PDA

View Full Version : IMO polystrings have made the game easier..and TOO BORING!


morten
01-12-2009, 02:24 PM
Yes i miss serve and volley, but it is not only that.. IMO the strings today(possibly together with the new rackets) have ruined not only the serve and volley, but the game in general, and the variety even in baseline rallies. You see baseline players hit short a lot relying on power rather than placement, using only a few shots(mainly forehand, backhand topspin) throughout a match. Not the many different shots tennis has. Placement and feel is no longer rewarded... it is simply too easy to blast the ball back with a lot of spin. I just had to get it out... I am glad i don`t play ATPnow.. i would be bored, stereotypes are ok, but not if like 97% play the same simple robot style.. i even think Fed and the few other players who master many shots and tacticians will agree, and wish they played in 1989....(maybe that`s why Fed has some lack of desire now???) Thanks :)

hoodjem
01-12-2009, 02:28 PM
True. Join the club.

The "Baseline Bashers" club, that is.

edmondsm
01-12-2009, 02:30 PM
You've been here since 2004. Surely you know about the "rants and raves" section to this forum.

S H O W S T O P P E R !
01-12-2009, 02:33 PM
The technology hasn't hurt the game, it's the way the talent is taught. All the talented kids are taught to use massive topspin and power instead of learning not only shots but they also don't learn how to implement other game styles. If anything, the coaching system needs to be overhauled.

ThugNasty
01-12-2009, 02:55 PM
http://www.unionmillwright.com/whiner.jpg

jmverdugo
01-12-2009, 03:03 PM
Yes i miss serve and volley, but it is not only that.. IMO the strings today(possibly together with the new rackets) have ruined not only the serve and volley, but the game in general, and the variety even in baseline rallies. You see baseline players hit short a lot relying on power rather than placement, using only a few shots(mainly forehand, backhand topspin) throughout a match. Not the many different shots tennis has. Placement and feel is no longer rewarded... it is simply too easy to blast the ball back with a lot of spin. I just had to get it out... I am glad i don`t play ATPnow.. i would be bored, stereotypes are ok, but not if like 97% play the same simple robot style.. i even think Fed and the few other players who master many shots and tacticians will agree, and wish they played in 1989....(maybe that`s why Fed has some lack of desire now???) Thanks :)

Not that easy actually...

morten
01-12-2009, 03:18 PM
http://www.unionmillwright.com/whiner.jpg

LOL.. i`ll take that.. Still love tennis, just that before watching tennis on TV made me want to hit the courts, it inspired me... Not as much anymore. I sort of enjoy watching the best 50+ players in my club play more than most ATP matches.. Yeah i know about the rants and raves, i just felt it belonged here in the current pro player section too...

Blade0324
01-13-2009, 08:07 AM
I would have to disagree with the OP. I find S&V and such to be boring and uncreative. I find that the points played from the baseline have a more exciting element to them and this type of tennis is more enjoyable to watch and makes me want to hit the courts.

nickarnold2000
01-13-2009, 08:13 AM
Remember Wimbeldon years ago being ruled by the big serve and volleyers(Sampras, Becker, Ivanenich exception: Agassi)? That was really boring for me. What we need is to have some variety; different styles of play to make it interesting.

Nadal_Freak
01-13-2009, 08:15 AM
I love how tennis is played now. I couldn't disagree with you more.

Nickk
01-13-2009, 08:21 AM
I'm in strong agreement with the last 3 posts. S&V game is boring to watch, good rallies lend to more creative point and shot making IMO.

LanceStern
01-13-2009, 09:34 AM
While I agree with the past 4 posts, I also think brilliant serve and volleying leads to awesome volleys, very tense matches (cause you know the point will end soon), and really good quality shots here and there. Plus outstanding passing shots!

But we need a dedicated serve and volleyer in the top 10. Just because Fed and Murray take it up every now and then, I don't really care for them serving and volleying. Roddick would be awesome

The Pure One
01-13-2009, 09:34 AM
Then I'm the fourth to agree! S&V alone is extremely boring.

To the OP: You blame new racquets but love the era around the year '89? Well, graphite is from the early 80's. And IMO the racquets of that era and todays pros racquets are very similar, except for the babolats and the increase in stiffness.

Polyester strings? Some companies started the manufacture of monofilament synthetic string back in the early 80's, but many pro's did not used them because they used and loved the powerful natural gut. But to blame polys is inaccurate IMO. You colud probably have the familiar results with other strings that are not poly (kevlar comes to my mind and AA used it until around 2001). Also, natural gut, strung over 70 pounds can deliver same results in the spin department. Just ask Sampras and Borg. I guess poly strings has some blame in the change of the game but IMO is very little since there are a lot of other contributory elements, not only the strings (more athletic players, type of courts, different kind of balls, etc.).

David L
01-13-2009, 10:31 AM
Yes i miss serve and volley, but it is not only that.. IMO the strings today(possibly together with the new rackets) have ruined not only the serve and volley, but the game in general, and the variety even in baseline rallies. You see baseline players hit short a lot relying on power rather than placement, using only a few shots(mainly forehand, backhand topspin) throughout a match. Not the many different shots tennis has. Placement and feel is no longer rewarded... it is simply too easy to blast the ball back with a lot of spin. I just had to get it out... I am glad i don`t play ATPnow.. i would be bored, stereotypes are ok, but not if like 97% play the same simple robot style.. i even think Fed and the few other players who master many shots and tacticians will agree, and wish they played in 1989....(maybe that`s why Fed has some lack of desire now???) Thanks :)

While you might find it more boring, the new strings will not have made the game easier. Players might be able to add more spin, but that also means they have to deal with more spin and endure longer, pacey rallies. They have to be better athletes. Should they choose to serve and volley, that is also now more difficult, so in many ways the game is harder. Also, many players still use the conventional type rackets used back in the 90s, but with a paint job, like Federer, so technology is not always a huge factor when it comes to the actual racket. Ever since the mid 80s players have been using graphite rackets. The bogus technology racket companies try to sell to ordinary punters is not used by the pros and Luxilon's Big Banger string has been around since the 80s and used on the pro tour from the 90s. Most players also us it with natural gut.


KEY BISCAYNE, Fla. _ The next time you pick up a tennis magazine to research the "new technology" in those increasingly exotic rackets that hit the market every year, let the words of Dominik Hrbaty reverberate through your brain.

Hrbaty, who has been using the same Fischer racket for 14 years, smiled, as if he was about to impart a secret he wanted to get out.

"There is no new technology," he said. "Same racket with different paint. When I started using my Fischer, it was blue with a little pink. Then they made it dark blue, then silver. After silver, all yellow, but not a really bright yellow. And now it's black and yellow."

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-8511478_ITM

coloskier
01-13-2009, 12:36 PM
I'm in strong agreement with the last 3 posts. S&V game is boring to watch, good rallies lend to more creative point and shot making IMO.

So, in other words, you don't think someone hitting a perfect touch drop volley is shot making. The problem is that you have to be a much more highly skilled player to hit a good volley than if you sit at the baseline and hit the same shot over and over again. Which most of the players who complain about S&V can't do themselves, so they don't like it.

edmondsm
01-13-2009, 12:40 PM
So, in other words, you don't think someone hitting a perfect touch drop volley is shot making. The problem is that you have to be a much more highly skilled player to hit a good volley than if you sit at the baseline and hit the same shot over and over again. Which most of the players who complain about S&V can't do themselves, so they don't like it.

C'mon, it goes both ways. Serve and volleyers can hit those volleys, but their groundstrokes are generally very weak compared to a baseliner. There is a skill involved in both disciplines.

treblings
01-13-2009, 12:42 PM
I would have to disagree with the OP. I find S&V and such to be boring and uncreative. I find that the points played from the baseline have a more exciting element to them and this type of tennis is more enjoyable to watch and makes me want to hit the courts.

i respect your opinion, but what do you find creative in todays matches from the baseline?

David L
01-13-2009, 01:26 PM
So, in other words, you don't think someone hitting a perfect touch drop volley is shot making. The problem is that you have to be a much more highly skilled player to hit a good volley than if you sit at the baseline and hit the same shot over and over again. Which most of the players who complain about S&V can't do themselves, so they don't like it.
This is not true, they are just different skills. It all depends on what a player chooses to develop most.

morten
01-13-2009, 02:34 PM
Many things i could have said here and some very good points from all of you.. Bottom line for me is i want some of both styles...s&v and baseline play! I miss the battle between the two styles as well, but i still think baseliners of the 90s were better/more creative than most players today. I am thinking Kafelnikov, Stich, Rios, Korda, Bruguera etc..most of them could volley very well if they had to too.. And also, even if todays rallies sometimes are long and grueling i don`t consider that grinding athleticism, to me a half volley taken from the shoelaces, diving volleys, backhandsmash, stab backhand with no backswing of one foot, touch angled volleys all those things requiring sudden reflexes and the movement of a dancer, now thats athleticism to me... :)

Noveson
01-13-2009, 06:39 PM
Many things i could have said here and some very good points from all of you.. Bottom line for me is i want some of both styles...s&v and baseline play! I miss the battle between the two styles as well, but i still think baseliners of the 90s were better/more creative than most players today. I am thinking Kafelnikov, Stich, Rios, Korda, Bruguera etc..most of them could volley very well if they had to too.. And also, even if todays rallies sometimes are long and grueling i don`t consider that grinding athleticism, to me a half volley taken from the shoelaces, diving volleys, backhandsmash, stab backhand with no backswing of one foot, touch angled volleys all those things requiring sudden reflexes and the movement of a dancer, now thats athleticism to me... :)

I'm with him, except maybe for the athleticism part. I love watching Nadal, Federer, etc play. The way they hit the ball is incredible. But I really wish there were a few serve and volley players in the top ten. I don't particularly like one better than the other, but homogenized styles are never exciting. It seems like serve and volley isn't even an option for far too many players. I wish it was more viable.

slicefox
01-13-2009, 08:08 PM
Hey I totally agree with the Original Post. I"m also sick of these pussies who stand at the baseline and do the topspin hits exclusively. It's like if tennis was an imbalanced game.

Noveson
01-13-2009, 08:15 PM
Hey I totally agree with the Original Post. I"m also sick of these pussies who stand at the baseline and do the topspin hits exclusively. It's like if tennis was an imbalanced game.

Congratulations on making a very bad impression with one of your first posts.

I feel like serve and volley is going to come back eventually. I HOPE that these things just come in waves, like the Russians:).

coloskier
01-14-2009, 07:29 AM
This is not true, they are just different skills. It all depends on what a player chooses to develop most.

Without the new strings, they wouldn't have the skill to whack consistently from the baseline (going back to original thread).

Blade0324
01-14-2009, 09:00 AM
i respect your opinion, but what do you find creative in todays matches from the baseline?

The main thing that is creative is this. If both players are staying back it becomes more difficult to get short angles off the court etc. than if you were in at net. THus the player has to change up their strokes to create angles to pull the opponent off the court to open it up to hit a winner. Also for myself personally I find that just hitting the same ground stroke of the FH or BH wing all the time is not really very effective. I mix things up a great deal hitting high loopy balls, low hard balls, topspin, slice and even occassionally sidespin shots to throw my opponent off their game.

David L
01-14-2009, 10:54 AM
Without the new strings, they wouldn't have the skill to whack consistently from the baseline (going back to original thread).
How do you know? This is absolutely false. These are professional tennis players we are talking about, most of whom would have been playing with 'normal' strings growing up, some of whom still probably do. Without the new strings, they would in all likelihood have been hitting the ball just as well as or better than previous generations without the string. They would certainly be able to volley better than today, because it's much easier to volley with a 100% natural gut set-up, plus you wouldn't have to deal with the extra spin Luxilon helps create on passing shots. To my memory, I seem to recall Lendl, Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Gomez, Wilander, Becker, Chang, Kafelnikov and a whole host of others doing just fine from the baseline without Luxilon. All Luxilon has done has allow pros to hit with a little more spin, they were already skilled enough to hit well from the baseline without it. Without Luxilon, they would just make the adjustment to using less spin. Albert Costa and Kuerten were amongst the first to start using Luxilon from 1995 and 1996 respectively, but I don't recall a huge leap in how pros were hitting just before this. Agassi only started using Luxilon from 2003 and I would say he hit the ball pretty good before that too. Over the years, pros have just learnt more about maximizing the use of Luxilon, but they would still be able to hit incredibly well without it.

NamRanger
01-14-2009, 11:02 AM
How do you know? This is absolutely false. These are professional tennis players we are talking about, most of whom would have been playing with 'normal' strings growing up, some of whom still probably do. Without the new strings, they would in all likelihood have been hitting the ball just as well as or better than previous generations without the string. They would certainly be able to volley better than today, because it's much easier to volley with a 100% natural gut set-up, plus you wouldn't have to deal with the extra spin Luxilon helps create on passing shots. To my memory, I seem to recall Lendl, Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Gomez, Wilander, Becker, Chang, Kafelnikov and a whole host of others doing just fine from the baseline without Luxilon. All Luxilon has done has allow pros to hit with a little more spin, they were already skilled enough to hit well from the baseline without it. Without Luxilon, they would just make the adjustment to using less spin. Albert Costa and Kuerten were amongst the first to start using Luxilon from 1995 and 1996 respectively, but I don't recall a huge leap in how pros were hitting just before this. Agassi only started using Luxilon from 2003 and I would say he hit the ball pretty good before that too. Over the years, pros have just learnt more about maximizing the use of Luxilon, but they would still be able to hit incredibly well without it.



The introduction of Luxilon completely changed the way tennis is taught and the way tennis is played.



Look at the grips and hitting structures of players of the 90s and compare them to the players of today. Yes, they do have some similar characteristics, but today, there are major changes. Overall, the tour has switched over to much more extreme grips, and tennis is played much farther behind the baseline on average than it was in the 90s.



Do you think a player like Nadal would have the same success without the new technology? Although he uses a fairly old string (Duralast), he uses it in combination with his racquet for a deadly combo. Nadal's game has been determined by the equipment, not by his own skill sets. His whole entire game is based around his equipment. Without this technology, I guarantee there is no way Nadal has the same type of success as today.



Also, what the poster you quote says is not false. Luxilon and other new polyester strings combined with newer racquets today is a deadly combo. The players can absolutely whail on the ball, breaking the 100 mph at times. Rarely in the 90s was a groundstroke even hit above 80 mph. With a significant increase in spin, the pace can now be upped while still maintaining control over the ball. Also, it isn't just a "little" more spin. We're talking about guys like Nadal who can hit more topspin on their forehand than Sampras did during his prime on his second serve. That's a little ridiculous.



Plus, many of your examples of pro players pre-Luxilon is a really bad one. Agassi, Kafelnikov, Chang, Becker, and Lendl all have very conservative grips in comparison to players of today. That is why they succeeded. The rest of your examples are primarily clay court specialists, with the exception of Courier, who was good on pretty much all surfaces.

David L
01-14-2009, 12:32 PM
Luxilon has had an impact, but players have also been a contributing factor. I do not believe the strings explain everything. Federer, Nadal, Monfils and others are excellent athletes in their own right too. Luxilon has affected the game obviously, but the players also have to be good enough to take advantage of it, which then places greater demands on each others athletic ability. As you say, players now have to deal with 100 mph groundies more regularly, they could definitely hit them in the past, it was just riskier. They also have to deal with more spin and higher bouncing balls. The dynamics of the game have changed, but it has not made the game easier. In many ways it is harder. I recall one of the old-timers, either Laver or Kramer, saying they would not relish playing the game today with the high bouncing balls, so you can look at this from two angles. The game is simply different today.

The technology may be there, but players also have to have the skill to make the most of it. The technology is there for everyone to use, but not everyone can make the most of it. Furthermore, technology does not help when we are talking about the other requirements involved in playing tennis well, like speed of reaction, movement, anticipation, agility etc. Just because there is new technology, does not mean a player does not have to be highly skilled to use it effectively or battle against it. Take Formula One, those cars are state of the art, but in many ways demand more of the driver than Formula One would have 50 years ago. Now they have to react quicker, deal with extreme g-force, exhibit more stamina and endurance, process information more quickly. Technology and skill are two separate things, which can create a potent cocktail when they meet. In a sport played between and directly against others, new technology is just going to place greater demands on one's opponents. So to be an effective serve and volleyer now, maybe it's going to require Edberg's skills x2. Maybe we are going to see this individual in the future. The genie is already out of the bottle and it ain't going back, so I don't see the point in lamenting the 'good old days'. Tennis is what it is now.

The other thing is, I do not think grips are more extreme today. Just as today, most players in the 90s used semi-western grips. Lendl, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Chang, Becker, Rafter etc. all used semi-western grips. Then you had Bruguera, Courier, Berasategui etc. using the more exteme western or even Hawaiian grip, so this is pretty much the same as today.

treblings
01-14-2009, 01:12 PM
The main thing that is creative is this. If both players are staying back it becomes more difficult to get short angles off the court etc. than if you were in at net. THus the player has to change up their strokes to create angles to pull the opponent off the court to open it up to hit a winner. Also for myself personally I find that just hitting the same ground stroke of the FH or BH wing all the time is not really very effective. I mix things up a great deal hitting high loopy balls, low hard balls, topspin, slice and even occassionally sidespin shots to throw my opponent off their game.

seems you have a more allround game than most pros. now try to mix in some s&v as an element of surprise:)
seriously, i like your answer. years ago when i was watching pro tennis, i saw tactical play. great shot selection. trying to outsmart your opponent or push him into errors. chess in motion.
nowadays i see that to a far lesser extent.
do you see a trainer nowadays teaching sidespin shots to youngsters?

NamRanger
01-15-2009, 09:12 AM
Luxilon has had an impact, but players have also been a contributing factor. I do not believe the strings explain everything. Federer, Nadal, Monfils and others are excellent athletes in their own right too. Luxilon has affected the game obviously, but the players also have to be good enough to take advantage of it, which then places greater demands on each others athletic ability. As you say, players now have to deal with 100 mph groundies more regularly, they could definitely hit them in the past, it was just riskier. They also have to deal with more spin and higher bouncing balls. The dynamics of the game have changed, but it has not made the game easier. In many ways it is harder. I recall one of the old-timers, either Laver or Kramer, saying they would not relish playing the game today with the high bouncing balls, so you can look at this from two angles. The game is simply different today.

The technology may be there, but players also have to have the skill to make the most of it. The technology is there for everyone to use, but not everyone can make the most of it. Furthermore, technology does not help when we are talking about the other requirements involved in playing tennis well, like speed of reaction, movement, anticipation, agility etc. Just because there is new technology, does not mean a player does not have to be highly skilled to use it effectively or battle against it. Take Formula One, those cars are state of the art, but in many ways demand more of the driver than Formula One would have 50 years ago. Now they have to react quicker, deal with extreme g-force, exhibit more stamina and endurance, process information more quickly. Technology and skill are two separate things, which can create a potent cocktail when they meet. In a sport played between and directly against others, new technology is just going to place greater demands on one's opponents. So to be an effective serve and volleyer now, maybe it's going to require Edberg's skills x2. Maybe we are going to see this individual in the future. The genie is already out of the bottle and it ain't going back, so I don't see the point in lamenting the 'good old days'. Tennis is what it is now.

The other thing is, I do not think grips are more extreme today. Just as today, most players in the 90s used semi-western grips. Lendl, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Chang, Becker, Rafter etc. all used semi-western grips. Then you had Bruguera, Courier, Berasategui etc. using the more exteme western or even Hawaiian grip, so this is pretty much the same as today.



This little part here is definitely wrong. Just by looking at who is playing today, there are very few players who use the grip structures of Lendl, Agassi, Kafelnikov, Becker, and Chang. They use a mild semi-western grip (I'm pretty sure Kafelnikov was using something closer to an eastern, as well as Becker). Overall, players have made a transition to more extreme grips in order to compensate for the increase height of the ball, due to Luxilon strings. The players you listed who do have extreme grips in the 90s are predominantly clay court specialists, with the exception of Courier. Overall the tour as a whole has switched over to a more extreme SW grip, with the exception of a few players (such as Federer, Bjorkman, Ancic, Berdych, etc. however these players are the exception).



Also, tennis is much more simplified and less diverse. The ATP tour, to combat the increase in speeds due to graphite racquets, slowed down the courts in order to slow the game down. They increasingly did this from the years of 2000 until now. However, they did not account for new polyester strings which allow players to increase RPMS on their groundstrokes significantly.



What does this result in? A serve and baseline fest with absolutely 0 variety. Rarely do players use angles or soft touch to beat their opponents. Point construction is not so great, as a player could blow right through you at anytime with a lucky groundstroke. Players are much more one dimensional today. Increased speeds and topspin, along with the slowing down of the surfaces really makes the game alot easier.



Because play has become one dimensional, baseline play has become the dominant style of play. Mainly counter punching and defensive baseline play has become the suited style of play. Any poster who has played tennis to a decent level knows that baselining is a much easier game than S&V, especially when the surfaces are slowed down enough to compensate for the increased speeds. Baselining, you can have an average serve and average groundstrokes and still be successful. Just look at Tommy Robredo, David Ferrer, and Lleyton Hewitt. They win based on consistency, not amazing groundstrokes. It takes athletic ability to do such a thing, but does it truly require more skill than S&V or allcourt style play? No, because you are only dealing with so many variables. They are winning by putting the ball back deep and consistently. Sure, they can go for angles, but it isn't necessary to win.



True allcourt play and S&V factors in multiple factors. You have to learn how to play on the baseline well enough to get into the net. Your serve has to be an actual weapon for you to get to the net. You cannot succeed at the net with only average volleys, unless your serve is overwhelmingly powerful. You have to learn court geometry in a much more complex way then a baseliner does. And many more things to know also.




Your analogy of F1 racing and tennis does not work at all. F1 racing did not slow down their tracks in order to compensate for the speeds. The players just got used to it. The ATP made a conscious effort in order to slow down the game, removing variety from the game almost completely. F1 racing still has all the dynamics of the past that makes it great, and the new technology only added more (such as better cornering, increased straight line speed, better breaks, etc. to make the racing more exciting). Sure, tennis today is enjoyable. But it could be alot more enjoyable if I didn't see 15+ rallies every time I turned on my TV.

coloskier
01-15-2009, 02:32 PM
How do you know? This is absolutely false. These are professional tennis players we are talking about, most of whom would have been playing with 'normal' strings growing up, some of whom still probably do. Without the new strings, they would in all likelihood have been hitting the ball just as well as or better than previous generations without the string. They would certainly be able to volley better than today, because it's much easier to volley with a 100% natural gut set-up, plus you wouldn't have to deal with the extra spin Luxilon helps create on passing shots. To my memory, I seem to recall Lendl, Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Gomez, Wilander, Becker, Chang, Kafelnikov and a whole host of others doing just fine from the baseline without Luxilon. All Luxilon has done has allow pros to hit with a little more spin, they were already skilled enough to hit well from the baseline without it. Without Luxilon, they would just make the adjustment to using less spin. Albert Costa and Kuerten were amongst the first to start using Luxilon from 1995 and 1996 respectively, but I don't recall a huge leap in how pros were hitting just before this. Agassi only started using Luxilon from 2003 and I would say he hit the ball pretty good before that too. Over the years, pros have just learnt more about maximizing the use of Luxilon, but they would still be able to hit incredibly well without it.

Agassi NEVER hit with heavy topspin. He just blocked everything back with pace. What I am saying is that if Nadal didn't have poly string, he would not be able to hit near as much topspin with the pace he puts on the ball on his forehand, making his shot that much easier to return, because it would not bounce so high.

danb
01-15-2009, 03:53 PM
Yes i miss serve and volley, but it is not only that.. IMO the strings today(possibly together with the new rackets) have ruined not only the serve and volley, but the game in general, and the variety even in baseline rallies. You see baseline players hit short a lot relying on power rather than placement, using only a few shots(mainly forehand, backhand topspin) throughout a match. Not the many different shots tennis has. Placement and feel is no longer rewarded... it is simply too easy to blast the ball back with a lot of spin. I just had to get it out... I am glad i don`t play ATPnow.. i would be bored, stereotypes are ok, but not if like 97% play the same simple robot style.. i even think Fed and the few other players who master many shots and tacticians will agree, and wish they played in 1989....(maybe that`s why Fed has some lack of desire now???) Thanks :)

Play with other strings - life is too short my friend.

David L
01-15-2009, 04:30 PM
Agassi NEVER hit with heavy topspin. He just blocked everything back with pace. What I am saying is that if Nadal didn't have poly string, he would not be able to hit near as much topspin with the pace he puts on the ball on his forehand, making his shot that much easier to return, because it would not bounce so high.
Yes, this is true, which makes the game more difficult for his opposition, not easier. In any case, without poly strings, Nadal would still be hitting the ball with similar spin to a Bruguera, Berasategui or Muster type player, but I would say probably more because he is clearly a stronger athlete. Those guys were not slouches and could hit a big ball with lots of spin too.

You could argue the technology benefits Nadal more than most, but there are always going to be players who benefit more than others with any new innovation. The popularization of graphite rackets benefited the power games of players like Becker and Sampras more than the McEnroes and Wilanders, despite the fact everyone would have been able to utilize the technology. Similarly, everyone can use the technology today, but some can make more of it than others.

Agassi may have hit a flatter ball, but there is no such thing as a ball that literally has no spin on it. Even Agassi's 'flat' forehand has a fair amount of spin, so he would have benefited too. He would not have used Luxilon if he did not feel it helped him.

http://wings.avkids.com/Tennis/Project/usspin-04.html

David L
01-15-2009, 04:53 PM
NamRanger

We basically disagree about the points I made and there is not much more I can add. One point I will make is that most of the players playing today would have been learning their trade as juniors in the 90s, before Luxilon became popular on the pro tour, so their grips and techniques would have been fashioned in a Luxilon free environment. Only the very young pros today might have had a taste of Luxilon in their junior careers and even then probably in the latter part of it, not when they were 10, 11, 12 etc. The semi-western grip has been the standard grip on tour for the past 20 or so years. Edberg, Sampras and McEnroe were anomalies. I see no difference today. A semi-western is a semi-western is a semi-western. The semi-western grip was not reinvented after the turn of the century. In any case, your ability to put more spin on the ball is going to be helped with Luxilon regardless of the grip you use, so you don't need to find the most extreme, spin inducing grip to benefit anyway.

Basically, the game is different today. We can't go back, so you either accept it or give up the sport.

Gumby
01-15-2009, 05:01 PM
Yes i miss serve and volley, but it is not only that.. IMO the strings today(possibly together with the new rackets) have ruined not only the serve and volley, but the game in general, and the variety even in baseline rallies. You see baseline players hit short a lot relying on power rather than placement, using only a few shots(mainly forehand, backhand topspin) throughout a match. Not the many different shots tennis has. Placement and feel is no longer rewarded... it is simply too easy to blast the ball back with a lot of spin. I just had to get it out... I am glad i don`t play ATPnow.. i would be bored, stereotypes are ok, but not if like 97% play the same simple robot style.. i even think Fed and the few other players who master many shots and tacticians will agree, and wish they played in 1989....(maybe that`s why Fed has some lack of desire now???) Thanks :)

Waaah! Get with the times.

NamRanger
01-15-2009, 05:34 PM
NamRanger

We basically disagree about the points I made and there is not much more I can add. One point I will make is that most of the players playing today would have been learning their trade as juniors in the 90s, before Luxilon became popular on the pro tour, so their grips and techniques would have been fashioned in a Luxilon free environment. Only the very young pros today might have had a taste of Luxilon in their junior careers and even then probably in the latter part of it, not when they were 10, 11, 12 etc. The semi-western grip has been the standard grip on tour for the past 20 or so years. Edberg, Sampras and McEnroe were anomalies. I see no difference today. A semi-western is a semi-western is a semi-western. The semi-western grip was not reinvented after the turn of the century. In any case, your ability to put more spin on the ball is going to be helped with Luxilon regardless of the grip you use, so you don't need to find the most extreme, spin inducing grip to benefit anyway.

Basically, the game is different today. We can't go back, so you either accept it or give up the sport.



The semi-western grip is not just a semi-western grip. You are oversimplifying grips now. Do you seriously think Andy Roddick and Roger Federer (who you say has a SW grip) have the same grip and hitting structure? No, they don't. Completely different.


According to John Yandell, and many other tennis authorities such as Vic Braden, USTA, the German Tennis Federation, and the French Tennis Federation, there are at least 3 different semi-western grips alone. You're oversimplifying something very important to professional players.



The professional players today in the mid 20s or so slowly made their way towards a more extreme semi-western grip. Guys like Safin actually used to have a fairly conservative grip, more towards Agassi. However, over his career, he slowly moved his hand underneath the handle abit more in order to add more spin into his game. This is a byproduct of the introduction of Luxilon strings. Thus why the grip structures are much more extreme now adays than they were in the 90s.


Many professional players switched over to more extreme grips because the ball is bouncing higher, and thus they need to move their contact point higher. Changing their grip accomplishes this. If you seriously think the tour as a whole has stuck to what we call a conservative semi-western grip (Along the lines of Agassi and Lendl), you really need to get your eyes checked.

David L
01-15-2009, 07:03 PM
The semi-western grip is not just a semi-western grip. You are oversimplifying grips now. Do you seriously think Andy Roddick and Roger Federer (who you say has a SW grip) have the same grip and hitting structure? No, they don't. Completely different.


According to John Yandell, and many other tennis authorities such as Vic Braden, USTA, the German Tennis Federation, and the French Tennis Federation, there are at least 3 different semi-western grips alone. You're oversimplifying something very important to professional players.



The professional players today in the mid 20s or so slowly made their way towards a more extreme semi-western grip. Guys like Safin actually used to have a fairly conservative grip, more towards Agassi. However, over his career, he slowly moved his hand underneath the handle abit more in order to add more spin into his game. This is a byproduct of the introduction of Luxilon strings. Thus why the grip structures are much more extreme now adays than they were in the 90s.


Many professional players switched over to more extreme grips because the ball is bouncing higher, and thus they need to move their contact point higher. Changing their grip accomplishes this. If you seriously think the tour as a whole has stuck to what we call a conservative semi-western grip (Along the lines of Agassi and Lendl), you really need to get your eyes checked.
Firstly, I don't consider Roddick's grip semi-western, it's far too extreme. It's more western than semi-western, hence its inefficiency and the difficulty he has hitting flat penetrating shots. It's always a big effort for him to do this, it would'nt be with a semi-western grip like a Federer, Agassi or Safin forehand.

As you are aware, Yandell and I disagree about grips, so quoting him does not establish anything. Bottom line, players are not exactly identical in anything they do, but that does not mean they do not share the same general grip.

Very few players are going to start tinkering with their grips in their mid 20s. It's a lot of work and takes some time to get used to a new grip, so it's not something most players would do unless they found it absolutely necessary for whatever reason. The other thing is that the semi-western, whether it be Federer's, Becker's, Lendl's, Agassi's or Safin's is perfectly adequate for applying topspin to the ball. What's going to determine how much you are able to impart is how you swing and make contact. As for balls bouncing high, any of those players semi-western grips are perfect for high balls. Even if you get a ball over and above your head, you simply pronate your wrist and forearm more than you would if you were hitting at shoulder or waist height, it's not hard. The semi-western also already ensures you will be making contact out in front of you.

There's no need for players to change to more extreme grips just because of Luxilon. It makes not sense because it will not necessarily give them an advantage. As in the past with natural gut, if a player goes with a more western grip, they will have the capacity to hit with more extreme spin but less pace/penetration and if they go with the milder semi-western grip, they will have the capacity to hit with good spin (not extreme) and more pace/penetration, all other things being equal. This is really a choice about what kind of strokes you prefer, loopy with topspin or a less curved trajectory with good topspin and better pace. The pros and cons are the same with Luxilon as they were in the past without it.

Dilettante
01-15-2009, 07:40 PM
You've been here since 2004. Surely you know about the "rants and raves" section to this forum.

This forum use to be a whole big "rants and raves" section. You could call it "Talk Tennis at Tennis Whinehouse".

NamRanger
01-15-2009, 08:34 PM
Firstly, I don't consider Roddick's grip semi-western, it's far too extreme. It's more western than semi-western, hence its inefficiency and the difficulty he has hitting flat penetrating shots. It's always a big effort for him to do this, it would'nt be with a semi-western grip like a Federer, Agassi or Safin forehand.

As you are aware, Yandell and I disagree about grips, so quoting him does not establish anything. Bottom line, players are not exactly identical in anything they do, but that does not mean they do not share the same general grip.

Very few players are going to start tinkering with their grips in their mid 20s. It's a lot of work and takes some time to get used to a new grip, so it's not something most players would do unless they found it absolutely necessary for whatever reason. The other thing is that the semi-western, whether it be Federer's, Becker's, Lendl's, Agassi's or Safin's is perfectly adequate for applying topspin to the ball. What's going to determine how much you are able to impart is how you swing and make contact. As for balls bouncing high, any of those players semi-western grips are perfect for high balls. Even if you get a ball over and above your head, you simply pronate your wrist and forearm more than you would if you were hitting at shoulder or waist height, it's not hard. The semi-western also already ensures you will be making contact out in front of you.

There's no need for players to change to more extreme grips just because of Luxilon. It makes not sense because it will not necessarily give them an advantage. As in the past with natural gut, if a player goes with a more western grip, they will have the capacity to hit with more extreme spin but less pace/penetration and if they go with the milder semi-western grip, they will have the capacity to hit with good spin (not extreme) and more pace/penetration, all other things being equal. This is really a choice about what kind of strokes you prefer, loopy with topspin or a less curved trajectory with good topspin and better pace. The pros and cons are the same with Luxilon as they were in the past without it.



How bout the French Tennis Federation, German Tennis Federation, Vic Braden, USTA, and many other tennis authorities out there? You seem to like to ignore tennis authorities. It's not just John Yandall who says these things; pretty much everyone else deos also.



Higher RPMs results in higher bouncing balls. More extreme grips means higher contact point, and easier to deal with these high balls. Is it no surprise that all of a sudden Spanish players, who are typically only good on clay historically are all of a sudden making in roads on other surfaces such as indoors, grass, and hardcourts? Uh, yeah, I think not.



Only Safin and Federer can impart a good amount of topspin on their balls. Agassi and Becker both had very flat forehands, RPMs far lower than most players. Agassi on average hit less spin on his forehand than Sampras did, who hit with an eastern forehand grip. Safin has a stronger SW grip, and Federer has totally different technique from everyone apart from a select few players.



Also, not every SW grip is the same. That is why Ferrero has no problem dealing with high balls while someone like Henman (who has a SW grip according to you) does. Agassi for instance, also had a problem dealing with shoulder and head height balls due to the fact that he used a very classic SW grip (same as Lendl). Thus why he adapted by taking the ball early and not allowing players to get the ball up high.



The pros and cons are not the same with Luxilon. Hitting hard with gut wasn't easy. If you played tennis, I think you would know that. Gut has a very high bouncing factor to it, which results in uncontrollable balls if you go for too much. Thus why someone like Nadal would probably suck with gut, since he couldn't control the ball at all. Luxilon allows you to absolutely whail on the ball, creating both heavy topspin AND pace. Before Luxilon, you really only had one choice. With Luxilon strings, you can go to a more extreme grip, hit with more spin than ever along with large amounts of pace.



I'm beginning to think you and Nadal_Freak are similar. You seemingly think you know what you are talking about, when you really don't. It's just that your level of intelligence and literacy is higher than his obviously.

NamRanger
01-15-2009, 08:37 PM
Firstly, I don't consider Roddick's grip semi-western, it's far too extreme. It's more western than semi-western, hence its inefficiency and the difficulty he has hitting flat penetrating shots. It's always a big effort for him to do this, it would'nt be with a semi-western grip like a Federer, Agassi or Safin forehand.



Roddick has difficulty hitting through a shot because his technique completely changed some point midway through 2005. Djokovic and Mathieu have no problems hitting flat off their full western grip forehands, and Nadal definitely hits the ball harder off his forehand than Roddick does at the moment. He does not extend through the shot as well as he did before, and windshield wipers his forehand too much.


It has nothing to do with his grip. Today, most players who have extreme grips really have no trouble hitting through the ball. Djokovic is a prime example of a full western grip player who is able to absolutely crack the ball with his forehand.



Further more to add, I don't see how you can call these two grips the one and the same :


http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/01/17/GALL_DAY3_SS2_gallery__470x313.jpg


http://tennis.topbuzz.com/tennis-pics/d/430-1/david+nalbandian+forehand+at+contact.jpg

David L
01-15-2009, 11:05 PM
How bout the French Tennis Federation, German Tennis Federation, Vic Braden, USTA, and many other tennis authorities out there? You seem to like to ignore tennis authorities. It's not just John Yandall who says these things; pretty much everyone else deos also.



Higher RPMs results in higher bouncing balls. More extreme grips means higher contact point, and easier to deal with these high balls. Is it no surprise that all of a sudden Spanish players, who are typically only good on clay historically are all of a sudden making in roads on other surfaces such as indoors, grass, and hardcourts? Uh, yeah, I think not.



Only Safin and Federer can impart a good amount of topspin on their balls. Agassi and Becker both had very flat forehands, RPMs far lower than most players. Agassi on average hit less spin on his forehand than Sampras did, who hit with an eastern forehand grip. Safin has a stronger SW grip, and Federer has totally different technique from everyone apart from a select few players.



Also, not every SW grip is the same. That is why Ferrero has no problem dealing with high balls while someone like Henman (who has a SW grip according to you) does. Agassi for instance, also had a problem dealing with shoulder and head height balls due to the fact that he used a very classic SW grip (same as Lendl). Thus why he adapted by taking the ball early and not allowing players to get the ball up high.



The pros and cons are not the same with Luxilon. Hitting hard with gut wasn't easy. If you played tennis, I think you would know that. Gut has a very high bouncing factor to it, which results in uncontrollable balls if you go for too much. Thus why someone like Nadal would probably suck with gut, since he couldn't control the ball at all. Luxilon allows you to absolutely whail on the ball, creating both heavy topspin AND pace. Before Luxilon, you really only had one choice. With Luxilon strings, you can go to a more extreme grip, hit with more spin than ever along with large amounts of pace.



I'm beginning to think you and Nadal_Freak are similar. You seemingly think you know what you are talking about, when you really don't. It's just that your level of intelligence and literacy is higher than his obviously.

To my knowledge, all these tennis authorities you mention do not confirm what you argue. I doubt they have an official point of view for many of the things we are discussing here.

On grips generally, there clearly is no consensus because everyone has a different opinion about them. There are also players and coaches who have disagreed with Yandell's assessment of grips, which he admits are his own innovations.

Spanish players have always generally used more extreme grips than the rest of the tour because they grow up on clay, so this is nothing new. Their increased success is just a reflection of surfaces being slowed down across the board.

Agassi and Becker hit flatter forehands by choice. They could easily have played with more spin than they did if they had wanted, but their preferance was to hit flat. In the link below you can see the topspin on Agassi's forehand ranged between 1154-3333rpm, so not hitting a loopier ball was a choice, not a handicap. The same would have been true for Becker.

http://wings.avkids.com/Tennis/Project/usspin-04.html

I can accept that not all grips with the same name are exactly the same to the millimetre. This has been my point all along. Also, I consider Ferrero's grip western, not semi-western. It's far too extreme to be semi-western.

The idea Agassi had trouble dealing with any type of ball on his forehand is ridiculous. The guy had one of the best forehands of all time. I use a semi-western grip similar to his and Federer's and I have no trouble at all dealing with high balls, even balls a metre above my head. Agassi took the ball earlier to rob his opponents of time, not because he had technical difficulties dealing with high balls. It's far harder to take the ball early like he did, than wait for it to bounce up high.


Luxilon gives you more control, yes, but that does not mean a more than competent player like Nadal would have to find a day job if Luxilon did not exist. He would still be a pro and he would still do very well, I would say better than the Brugueras and Musters. I personally do no think the spin Nadal gets on the ball is the biggest problem opponents face when playing him. It's his consistency, which of course is helped with Luxilon, but it's also his movement and ability to get a lot of balls back. If you gave him Soderling's movement or some other average mover, he would not be 5 Slams to the good. Probably would not even be in the top 10.

David L
01-15-2009, 11:24 PM
Roddick has difficulty hitting through a shot because his technique completely changed some point midway through 2005. Djokovic and Mathieu have no problems hitting flat off their full western grip forehands, and Nadal definitely hits the ball harder off his forehand than Roddick does at the moment. He does not extend through the shot as well as he did before, and windshield wipers his forehand too much.


It has nothing to do with his grip. Today, most players who have extreme grips really have no trouble hitting through the ball. Djokovic is a prime example of a full western grip player who is able to absolutely crack the ball with his forehand.



Further more to add, I don't see how you can call these two grips the one and the same :


http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/01/17/GALL_DAY3_SS2_gallery__470x313.jpg


http://tennis.topbuzz.com/tennis-pics/d/430-1/david+nalbandian+forehand+at+contact.jpg

Put it this way, Roddick is not helped by his grip. Nadal, Djokovic and Mathieu do better, but that's because they have better technique. They would all find it easier to hit flat with less extreme grips and would achieve more efficiency when hitting with pace. The effort they have to put into hitting big is more than that of a Federer, Agassi or Safin, despite the fact some of them appear stronger.

Photos are never conclusive, but in the two you provide, Nalbandian does appear to hold the racket a little more under the grip, but then this is the slight variation I was talking about. No two players are going to hold the same type of grip in the exact same way. Plus the position of the camera for the Nalbandian photo appears to be lower than for the Federer photo, which will slightly exaggerate whatever differences might be there. Plus the height of the ball will affect their positions as well. Plus grip size and hand size can affect our perceptions. There are too many variables at play to be categorical about any comparisons. Each player is unique in how they employ the same grip.

NamRanger
01-16-2009, 12:15 AM
Put it this way, Roddick is not helped by his grip. Nadal, Djokovic and Mathieu do better, but that's because they have better technique. They would all find it easier to hit flat with less extreme grips and would achieve more efficiency when hitting with pace. The effort they have to put into hitting big is more than that of a Federer, Agassi or Safin, despite the fact some of them appear stronger.

Photos are never conclusive, but in the two you provide, Nalbandian does appear to hold the racket a little more under the grip, but then this is the slight variation I was talking about. No two players are going to hold the same type of grip in the exact same way. Plus the position of the camera for the Nalbandian photo appears to be lower than for the Federer photo, which will slightly exaggerate whatever differences might be there. Plus the height of the ball will affect their positions as well. Plus grip size and hand size can affect our perceptions. There are too many variables at play to be categorical about any comparisons. Each player is unique in how they employ the same grip.



:roll:


That's why Mathieu and Djokovic can crank FHs above 100 mph right? Same as Federer and Safin, and about a good 10 mph faster than Agassi.



That's not just one photo, every photo I can show you of Nalbandian and Federer show that Nalbandian's hand is much more underneath the racquet than Federer's. That's out of a good couple thousand. Federer's hand is slightly behind the handle, almost going below. Nalbandian's hand is clearly underneath the handle in that picture. That's a pretty big difference.




You can't just say it's the same grip, when CLEARLY it's two totally different grip structures and different techniques that they employ. Within each category, there are subgrips that are very popular. For instance, Federer uses what many older players call an Australian Continental grip for his serve, which is a slightly twisted continental towards an eastern backhand grip. Roddick uses what many call an extreme SW grip (or 4/4). Ferrero uses a 4 3/4, Agassi uses the 4/3, etc. These are common among the tour, and it's been proven through photographic and video evidence from MANY organizations that there is more than just ONE SW grip.



Oh, and Roddick certainly didn't have trouble attacking with his FH in the 2004 era.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw9VTHEj5ao


He clearly hits much bigger and flatter here. He changed his technique, for the worse. For whatever reason.



Also, I hope you realize that to hit bigger strokes, you need to put alot of spin on them to keep them in. You can't hit a 100 mph flat ball. It's not possible. When you hit 100 mph or above on a groundstroke, you are putting a tremendous amount of spin on the ball in order to keep it in, otherwise it would just fly on you. Both the more extreme SW and Western grips help players acheive this. Thus why Gonzalez has one of the biggest FHs in the game (and fairly consistent for how hard he hits it). He has a more extreme SW grip, allowing him to take gigantic cuts at the ball.


The ONLY exception to this rule is Federer and Berdych, who manage to hit 100+ mph forehands with insane amounts of spin with their conservative grips. Outside of them, no one has ever broken the 100+ mark without using some variation of the SW grip (usually the more extreme version).

David L
01-16-2009, 12:34 AM
We've been through all this before, so I don't see the point of going over it all again. Just read all our previous discussions on this subject if you want my point of view.

David L
01-16-2009, 12:41 AM
Boris Becker.

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t040/T040622A.jpg

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t040/T040622A.jpg

NamRanger
01-16-2009, 12:43 AM
To my knowledge, all these tennis authorities you mention do not confirm what you argue. I doubt they have an official point of view for many of the things we are discussing here.

On grips generally, there clearly is no consensus because everyone has a different opinion about them. There are also players and coaches who have disagreed with Yandell's assessment of grips, which he admits are his own innovations.

Spanish players have always generally used more extreme grips than the rest of the tour because they grow up on clay, so this is nothing new. Their increased success is just a reflection of surfaces being slowed down across the board.

Agassi and Becker hit flatter forehands by choice. They could easily have played with more spin than they did if they had wanted, but their preferance was to hit flat. In the link below you can see the topspin on Agassi's forehand ranged between 1154-3333rpm, so not hitting a loopier ball was a choice, not a handicap. The same would have been true for Becker.

http://wings.avkids.com/Tennis/Project/usspin-04.html

I can accept that not all grips with the same name are exactly the same to the millimetre. This has been my point all along. Also, I consider Ferrero's grip western, not semi-western. It's far too extreme to be semi-western.

The idea Agassi had trouble dealing with any type of ball on his forehand is ridiculous. The guy had one of the best forehands of all time. I use a semi-western grip similar to his and Federer's and I have no trouble at all dealing with high balls, even balls a metre above my head. Agassi took the ball earlier to rob his opponents of time, not because he had technical difficulties dealing with high balls. It's far harder to take the ball early like he did, than wait for it to bounce up high.


Luxilon gives you more control, yes, but that does not mean a more than competent player like Nadal would have to find a day job if Luxilon did not exist. He would still be a pro and he would still do very well, I would say better than the Brugueras and Musters. I personally do no think the spin Nadal gets on the ball is the biggest problem opponents face when playing him. It's his consistency, which of course is helped with Luxilon, but it's also his movement and ability to get a lot of balls back. If you gave him Soderling's movement or some other average mover, he would not be 5 Slams to the good. Probably would not even be in the top 10.



There is a general consensus that more than one variation of the SW grip exists. Anyone can call it whatever they want, but to say that only one version of the SW grip exists is flat out lying.



Western is defined by many major tennis organizations as the knuckle and palm centered around the 5th panel of the handle. Only Djokovic and Mathieu as far as I know use that grip. Even Nadal is slightly off the 5th handle and towards a SW grip. Ferrero and Roddick are certainly not that far along the handle, thus you cannot say their grips are Western grips. They aren't anywhere close to Nadal's grip.



If you do say they are Western grips, you are confirming what I stated, that under every grip, there exists variations (that are notable among many players). Because Ferrero and Roddick certainly have different grips than Djokovic and Mathieu. They are much closer to SW than they are a full Western Grip.




Also about Agassi having no trouble with high balls is a lie too. Obviously you never watched Courier dominate Agassi in crosscourt rallies that involved the FH. Agassi could never get a clean hit on Courier's ball because Courier hit hard and heavy shots that were bouncing up to Agassi's shoulder or higher. That was a huge advantage for Courier.



Averages are the best way to tell how much spin one hits the ball. Agassi's average is lower than nearly everyone with the exception of Todd Martin, Henman, and Petr Korda. Just because Davydenko hit a max serve of 138 doesn't mean he can do it consistently. That's the same with Agassi. Sure, he hit a ball with 3k RPMs. But can he do it consistently, the way he plays? No, he can't.



And who disagrees with Yandell again? I don't see anyone with notable names. Most of what Yandell writes up is actually proven with evidence, not concocted by some random guy on the internet.

NamRanger
01-16-2009, 12:44 AM
We've been through all this before, so I don't see the point of going over it all again. Just read all our previous discussions on this subject if you want my point of view.


Of course, let's just ignore evidence and listen to you. Great idea. You're just as bad as Nadal_Freak, if not worse. I'm done with you.

David L
01-16-2009, 12:51 AM
Roger Federer.

We can all find photos of players with a different emphasis

http://z.about.com/d/tennis/1/5/a/C/federer-forehand-wrist-laid-back.jpghttp://static.zooomr.com/images/231498_fcb2fde1c3.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/tennis/1/5/a/C/federer-forehand-wrist-laid-back.jpg

http://static.zooomr.com/images/231498_fcb2fde1c3.jpg

David L
01-16-2009, 12:53 AM
Of course, let's just ignore evidence and listen to you. Great idea. You're just as bad as Nadal_Freak, if not worse. I'm done with you.
You don't have to listen to me. I'm not preventing you from believing anything you want, but we would just be repeating ourselves if we continue.

NamRanger
01-16-2009, 12:55 AM
Roger Federer.

We can all find photos of players with a different emphasis

http://z.about.com/d/tennis/1/5/a/C/federer-forehand-wrist-laid-back.jpghttp://static.zooomr.com/images/231498_fcb2fde1c3.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/tennis/1/5/a/C/federer-forehand-wrist-laid-back.jpg

http://static.zooomr.com/images/231498_fcb2fde1c3.jpg



Those are all still Extreme Eastern grips. You can tell his palm isn't underneath the handle of the racquet just by the way he holds it. Again, I'm done with you. You are as ignorant as Nadal_Freak if not worse.

David L
01-16-2009, 01:02 AM
I think we agreed that slight differences will exist when players use the same grip. I just don't think it's important to take account of very small differences.

Regarding those who disagree with Yandell, if you go through the archives, he has been involved in discussions with other coaches who disagreed with him. Henman also disagrees with him about his own grip. Then you have sources like the one below.

Really, we are just going round in circles. We've been through all this before. I say we agree to disagree.

Many of you are stuck in the same boat and are wondering “how can I hit that forehand like Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal?” Reading various posts on the Tennis Warehouse forum makes me realize just how lost everyone is, teachers included. The experts somehow believe that Federer’s forehand is just a little different or just a slight modification to the classic styles of the past. NOT!

http://www.aroundhawaii.com/lifestyle/health_and_fitness/2007-12_federer_forehand_in_minutes.html

David L
01-16-2009, 01:08 AM
Those are all still Extreme Eastern grips. You can tell his palm isn't underneath the handle of the racquet just by the way he holds it. Again, I'm done with you. You are as ignorant as Nadal_Freak if not worse.
The palm does not have to be right underneath for a semi-western grip. Even for a western, much of the palm is still going to be touching the back of the pallet. The only instance where the palm almost completely avoids the back is in the Hawaiian grip, Berasategui's grip of choice. That's as extreme as it gets.

LanceStern
01-16-2009, 01:21 AM
The Nalbandian/Federer grip pics are almost exactly the same except Nalby is holding up on the racket a little more. They're holding the racket in the exact same spot facewise speaking. And if they are all "versions" of a semi-western or eastern, or whatever, it's still a SemiWestern or eastern.

And resulting to name calling is bad. Especially for veterans of the board.