of these people who have this problem use a C-backswing with their 1H BH. When they switch to the smile pattern, everything clicks.

Likewise, you rarely see people use a smile pattern with FHs anymore, since almost everybody swings across the body. This was more common when people used to hit a classical, closed/neutral stance FH with the wood (i.e. that's how I learned it.) If you tried to use a C-backswing with an old school swing, it probably felt awkward, as if the closed stance was constricting your body to "turn."

There's a lot more to do this, but that's the general idea.



that was very helpful, and now that I think of it makes a lot of sense.

Gaudio and gasquet have a c takebacks on their 1hbhs though, or do they?

I noticed this myself a while back actually, that the path of backswings on the 1hbh tended to correlate closely with the swing itself.As opposed to a circular backswing the smile pattern is more like a pendulum isn't it, whereas the circular backswing consists of taking the arm back high and then dropping it down, which now that I think of it is the smile backswing backwards.

The C pattern is superior imo because it allows you to hit through a high ball and also faciltates the gradual and smooth development of racquet head speed and 'racquet drop', (ie: potential supination energy), to avail of these things you'd need to ,(at least)have your heel on 8 and your base knuckle between 8 and 1, as the racquet head needs to be orientated correctly to do the former, and the grip eeds to be extreme enough to facilitate the latter.

I need to digest this, I'll probably realise all my initial thoughtss are complete crap, but whatever.
Interesting stuff, I knew you it would be, that's why I was getting so frustrated reading your posts.

Anyway, keep posting these explanations of your terms, then I'll make this thread my sig and everyone will actually be able to benefit from your knowledge.

chuckmckool
10-04-2007, 05:53 PM
how do you post thread

lkdog
10-04-2007, 05:58 PM
Tricky is very helpful and his ideas are quite compelling.
The detail can get a little tough to sort out at first, but he hangs with you if you don't get it the first time.

Would love for him, as suggested, to have a few pictures of some of his main ideas.

Overall, he has motivated me to improve and to keep working on my game.

A real asset to this board. IMO.

:mrgreen:

tricky
10-04-2007, 06:02 PM
Gaudio and gasquet have a c takebacks on their 1hbhs though, or do they?Yup, and so do Keurten and Henin. *They* use the C-backswing "correcltly" (i.e. the "modern" 1H BH.)

As opposed to a circular backswing the smile pattern is more like a pendulum isn't it, whereas the circular backswing consists of taking the arm back high and then dropping it down, which now that I think of it is the smile pattern backwards.Exactly. Though I just want to add that you don't want to "lean" like a pendulum. Back should be straight and all.

What Gasquet and Henin do is a different stroke pattern. Instead of swinging down-to-up, you swing across the body as if it's a FH . You can kill the high ball, and your racquet speed is higher. It is the natural companion with the C-backswing.

You can emulate the effect by visualizing your finish as toward the fence behind you. You'll get a true lateral swing this way, and you'll start to see WW action similar to a FH.

(at least)have your heel on 8 and your base knuckle between 8 and 1, as the racquet head needs to be orientated correctly to do the former, and the grip eeds to be extreme enough to facilitate the latter.Exactly. The reason why we've started to see more extreme grips has less to do with creating more spin and more to do with the lateral motion of the swing. If you try swinging laterally with a continental grip from the BH side, you'll notice that you have poor protection for your wrist, and that it doesn't feel natural. I mean, would you execute a modern FH with a continental grip?

It's of course a more complicated stroke, though.

Also I have to give you a lot of credit for spotting Edberg's BH shot in that one video clip. That was a true modern BH and I'm completely impressed that Edberg had something that IMO is more advanced than even Gasquet's stroke.

tennisace432
10-04-2007, 06:04 PM
Are you taking the racquet back with your hands or elbows?

Hands....

Which are you supposed to take back with on the 2hbh?

BeHappy
10-04-2007, 06:14 PM
yeah, I'm not sure I agree with your model for edberg's stroke, I'll go into a lot more detail later on, but for now:
if, and it's a very big if, I understood your post correctly, you were saying that he hits the ball with the wrong side of his racquet, you said that would be asemi western backhand grip, the only problem with that is that that would actually be avery extreme hawaiin grip would it not?Edberg used a continental backhand.

I'm still waiting on fiveO to post that rosewall sequence so I can explain properly.

Rafa freak
10-04-2007, 06:22 PM
I voted yes, but really I only understand sometimes!

Same here.

tricky
10-04-2007, 07:40 PM
Which are you supposed to take back with on the 2hbh?

Eventually you work on taking back with just the elbow, which abbreviates the stroke, increases power and improves rhythm. To help with that, you can visualize a side fence near your hands. This will cause you to lead the backswing and forward with the elbow.

Your takeback still ends when shoulder is just under chin. You'll know you're doing this correctly if the racquet is much higher and the backswing is tighter.

the only problem with that is that that would actually be avery extreme hawaiin grip would it not?Edberg used a continental backhand.

It would be a pretty extreme grip (of course well suited for a very high ball), but not Hawaiian grip. Your knuckles still face you.

tennisace432
10-04-2007, 09:33 PM
Eventually you work on taking back with just the elbow, which abbreviates the stroke, increases power and improves rhythm. To help with that, you can visualize a side fence near your hands. This will cause you to lead the backswing and forward with the elbow.

Your takeback still ends when shoulder is just under chin. You'll know you're doing this correctly if the racquet is much higher and the backswing is tighter.



Whats the thumb wrist angle supposed to be on 2bh?

Take a look at verdasco's 2bh. Look how up his racket tip is!

Slazenger
10-04-2007, 09:38 PM
I've never read any of Tricky's teaching. Where can I get some good ones?

BTW, someone said Tricky invented push/pull. I hate that concept. I'm glad to know it works for people but I can only see that confusing my students. The simpler the better, because when you get down to it, tennis is quite simple.

Besides aren't you doing both to some degree in the stroke anyways?

I know different methods work for different people but thumb wrist angle??? Why would anyone want to consciously think about that when hitting a stroke? It seems to me making stuff way more complicated than it needs to be.

Solat
10-04-2007, 09:44 PM
i click on any thread if Tricky was the last to post there when i am logged on... invaluable poster in this subforum

ipodtennispro
10-04-2007, 09:53 PM
Actually, I have to admit that I made a print out of one of his posts. Tricky also made an excellent analogy of the "push / pull" (windshield vs classic style) stroke on one of my "Modern Day Forehands" video that I posted awhile back. He obviously knows what he is talking about and what's more impressive he's very good at articulating it on paper.

PS: I don't think threads should be started like this on the basis of whether or not someone can understand someone elses posts. Just ignore them.

tricky
10-04-2007, 10:50 PM
Whats the thumb wrist angle supposed to be on 2bh?

In your case, same as what you're already doing (~180.) When you try an abbreviated takeback (taking back with elbow), this will be more clear in terms of the racquet head. Your forearm angle will be much higher than you're probably accustomed to.

Take a look at verdasco's 2bh. Look how up his racket tip is!

It looks a bit like Roddick's BH, actually. ;) I'd have to verify, but I know Verdasco's BH is considered a weakness in his game.

Ross K
10-04-2007, 11:05 PM
All I can say is tricky has contributed MASSIVELY - both in terms of output and insight - to numerous threads that I've also posted on. And these contributions - be it on push/pull fh; the Nadal fh; the smile pattern & figure 8 motion; the abbreviated serve motion; OHBH technique; etc, etc, etc - are in my view of exceptional quality.

Listen... I might privately agree with the OP that sometimes, to aid clarity, some more mundane and 'everyday' language may be desirable. But in view of the amazing and groundbreaking work tricky has done on this forum, I actually think the point is redundant. To stretch an arguement a bit, it's like saying "Oh, Einstein? He needs to talk simpler!"... "Oh, Sigmund Freud? I wish he'd stop talking in such a complex manner (and quit chatting about people's parents!)"... Okay. I'm definitely NOT comparing tricky to these geniuses, but you see what I mean, yeah?

I sometimes struggle a little with the terminolgy, which is precisely why I continually bombard tricky with follow up Q.'s and ask for clarifications, etc. (Sorry t!) And furthermore, if you take the trouble to fully grasp the content, the results are usually VERY impressive. I promise you, if you're into the 'mechanics' of technique, take in the info, carefully study it, put it into practice and 'hey presto!'...

I'm not joking. These actually happen to be some areas t has helped me with or otherwise dealt with... James Blake's impressive fh shoulder turn... A-Rod's strange stepping motion with his feet whilst serving... Verdasco's straight armer... whether to finish over the shoulder or elsewhere... tracking the ball... pointing your butt cap to your opponent after you've the ball... the 'backscratcher' position... or, most recently, and to such a great effect that it has improved my 2hbh more than just about anything I've ever attempted - the Agassi bh.

VOTE 'YES'!!!... MAN'S BRILLIANT, I'M TELLIN' YOU!!!... AN ABSOLUTE TALK TENNIS LEGEND!!!...

Slazenger
10-04-2007, 11:14 PM
Wow, this is impressive. <Going to look for some Tricky posts>

tricky
10-04-2007, 11:20 PM
Wow, this is impressive. <Going to look for some Tricky posts>Please don't. Seriously even I admit I don't make sense half the time! :D

But thanks Ross!

Potito
10-05-2007, 05:24 AM
I'm italian, and I've a very poor english. But I can say that Tricky has helped me more then anyone else to improve my tennis.

ipodtennispro
10-05-2007, 09:23 AM
Wow, this is impressive. <Going to look for some Tricky posts>

Well, here's an old thread for starters:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=148042&page=2&highlight=punahou

If you read what he writes he is spot on. The problem with the video is that they are just warming up and massaging the ball. (Actually, there is a tremendous amount of pace coming off their balls for very little effort put in.) However, nobody is pulling the trigger in any of these shots. You would see more rotation if they started playing out points.

See if anything he says makes sense. It should.

BeHappy
10-05-2007, 09:26 AM
well, a continental grip is a (1,2), if you flip that over that's a (5,4), which is a full 3 bevels more extreme than a semi western grip.To achieve that grip you would have to put your hand underneath the handle, as opposed to on top of the handle for a continental or an eastern, behind the handle for a semi western.

So how this not correspond to a hawaiin grip?

The grip you describe is so severe that even at shoulder height it is impossible to mmake the racquet head perpendicular to the ground, the best I can manage is about 50 degrees, I would have to bend my arm significantly to actually hit the ball.

tricky
10-05-2007, 10:07 AM
well, a continental grip is a (1,2), if you flip that over that's a (5,4), Nah, when you flip/invert the racquet, it's not a true 180 degree turn. Because you're already using a conservative grip, your forearm can't pronate that much more. I don't have a racquet with me, but I believe around bevel 8. Also your wrist automatically lays back in concert so that the racquet face can finish opening up.

Seriously, this surprised me too, because like you I assumed the continental would go straight into a hawaiian grip. Instead you get a more extreme, but still very stable grip. Really, the key thing is to look at Edberg's footage and determine, in his finish, which side of the racquet face is showing. If it's the same face, then you're right. If it's the other face, then he's inverting his racquet.

BeHappy
10-05-2007, 10:22 AM
Nah, when you flip/invert the racquet, it's not a true 180 degree turn. Because you're already using a conservative grip, your forearm can't pronate that much more. I don't have a racquet with me, but I believe around bevel 8. Also your wrist automatically lays back in concert so that the racquet face can finish opening up.

Seriously, this surprised me too, because like you I assumed the continental would go straight into a hawaiian grip. Instead you get a more extreme, but still very stable grip. Really, the key thing is to look at Edberg's footage and determine, in his finish, which side of the racquet face is showing. If it's the same face, then you're right. If it's the other face, then he's inverting his racquet.



http://edberg.free.fr/videos/edberg_rosset_rg96/edberg_36_passing_long_de_ligne_zoom.mpg

tricky
10-05-2007, 10:59 AM
Yeah, that video clip shows Edberg's normal topspin BH. Ball's well in his wheelhouse. Dude just has a sweet BH all around. :D

BeHappy
10-05-2007, 12:44 PM
Nah, when you flip/invert the racquet, it's not a true 180 degree turn. Because you're already using a conservative grip, your forearm can't pronate that much more. I don't have a racquet with me, but I believe around bevel 8. Also your wrist automatically lays back in concert so that the racquet face can finish opening up.

Seriously, this surprised me too, because like you I assumed the continental would go straight into a hawaiian grip. Instead you get a more extreme, but still very stable grip. Really, the key thing is to look at Edberg's footage and determine, in his finish, which side of the racquet face is showing. If it's the same face, then you're right. If it's the other face, then he's inverting his racquet.



I don't know what you mean, I thought you were saying that edberg hit with the other side of his racquet, after reading this post I'm thinking you mean that he's making a grip change to bevel 8?Because the continental grip does correspond 5/6 if yu hit with the other side of the racquet

That clip I showed, I think that's what he's doing, he twists his forearm until the racquet is perpindicular to ground at that height, it's very important when you do this to immediately allow your racquet to return to it's original position, otherwise you'll hurt your elbow.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1185/877734866_1c6d608850_o.jpg

see how the side of rosewall's racquet that will be hitting the ball is facing the sky at the top of the backswing.

see how at contact it has supinated from it's original position until it is perpindicular to the ground and is parallel to the net.The side of the racquet that was facing the sky at the top of the backswing is facing the net and is the side that hits the ball.

See how immediately after hitting the ball the racquet returns to it's original position, with the ball hitting side rfacing the sky.


I think this is what Edberg is doing, in that youtube video I posted, the shoulder high shot he hit was one of the few completely flat shots you'll see, I think he's flattening it out the way rosewall used to.

My logic is this, if players can slice down on high balls, then they are doing something to get the racquet into a perpendicular position , (square to the ground), I think it is the rolling of the racquet ace I have just described.I think he does this same thing on the higher balls as he does on his ordinary slices, I think he does what he did in this video here,

http://edberg.free.fr/videos/edberg_rosset_rg96/edberg_36_passing_long_de_ligne_zoom.mpg


to higher balls too.

tricky
10-05-2007, 01:07 PM
When I get home, I'll try visualizing your model and see where we can go with that.

don't know what you mean, I thought you were saying that edberg hit with the other side of his racquet, after reading this post I'm thinking you mean that he's making a grip change to bevel 8?Because the continental grip does correspond 5/6 if yu hit with the other side of the racquet

Yes, if he's flipping the racquet purely from the forearm, but it's almost impossible for your forearm to pronate that much from a continental grip.

In order to finish opening up the racquet face on the other side, the wrist also lays back and especially his elbow comes up (i.e. deviates from the midline.) The elbow deviating also enables your hitting arm to switch into a topspin-friendly motion if you've started from a slicing takeback.

tennisace432
10-05-2007, 03:35 PM
My logic is this, if players can slice down on high balls, then they are doing something to get the racquet into a perpendicular position , (square to the ground), I think it is the rolling of the racquet ace I have just described.I think he does this same thing on the higher balls as he does on his ordinary slices, I think he does what he did in this video here,

http://edberg.free.fr/videos/edberg_rosset_rg96/edberg_36_passing_long_de_ligne_zoom.mpg


to higher balls too.

Gorilla, are you talking about a slice or 1 hbh here? It appears on the video that this is a flatter bh.

What's all this stuff about flipping the racket upside down and left and right with supination, then with added pronation, and wrist movement?? It just seems like you guys are throwing around fancy words.

To be honest, his stroke seems really simple actually. A few classic subtle things here and there, but pretty much the same as everyone else.

And the rosewall slice was pretty traditional, linear drive slice.

tricky
10-05-2007, 04:01 PM
What's all this stuff about flipping the racket upside down and left and right with supination, then with added pronation, and wrist movement??He showed me a clip (nothing like this one) where Edberg absolutely annihilated a ball that's about head (maybe higher?) level from his BH side) for a brilliant CC shot. Which would be phenomenal (impossible?) to do with a conventional topspin BH and a continental grip.

I think that particular one (against Sampras) is in BeHappy's shoutout to Yandell thread. It's really remarkable, and frankly if any player could dial that kind of shot, you'd be TERRIFIED going to that guy's BH wing. Moreso than Gasquet even.

In the video, it looks like he's setting up for a slice. And so, BeHappy is, I believe, arguing that he's using a variation of a driving slice shot a la Rosewall. Whereas I believe that he's hitting an "across the body" topspin BH (a la Keurten, Gasquet, Henin, etc.) using the other racquet face.

This turns out to be REALLY easy to do from a slice position, and that's what surprised me. You just treat the slice takeback as the first part of a massive C-backswing, invert the racquet to use the other side of the racquet, and crank away. Almost like swinging a baseball bat from the left side. And the swing itself is extremely powerful.

I need to work through the mechanics more closely with BeHappy's argument, because in a drive slice, there's a component where the racquet does go back up. And he's right in that there would be some kind of wiping action on the ball.