PDA

View Full Version : The Better Server: Krajiek or Stich?


theagassiman
06-17-2009, 03:36 PM
Both had huge serves.
First and second.

Who was the better?
Kraijiek?
Or Stich?

P.S: Apologies if I've spelled Kraijiek's name wrong. I always do that. ;)

Leelord337
06-17-2009, 03:41 PM
krajicek, he had the world record for aces for a longgg time

!Tym
06-17-2009, 04:22 PM
Stich had more variety on his serve and the more versatile server imo. Krajicek had a little more top end pace (Stich never got enough knee bend imo).

Stich had better disguise I felt. It could be argued that Stich had better disguise on his serve than anyone in history actually...at least according to Goran, who said he couldn't read his serve for squat, and that's why to him he was the most difficult to return of all the big servers.

One factor that I don't think anyone takes into account when talking serve attributes is ECONOMY OF ENERGY EXPENDITURE.

It's imo, one VERY big reason why Roddick's serve doesn't seem quite as effective as it seems like it should in theory, on paper.

People offer oh well Sampras mixed it up more, that he hit with both pace and spin at the same time, had better placement, etc. as explanations.

And to me, Roddick generates CRAZY spin on his serve too AND with the most pace of anyone in history. It's also a myth imo that he doesn't really mix it up or that he can't place it well. I've seen him paint the lines plenty of times on the serve.

Imo, the REAL reason why his serve isn't as effective as you'd think it should be is because in order to get that record breaking wallop, Roddick relies TREMENDOUSLY on a HUGELY exaggerated DEEP knee bend. He EXPLODES and JUMPS up and AFTER the ball like no one I've ever seen on the serve. It's literally a jump out of the soles of your shoes type motion.

While this produces a killer serve, it also takes away PRECIOUS milliseconds in the follow through and before your feet get set and ready to get in position for the reply. Roddick's motion is so exaggerated that by the time he gets set, it's like he's already one second behind. The energy expenditure is HUGE on Roddick's serve.

Meanwhile, a guy like Stich, his motion was soooo relaxed and fluid and languid with SUCH a smooth linkage and economy of motion, that it was like a perfectly trimmed slice of thin rib eye.

Stich's motion was really like a warm up motion, like Kafelnikov's, only better, with no hitches, and perfect linkage and transitions. This gave hi the benefits of a big serve, AND the benefit of always beiing in "ready position" immediately after delivering that serve like a Kafelnikov or Bruguera.

Krajicek's motion was similiarly better than Roddick's as far as leaving him in an optimum RETURN position to RETURN the ball should it actually come back.

Krajicek, however, expended more visible effort into getting his serve off. Just a little more, not a lot, but definitely a little more.

The way I break it down is this. Pacey, darting, flat serve down the T on a DIME...and you have to go with Krajicek. It's probably the best serve ever in this regard. Such a short, quick buliding, and ZING, next thing you know it's there, on a dime, ace, point over.

Slice out wide, Stich. He just had more of a natural slicing motion imo in general.

American twist/kick second serve, Stich. I felt he had better back flexibility in this regard.

So, overall, first serve edge goes to Krajicek, second serve edge goes to Stich. Still, though, both are VERY close to each other in terms of serving effectivness. Krajicek's serve was marginally more feared, but Stich's serve I felt was day-in, day-out more consistent and required less energy to get off, left him slihgtly fresher throughout a match by comparison.

Tennis Dunce
06-17-2009, 04:42 PM
Stich had that weird hitch...and that puny little knee bend.

Krajicek

droliver
06-17-2009, 04:53 PM
Stich was the best in the business for a few years. Soooooo versatile in his delivery.

federerfanatic
06-17-2009, 04:54 PM
Krajicek by far. Ivanisevic, Sampras, and Krajicek were the top 3 servers of the 90s. Stich was on the next tier of best servers.

1970CRBase
06-17-2009, 06:31 PM
Stich had more variety on his serve and the more versatile server imo. Krajicek had a little more top end pace (Stich never got enough knee bend imo).

Stich had better disguise I felt. It could be argued that Stich had better disguise on his serve than anyone in history actually...at least according to Goran, who said he couldn't read his serve for squat, and that's why to him he was the most difficult to return of all the big servers.

One factor that I don't think anyone takes into account when talking serve attributes is ECONOMY OF ENERGY EXPENDITURE.

It's imo, one VERY big reason why Roddick's serve doesn't seem quite as effective as it seems like it should in theory, on paper.

People offer oh well Sampras mixed it up more, that he hit with both pace and spin at the same time, had better placement, etc. as explanations.

And to me, Roddick generates CRAZY spin on his serve too AND with the most pace of anyone in history. It's also a myth imo that he doesn't really mix it up or that he can't place it well. I've seen him paint the lines plenty of times on the serve.

Imo, the REAL reason why his serve isn't as effective as you'd think it should be is because in order to get that record breaking wallop, Roddick relies TREMENDOUSLY on a HUGELY exaggerated DEEP knee bend. He EXPLODES and JUMPS up and AFTER the ball like no one I've ever seen on the serve. It's literally a jump out of the soles of your shoes type motion.

While this produces a killer serve, it also takes away PRECIOUS milliseconds in the follow through and before your feet get set and ready to get in position for the reply. Roddick's motion is so exaggerated that by the time he gets set, it's like he's already one second behind. The energy expenditure is HUGE on Roddick's serve.

Meanwhile, a guy like Stich, his motion was soooo relaxed and fluid and languid with SUCH a smooth linkage and economy of motion, that it was like a perfectly trimmed slice of thin rib eye.

Stich's motion was really like a warm up motion, like Kafelnikov's, only better, with no hitches, and perfect linkage and transitions. This gave hi the benefits of a big serve, AND the benefit of always beiing in "ready position" immediately after delivering that serve like a Kafelnikov or Bruguera.

Krajicek's motion was similiarly better than Roddick's as far as leaving him in an optimum RETURN position to RETURN the ball should it actually come back.

Krajicek, however, expended more visible effort into getting his serve off. Just a little more, not a lot, but definitely a little more.

The way I break it down is this. Pacey, darting, flat serve down the T on a DIME...and you have to go with Krajicek. It's probably the best serve ever in this regard. Such a short, quick buliding, and ZING, next thing you know it's there, on a dime, ace, point over.

Slice out wide, Stich. He just had more of a natural slicing motion imo in general.

American twist/kick second serve, Stich. I felt he had better back flexibility in this regard.

So, overall, first serve edge goes to Krajicek, second serve edge goes to Stich. Still, though, both are VERY close to each other in terms of serving effectivness. Krajicek's serve was marginally more feared, but Stich's serve I felt was day-in, day-out more consistent and required less energy to get off, left him slihgtly fresher throughout a match by comparison.


Tym, I gotta say I really love reading your analyses, especially on my favourite players like Edberg or Stich. Btw, I guess why Stich could serve the way he did was because of his height 6'4" compared to Roddick's 6'2" and because Stich has extremely long arms even for his height. :p

it was like a perfectly trimmed slice of thin rib eye.

Can't imagine a better way to describe Stich's serve.

Tennis Dunce
06-18-2009, 10:57 AM
Nice post Tym.

I still feel Stich underachieved on his service potential, consequently costing maybe one or two slams.

Andres
06-18-2009, 11:03 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDG1XPeNqQk&feature=PlayList&p=D18E49876950F6A9&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=49 Stich.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGv_uZpyZng Krajicek.

Borgforever
06-18-2009, 11:28 AM
Hey !Tym -- IMO you write really well -- entertaining, many times sooo spot-on, detailed and sometimes with great wit. I'm still laughing from reading about your thoughts concerning the Guga-grunt (although I like Guga)...:-)

hoosierbr
06-18-2009, 11:29 AM
I think Stich's serve was more versatile for sure but as a pure weapon I think Krajicek has a slight edge.

The reason I say that is this: I modeled my own serve after Krajicek. Now, I can duplicate Stich's motion at the drop of a hat because it's a very simple, fluid motion that's tough to screw up. Such a service motion is ideal when playing a long, tough match b/c you don't require as much energy to serve so the first serve % doesn't drop off quite as much.

However, given that I hit kick serves 90% of the time, what I found was that I could generate a little more kick with Stich's serve but the pace wasn't there b/c of the lack of knee bend. Yes, the ball toss and motion makes it great to hit a slice serve and to place it on a dime but if it's laying in there w/o much pace better players will simply take a step back and try to hit the return earlier and out front.

With the Krajicek motion I generate slightly less kick on average but the drop off is made up for by simple pace: a kicking serve with a lot more juice on it. It is a much more effective serve. The knee bend is automatic simply because the ball is being tossed in front of me and I have to explode both up and into the court.

Also, the ball toss on the Stich serve, if you watched him play, was almost always to his right, sometimes too far to the right and that hurt his pace a bit as it did with mine. Krajicek could get the extra pace simply b/c the ball was in front of him a lot more.

Stich could serve quite fast but that's more due to his height, another reason why it wasn't vital that he bend his knees so much. Krajicek was actually taller but bent his knees a lot more and could serve missiles.

!Tym
06-18-2009, 01:30 PM
I think Stich's serve was more versatile for sure but as a pure weapon I think Krajicek has a slight edge.

The reason I say that is this: I modeled my own serve after Krajicek. Now, I can duplicate Stich's motion at the drop of a hat because it's a very simple, fluid motion that's tough to screw up. Such a service motion is ideal when playing a long, tough match b/c you don't require as much energy to serve so the first serve % doesn't drop off quite as much.

However, given that I hit kick serves 90% of the time, what I found was that I could generate a little more kick with Stich's serve but the pace wasn't there b/c of the lack of knee bend. Yes, the ball toss and motion makes it great to hit a slice serve and to place it on a dime but if it's laying in there w/o much pace better players will simply take a step back and try to hit the return earlier and out front.

With the Krajicek motion I generate slightly less kick on average but the drop off is made up for by simple pace: a kicking serve with a lot more juice on it. It is a much more effective serve. The knee bend is automatic simply because the ball is being tossed in front of me and I have to explode both up and into the court.

Also, the ball toss on the Stich serve, if you watched him play, was almost always to his right, sometimes too far to the right and that hurt his pace a bit as it did with mine. Krajicek could get the extra pace simply b/c the ball was in front of him a lot more.

Stich could serve quite fast but that's more due to his height, another reason why it wasn't vital that he bend his knees so much. Krajicek was actually taller but bent his knees a lot more and could serve missiles.

TWo of my buddy ol' pals saw Stich play up close at different times. Their first response: "HUGES SERVE."

Their second? "You BETTER serve that big when you're that tall."

Needless to say, they came away with the impression that the man was very, VERY tall for a tennis player.

As was pointed out already, not only was he tall, but he had really long and lanky limbs too. His limbs were like stretch armstrong out there, can you imagine what his illegitimate super model daughter would look like? I do, A LOT.

Anyway...I too tried to model my serve off of Stich for awhile, so clean and elegant looking I thought. People would compare me to a swan, an elan swan with pretty pink feathers in my hair, when they saw me play...but unfortunately, I couldn't crack an EGG with his motion and it ****ed me off royally.

Stich's motion would ONLY work for someone with his combination of exquisite timing, limber back and shoulders, and stilts for legs, and a ballerinia's extension for arms.

This said, he DID serve missiles. His top end pace was still up there with the very best, only a little slower I felt. But again that had more to do with body attributes than anything else.

The thing is, Stich was listed at 6'4", but honestly, he really did seem AT LEAST 6'5" if you Becker was a legit 6'3" which he most certainly did seem like.

When standing side-by-side on the Barcelona Olympic podium, I would have sworn that Stich was AT LEAST 2 inches taller than him. I mean NO WAY there was only a one inch difference between the two.

I get the feeling sometimes that taller players underlist themselves for some reason and the shorter players over list themselves for obvious reasons...it's weird.

Guga was listed at 6'3", but honestly, there was NO WAY he was only one inch taller than the 6'2" listed Bruguera. The guy was CLEARLY taller by AT LEAST two inches standing side by side at the net and at the award ceremony.

Guga looked AT LEAST 6'4", just as much as Stich looked AT LEAST 6'5", just as much as Carlos Moya looked AT LEAST 6'2" (cough, cough...pardon 6'3").

Btw, Guga had a big serve yes, but I was always puzzled as to why it wasn't actually even BIGGER.

Someone earlier mentioned that Stich was on the second tier of big servers of the 90s, and imo, that's not really true. Stich's serve was REVERED in his day, and was heralded as one of the game's great weapons in his day. It was always THE prominent thing mentioned about his game whenever commentators commented on his matches. Guy Forget wasn't as well known, but I would put him right up there with the game's top tier of servers with guys like Becker and Rosset as well.

Guys like Leconte, Safin, and Guga to me consistute more the second tier of big servers.

Safin could do it all on the serve, and yet for whatever reason it just seemed a hair less intimidating to the other players than say Stich's serve, it simply wasn't thought of in quite the same way.

Guga with his height and a body you would think MADE for serving...plus that rubber arm of his, you would think would have had a 1st. tier serve but he never quite did.

I think it was because I never really felt like he quite found his center on his motion, I guess a feeling that he couldn't quite CONCENTRATE and focus and channel his inner chi and power source for that serve. The short version of it...TOO wiggly! which resulted in wasted energy. On his backhand, all that wiggle went into the shot itself, but on the serve, it just seemed slihgtly less like a well oiled machine.

One thing Stich had beside his height. He was able to SNAP into the tail end of his motion quite suddenly and without needing a big windup in a way that not many people can. It's like with his groundstrokes, AMAZINGLY compact swings, and yet other than Medvedev I've never seen guys able to generate such pop out of nowhere with such a sudden QUICK jolt and burst of their arm/wrist at the last second.

When I tried out Stich's motion, the gentle lolling back and through the motion part came easy enough, but what NEVER did was Stich's INNATE ability to accelerate and SNAP into the ball at the LAST possible second with seemingly no obvious or obnoxious build up or mean grimace with the teeth necessary. This is what I mean by his limber back and the snappiness he had in him.

I for example, don't think, Guga with a similar body type would be able to serve anywhere near as well with Stich's motion. Guga NEEDED the big windups to LASH out at the ball. He was more like a rubber band player, that was his INNATE optimal body mechanics at work. Guys like Stich and Medvedev were more about the the quick SNAP at the end of a swing that did all the damage...it could catch you off guard when they were at their best from the baseline. Small swing, but out of nowhere if they decided to be just a little SNAPPY on this one, they could, and the point would end in the blink of an eye...you just didn't SEE the power coming when they did this until it was too late. I kind of liken it to how a crocodile's mouth can be closed, closed, closed, laying in wait, then SNAP out of nowehre, it's horny little jaws are snapped around your buttocks'.

Back to the subject at hand, I'd say that on clay, I'd go with Stich as my guy for the serve. On grass or fast indoors, Krajicek if flat heat sinker down the T was working that day, but Stich on average days because his LOW-skidding slice out wide was I think a KILLER weapon on these kinds of surfaces too. On any kind of hardcourt however, I'd go with Krajicek.

As far as whose serve you'd want your doubles partner to have, I'd say STICH'S, *definitely*. That's what I mean by a more varied serve. That's why I think Stich's serve would adapt itself better to the little nuances of the doubles game better...just ask Mr. McEnroe about that himself.

Cenc
06-18-2009, 01:38 PM
i would say krajicek

Borgforever
06-18-2009, 01:47 PM
Another slam-dunk post by !Tym! Keep 'em coming about EVERYTHING...

To everybody else -- this person really USE his eyes, ears and all that sloshy grey matter in-between -- channeling his heart through a keyboard...

ClubHoUno
06-18-2009, 02:08 PM
Stich had more variety on his serve and the more versatile server imo. Krajicek had a little more top end pace (Stich never got enough knee bend imo).

Stich had better disguise I felt. It could be argued that Stich had better disguise on his serve than anyone in history actually...at least according to Goran, who said he couldn't read his serve for squat, and that's why to him he was the most difficult to return of all the big servers.

One factor that I don't think anyone takes into account when talking serve attributes is ECONOMY OF ENERGY EXPENDITURE.

It's imo, one VERY big reason why Roddick's serve doesn't seem quite as effective as it seems like it should in theory, on paper.

People offer oh well Sampras mixed it up more, that he hit with both pace and spin at the same time, had better placement, etc. as explanations.

And to me, Roddick generates CRAZY spin on his serve too AND with the most pace of anyone in history. It's also a myth imo that he doesn't really mix it up or that he can't place it well. I've seen him paint the lines plenty of times on the serve.

Imo, the REAL reason why his serve isn't as effective as you'd think it should be is because in order to get that record breaking wallop, Roddick relies TREMENDOUSLY on a HUGELY exaggerated DEEP knee bend. He EXPLODES and JUMPS up and AFTER the ball like no one I've ever seen on the serve. It's literally a jump out of the soles of your shoes type motion.

While this produces a killer serve, it also takes away PRECIOUS milliseconds in the follow through and before your feet get set and ready to get in position for the reply. Roddick's motion is so exaggerated that by the time he gets set, it's like he's already one second behind. The energy expenditure is HUGE on Roddick's serve.

Meanwhile, a guy like Stich, his motion was soooo relaxed and fluid and languid with SUCH a smooth linkage and economy of motion, that it was like a perfectly trimmed slice of thin rib eye.

Stich's motion was really like a warm up motion, like Kafelnikov's, only better, with no hitches, and perfect linkage and transitions. This gave hi the benefits of a big serve, AND the benefit of always beiing in "ready position" immediately after delivering that serve like a Kafelnikov or Bruguera.

Krajicek's motion was similiarly better than Roddick's as far as leaving him in an optimum RETURN position to RETURN the ball should it actually come back.

Krajicek, however, expended more visible effort into getting his serve off. Just a little more, not a lot, but definitely a little more.

The way I break it down is this. Pacey, darting, flat serve down the T on a DIME...and you have to go with Krajicek. It's probably the best serve ever in this regard. Such a short, quick buliding, and ZING, next thing you know it's there, on a dime, ace, point over.

Slice out wide, Stich. He just had more of a natural slicing motion imo in general.

American twist/kick second serve, Stich. I felt he had better back flexibility in this regard.

So, overall, first serve edge goes to Krajicek, second serve edge goes to Stich. Still, though, both are VERY close to each other in terms of serving effectivness. Krajicek's serve was marginally more feared, but Stich's serve I felt was day-in, day-out more consistent and required less energy to get off, left him slihgtly fresher throughout a match by comparison.

WHAT HE SAID :lol:

I agree 100% with your entire post.

Tennis Dunce
06-18-2009, 02:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INBh09JRSLQ&NR=1

check out 7:43

Leelord337
06-18-2009, 02:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INBh09JRSLQ&NR=1

check out 7:43

i actually like greg rusedski's motion better

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/sport_web/video/9012da68000ef20/bb/09012da68000f191_bb_16x9.asx

joeri888
06-18-2009, 02:50 PM
krajicek, he had the world record for aces for a longgg time
What do you mean? Like in 1 match?

I adore, admire, love Richard Krajicek and I liked his serve a lot. He rarely served at all cylinders because he always had shoulder problems. I'm too young to know Stich well enough though.

Leelord337
06-18-2009, 02:54 PM
^^yeah he had 50 aces until joachim johansson broke it a few years ago, then karlovic broke that at the french this year, 57 aces?? not sure

Tennis Dunce
06-18-2009, 04:27 PM
^^ Yeah Karlovic, 57 aces...and LOSE.

The-Champ
06-18-2009, 04:47 PM
Agassi treated Stich' serve like it was Chang's. He couldn't do the same with Krajicek's.


I'll take Krajicek's any day.

theagassiman
06-18-2009, 05:36 PM
Agassi treated Stich' serve like it was Chang's. He couldn't do the same with Krajicek's.


I'll take Krajicek's any day.
Your proof?

Datacipher
06-19-2009, 12:35 AM
Stich had more variety on his serve and the more versatile server imo. Krajicek had a little more top end pace (Stich never got enough knee bend imo).

Stich had better disguise I felt. It could be argued that Stich had better disguise on his serve than anyone in history actually...at least according to Goran, who said he couldn't read his serve for squat, and that's why to him he was the most difficult to return of all the big servers.

One factor that I don't think anyone takes into account when talking serve attributes is ECONOMY OF ENERGY EXPENDITURE.

It's imo, one VERY big reason why Roddick's serve doesn't seem quite as effective as it seems like it should in theory, on paper.
\

You are correct about energy expenditure. In this regard, Stich beats everyone, as his serve was extremely relaxed, linked and efficient.

Your argument about Roddick taking longer to get set, is however total crap. It's a rehash of an old Vic Braden argument about Agassi's inability to serve and volley because Vic felt he jumped too high on the serve and thus didn't descend to the ground fast enough to get run into the net.

While Roddick does jump high the actual descent time for the few extra inches he gets over a player like Sampras or Becker is absolutely miniscule.

Moreover, it has absolutely nothing to do with Roddick's serve effectiveness, in that it wouldn't matter if he took 5 extra seconds coming down when we're talking about serve alone. Roddick's serve doesn't do the damage of Ivanisevic and that has NOTHING to do with how quickly Roddick gets set for the next shot.

!Tym
06-19-2009, 01:20 AM
You are correct about energy expenditure. In this regard, Stich beats everyone, as his serve was extremely relaxed, linked and efficient.

Your argument about Roddick taking longer to get set, is however total crap. It's a rehash of an old Vic Braden argument about Agassi's inability to serve and volley because Vic felt he jumped too high on the serve and thus didn't descend to the ground fast enough to get run into the net.

While Roddick does jump high the actual descent time for the few extra inches he gets over a player like Sampras or Becker is absolutely miniscule.

Moreover, it has absolutely nothing to do with Roddick's serve effectiveness, in that it wouldn't matter if he took 5 extra seconds coming down when we're talking about serve alone. Roddick's serve doesn't do the damage of Ivanisevic and that has NOTHING to do with how quickly Roddick gets set for the next shot.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this at all. At least from my OWN personal experience, it DOES affect you.

When you take on an Agassi/Roddick style of serve where you rely so much on a deep knee bend, and jumping into the ball, I've found that I've felt noticeably more rushed on the return.

The reason being, that it's almost like I feel like when I land, like I land with such force that it's almost a feeling of like I've just dug a ditch for myself, like I'm planted there for a short but imperceptable millisecond later before I can COMFORTABLY return into a comfortable ready position again.

The way I liken it is to why does it feel SO much easier to get into the FLOW and STREAM and RHYTHM of groundies easier when you casually start-feed a rally while standing at the baseline?

...vs. say, bracing your legs in this rigid, deep knee bend, OVERLY committing and BRACING yourself for one return against a heavy shot?

After your return that serve, it's harder to get back into the flow and feel of the point, decidedly so for me.

It's just that INTANGIBLE feeling of being in rhythm after the serve. A good exmaple of what I mean is guys like Rios and Kafelnikov. The way they hit their serves, it's almost the feeling like you get that intrinsic feeling that they're almost melting into the next shot rather than having to rag-tag exploded into it.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I stand firmly by mine as well. It's just my personal experience, but it doesn't matter. If you "feel" that, whether it's just a placebo or not, that effect WILL become real. And that's what I've always felt when I OVERLY jumped into my serves. I got the feeling that it was harder for me to FEEL like I could get back for the next shot in the SUBTLE RYHTM of say a Rios where it sometimes seemed like you didn't even feel the *transition* from serve into point, because he just seemed to melt into the next as if in one continuous motion.

!Tym
06-19-2009, 01:34 AM
Another way to look at it is that maybe some service motions suit certain types more than others.

Notice, there are shot and EXPLOSIVE, PUNCHY feeling movement TYPES like Becker, Agassi, Roddick, Mary Pierce, Muster, Henin, Graf, Courier, etc.

And then there are the Kucera, Hingis', Rios', Pioline's, Sabatini, etc. who have more of a swaying motion and a swaying of *transitioning* into their points off the serve.

It's subtle, but if you close your eyes and imagine, I believe you can FEEL this difference intuitively. The more feel players are more prone to swaying into their service motions.

Players likes this feel more like they're MELTING into their next shot, are more rhythmical feeling players in general.

I fall into this category. I've always been a RHYTHM player. It's like you're break dancing, do you just walk into the circle and just say, ok, I'll just jump into, jump right into power move after power move, or do you have to kind of FEEL the music and kind of rock and roll, sway and obey, the rhthm of the music before you start *transitioning* into whatever you're really planning to do.

There are two types of players in that regard I've quite often found. There are the more gentile, rhtyhm based players like myself who do best and feel most comfortable when they're kind of swaying into their shots before exploding into them, and then there are bang off the gun types, the sprinters out of the gate from a crouch types vs. me who whilst being a great sprinter ALWAYS felt sooo much more comfortable kind of swaying slowly first from a standing start vs. taking off into it. That's why I HATED sprinting, it always felt so unnatural to me to be forced to crouch, yet I was always forced into because I was told left and right how unbelieveably fast (on a local level) I was. It just felt counter-intuitive to the laws of nature to me.

That's why I was always sooo drawn and fascinated by the concept of the au natural, Prince "NFS" natural foot shape marketing.

Imo, our personalities do have more effect on what kinds of techniques are more effective for us as individuals than we realize. Finding your PERONALITY *center* on your strokes can do WONDERS for your game speaking for personal experience. The problem I see on so many coach's courts are coaches trying to fit SQUARE pegs (Roddick/Muster/Pierce/Agassi "explosion" types) into round holes (Rios/Hingis/Pioline/Schnyder types).

!Tym
06-19-2009, 01:40 AM
Agassi treated Stich' serve like it was Chang's. He couldn't do the same with Krajicek's.


I'll take Krajicek's any day.

Yes, but that's an individual thing. That's like saying well Goran said that Stich's serve was the hardest for him to return by far...so what? It's just an individual matchup thing.

Ferreira and Bruguera for example might not agree that Sampras' serve was the hardest to return of all time. Bruguera returned Sampras' quite well even INDOORS when it played like indoors from what I saw, and yet he couldn't return Goran's serve when it was on for NOTHING, and would make a big point of always saying Goran's serve is the hardest to return bar none.

Agassi used to have no problem pummeling Becker's serve too, and yet later revealed a little secret that was the secret to his success once he retired. He said that he noticed a little facial tick Becker would make before serving that gave away which direction he was going to serve and THAT was the reason he always seemed so unnaturally "on" to his serve.

Cash said he had no problems returning Philipoussis' serve when he coached him, but Rusedski's serve was virtually impossible for him to return. If you speak to the players, both had their supporters as being nearly unreturnable servers, yet the point is that it still comes down to the individual in the end.

EVERYONE has certain players who for WHATEVER reason you're just "on" to more so than another.

As individual players ourselves, we don't need to be world beaters to know that. At EVERY level, every player can relate to that "effect" where on paper you're not sure why you always just seem so "on" to this guys strokes, but always feel so unmistakbly "off" against another's.

It's just human nature, there's a lot more subltly going on there than be broken down to just the X's and O's.

TENNISSLAVE
06-19-2009, 01:45 AM
Harold Solomon.:)

Datacipher
06-19-2009, 06:32 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this at all. At least from my OWN personal experience, it DOES affect you.

When you take on an Agassi/Roddick style of serve where you rely so much on a deep knee bend, and jumping into the ball, I've found that I've felt noticeably more rushed on the return.

The reason being, that it's almost like I feel like when I land, like I land with such force that it's almost a feeling of like I've just dug a ditch for myself, like I'm planted there for a short but imperceptable millisecond later before I can COMFORTABLY return into a comfortable ready position again.
.

You are correct here, it IS your individual impression, and simply not grounded in physics. The fact of the matter is that every pro server lands with incredibly force, one only need look at still images of the follow through of pros to appreciate the body forces at work. Nevertheless, they are all able to recover quickly. I have had a national ranking and coached world-class juniors, I have hit with pro players, never have I heard one say, "wow, I go so high on my serve, it's hard to recover after because of the force coming down!"

YOUR argument was that Roddick and Agassi (glad you acknowledge you stole the argument, I have noticed over the years you have done this in many of your lengthy "analysis", yes, I recognize all of them) take longer to land. Again, the actual time taken to descend from impact to the ground is negligble, as is the "extra" force vs Sampras, Lendl, Becker or any other big server. Of course, if we were to extend your analogy then, the servers of old, who couldn't go into the air at all, would be incredibly "effective", since their recover time would be UNBELIEVABLY good by comparison (not a difference of a few inches of descent but elimination of descent completely).

However, AGAIN, this still has nothing at all to do with the effectiveness of the serve itself, since it would only come into play on returned serves, and even more tellingly, on serves that are returned extremely well, such that not enough time was available to respond well. On such returns, the INeffectiveness of the serve has already been determine.

PS. Your criticism of coaches and your silly two category system is ridiculous. Yes, some players APPEAR to play in a more relaxed rhythm. Most fall in between and vary between strokes. Amost all pro players are relaxed and rhythmical in their own way, it's mostly a purely innate thing. Coaches don't FORCE players into this, in fact, what you're describing is BS that nobody really talks about. That is WHY you are an amateur player and not a coach of pros. Look Tym, you know a lot about the history of tennis, I recognize every reference you make (for example, you read Goran's comments about Stich's serve in Tennis magazine towards the front in a tiny segment in a "court chatter" type article.), but when you diverge into "coaching" theory, you REALLY go astray. You are entitled to try to interpret what you experience in your amateur game to various theories about pro tennis and biomechanics, but, frankly, these ones have been both illogical and invalid. By the way, your ideas about personality vs strokes/athletic style has been expounded on by Braden and Niednagel for quite a while(as I'm sure you know). Now,

navratilovafan
06-21-2009, 06:41 AM
Your proof?

U.S Open final 1994.

TheRed
06-22-2009, 06:09 PM
You are correct here, it IS your individual impression, and simply not grounded in physics. The fact of the matter is that every pro server lands with incredibly force, one only need look at still images of the follow through of pros to appreciate the body forces at work. Nevertheless, they are all able to recover quickly. I have had a national ranking and coached world-class juniors, I have hit with pro players, never have I heard one say, "wow, I go so high on my serve, it's hard to recover after because of the force coming down!"

YOUR argument was that Roddick and Agassi (glad you acknowledge you stole the argument, I have noticed over the years you have done this in many of your lengthy "analysis", yes, I recognize all of them) take longer to land. Again, the actual time taken to descend from impact to the ground is negligble, as is the "extra" force vs Sampras, Lendl, Becker or any other big server. Of course, if we were to extend your analogy then, the servers of old, who couldn't go into the air at all, would be incredibly "effective", since their recover time would be UNBELIEVABLY good by comparison (not a difference of a few inches of descent but elimination of descent completely).

However, AGAIN, this still has nothing at all to do with the effectiveness of the serve itself, since it would only come into play on returned serves, and even more tellingly, on serves that are returned extremely well, such that not enough time was available to respond well. On such returns, the INeffectiveness of the serve has already been determine.

PS. Your criticism of coaches and your silly two category system is ridiculous. Yes, some players APPEAR to play in a more relaxed rhythm. Most fall in between and vary between strokes. Amost all pro players are relaxed and rhythmical in their own way, it's mostly a purely innate thing. Coaches don't FORCE players into this, in fact, what you're describing is BS that nobody really talks about. That is WHY you are an amateur player and not a coach of pros. Look Tym, you know a lot about the history of tennis, I recognize every reference you make (for example, you read Goran's comments about Stich's serve in Tennis magazine towards the front in a tiny segment in a "court chatter" type article.), but when you diverge into "coaching" theory, you REALLY go astray. You are entitled to try to interpret what you experience in your amateur game to various theories about pro tennis and biomechanics, but, frankly, these ones have been both illogical and invalid. By the way, your ideas about personality vs strokes/athletic style has been expounded on by Braden and Niednagel for quite a while(as I'm sure you know). Now,


Wow, quite a lot of venom towards Tym. I like his theories, whether I agree with them or not. Much of what Tym says may not be grounded in physics but let's face it, none of what you say is either. There are few studies, and certainly nothing generally accepted, that perform scientific analysis of tennis strokes. Having played at a high level, or coached high level players doesn't mean you know everything out there. Coaches used to teach players to step in a closed stance before swinging but the reality is few good players actually do that. Coaches used to tell Sampras not to hit that reverse forehand, thinking he was hitting late but that worked pretty well for him. In conclusion, just relax dude. Tym may be an amateur, but he's a good read.

lambielspins
06-22-2009, 06:17 PM
Stupid thread. Krajicek easily. You could open a thread about Krajicek's serve vs Sampras or Ivanisevic. Stich is the next level down from that at best. Stich's serve vs Federer's would be a better debate than Stich vs Krajicek.

TheRed
06-22-2009, 06:34 PM
Stupid thread. Krajicek easily. You could open a thread about Krajicek's serve vs Sampras or Ivanisevic. Stich is the next level down from that at best. Stich's serve vs Federer's would be a better debate than Stich vs Krajicek.

By the way, I agree. It's no contest in my book. In the 90's the three you mentioned were the scariest on serve. There were other big servers, but krajicek, sampras and Ivanisevic were untouchable when they were on.

Stich's serve (and game) reminds me of Nalbandian's game in some ways. Always smooth and beautiful to watch but you never got the feeling they had that extra gear if the opponent got hot.

thalivest
06-22-2009, 07:09 PM
Stich had a great serve but when you add Philippoussis, Rusedski, and possibly even Rosset I doubt he even had a top 5 or 6 serve of his time. I would add Becker but Becker as a player and server around that time wasnt what he used to be, although still a better overall player than some I mentioned, probably no longer server.

!Tym
06-22-2009, 08:13 PM
By the way, I agree. It's no contest in my book. In the 90's the three you mentioned were the scariest on serve. There were other big servers, but krajicek, sampras and Ivanisevic were untouchable when they were on.

Stich's serve (and game) reminds me of Nalbandian's game in some ways. Always smooth and beautiful to watch but you never got the feeling they had that extra gear if the opponent got hot.

Wow, this just boggles my mind. I can see why you might think that, but the difference is that Stich was one tall man. Smooth strokes yes, but Stich could end points on a dime if he wanted to. Tall guys like Medvedev and Stich didn't need to take big exaggerated swings to deliver point-ending pace.

Don't mistake smooth for extra gear. Did you see Becker vs. Stich Wimbledon final? That is the very definition of extra gear. He made Becker look like a little school boy that day. His serve ABSOLUTELY in the top tier of his time. If you go back and watch the commentary, his serve was always considered one of the VERY best in its day. Stich and big serve were ALWAYS mentioned in the first sentence. Becker and Goran themselves will tell you that.

I also saw Stich playing Becker another day on clay, and it looked like the same thing. It was BECKER who looked like he didn't have an extra gear. He cared more yes, but Stich you clearly got the sense that if Stich was playing well, Becker had almost no chance.

Ask Courier, who the most talented player of his generation was, and he won't hesitate to tell you what I think quite a few people of that generation thought. It was Stich. No, not Sampras, Stich.

Sampras himself feared Stich's game.

Stich could match Sampras' serve, was far more consistent and balanced off the ground, handled topspin with aplomb, volleyed immaculately, hardly made a whisper when he moved (that's a good thing).

He had the TOTAL package. He could best Muster from the baseline like a red headed step child like he did at the French, he could serve and volley with the very best of them, was comfortable on ANY surface under ANY conditions.

The ONLY thing that held him back was his lack of commitment to the game. I believe it was our very own Thomas Martinez, stringer to the stars, who said Stich was the most relaxed and laid back player in practice he's ever seen.

When Stich was on, he was one of the few guys who made SAMPRAS look like he didn't have an extra gear.

Nalbandian on the other hand needs a little help from Federer to beat him, Fed's off a little, he can get the victory, otherwise no. It wasn't that way with Stich.

Stich was ALWAYS mentioned in the top tier of big servers in the 90s, ALWAYS from the day he served Becker off the court at Wimbledon, his serve was seen as one of the feared weapons in the game.

I don't know where people are forgetting this. In the 90s, Stich was SYNONYMOUS with the term big server. He along with Sampras and Goran and Krajicek were ALWAYS mentioned as the kind of new generation guys who were "ruining" the game with their big serves on the unfairly fast surfaces of those days. He's one of the very reasons the courts were all slowed down.

I honestly don't remember ANY discussions of big servers during the early 90s/mid-90's that didn't include Stich as one of those dastardly culprits who were ruining the game.

The second tier, CLASS, of big servers are guys like Safin, Wheaton, and Leconte, a guy like Guga also fits well into this description.

First tier was UNMISTAKABLY considered Stich, Sampras, Becker, Goran, Rosset, Philipousis, and Krajicek in the 90s. Those were ALWAYS the big names mentioned. Had Forget not suffered the injury problems, and been a bigger name, he also would have been mentioned there by the media puppets (pardon) pundits.

The 90s was a funny era. It is as Moose Malloy once described it PERFECTLY. It was the era of HALF-time champions.

Meaning, guys who like Bruguera, Korda, Krajicek, and Stich who were symptomatic of the era. Guys who had top tier talent, but who were in and out players, "ALWAYS half-azzed, sometimes motivated, sometimes not" type players, or guys who were too frequently injured to ever put it together, etc.

These days, there's fewer top tier talents but I would say more consistent talent.

In the 90s, there were guys who came and went but when they were at their best arguably played as good a tennis as anyone, period, and that includes the "big two" of Sampras and Agassi.

Becker is a guy who would put together a run in spots, Edberg did that, Courier, Bruguera on clay, Muster on clay, Korda on hard and at the Grand Slam Cup championships, Krajicek that one time on grass, Stich at that Wimbledon and the year ending championships, etc. A LOT of in and out and transitioning and injury timeouts and burnout respites in the 90s, it was one of the most exciting eras of tennis ever imo. Even Agassi was in and out.

These days, the top two are ALWAYS bringing it, but you don't really get the feeling that anyone else can beat them if Nadal and Federer are TRULY playing their best.

It wasn't that way back then.

Berdych COULD be considered in the same light as the 90s "half-time champion" types, but imo, he's not.

Why? Because as Federer said about him, I was kind of dissapointed in him, after he beat me at the Olympics, I expected more out of him, better results.

Berdych has NEVER put it all together the way the half-time champions managed to do.

Berdych has the so-called top gear like the true greats in the game, he just hasn't proven he is a TRUE champion DEEP DOWN...*inside*. To do that, you have to prove that you can come trhough even when your dog tired as Bruguera did in the fifth set at the French against peak Courier. That means you have to ACTUALLY *step through the hoop*. Not, get 9/10th of the way and then COWER out.

Safin is another CLASSIC example of a half-time champion type player. Flaky? Inconsistent? You betcha. Able to beat Federer and Agassi at the Australian Open, able to up the ante, and COME THROUGH? You betcha. Able to TAKE IT TO AND FROM Sampras in the Open final as a young pup? You betcha.

Philipoussis is NOT a half-type champion type, however, because he's NEVER proven he can come through when it matters most, to COMPLETE the deed.

That to me just means you don't have it DEEP DOWN, what it takes like another half-time champion type like Rafter.

In the Grand Slam Cup of 93, back then a prestige tournament because of the obscene prize money for its day, Korda played THREE harrowing matches in row, three epic matches in a row over Bruguera, then Sampras, then Stich before winning it.

He wasn't a consistent player sure, but EVEN THEN, he showed that he had it IN him to go all the way. That capacity, that heart, that resolve when he WAS fully activated and all "there" was well...there!

I miss the era of half-time champions. It's funny, because virtually ALL of my favorite players fit that mold. I've never really gotten into the always there all the time, tennis is my life, types. Too boring. The stock market is fun to watch when it's chaotic and unpredictable to me.

I think that's why I take so little joy in watching anyone from this generation. I just don't see anyone whose "got it", but only shows it once in a blue moon. All I see are pretender half-time champion types like Gonzales, Berdych, Soderling, Bhagdatis, Tsonga, Monofils, and the like. They're just teases, nothing more to me.

!Tym
06-22-2009, 08:15 PM
Btw, I guess that's why some girls prefer the MEOW type guys, like Johnny Depp and James Dean. They're half-time studs, lol. They beat to their own drum.

...vs. the always handsome, always goobly-gobbly, gooey, clean as a whistle handsome types.

thalivest
06-22-2009, 08:20 PM
Monfils isnt even good enough to be called a pretender half champion like Philippoussis, Gonzo, Tsonga, etc.... The best person he beat in a major is a tired declining David Ferrer. He only made one slam semifinal due to a dream draw, nothing more.

Datacipher
06-23-2009, 12:56 AM
Wow, quite a lot of venom towards Tym. I like his theories, whether I agree with them or not. Much of what Tym says may not be grounded in physics but let's face it, none of what you say is either. There are few studies, and certainly nothing generally accepted, that perform scientific analysis of tennis strokes. Having played at a high level, or coached high level players doesn't mean you know everything out there. Coaches used to teach players to step in a closed stance before swinging but the reality is few good players actually do that. Coaches used to tell Sampras not to hit that reverse forehand, thinking he was hitting late but that worked pretty well for him. In conclusion, just relax dude. Tym may be an amateur, but he's a good read.

You can opine whatever you like. I merely pointed out that his theories are often stolen (uncredited) from various other sources, and, when it comes to actual playing theory, often poor.

But this thread isn't about "Tym". If you have something about the content of my post that you disagree with, do so. If you are merely wanting to say that you like Tym, and think I should not disagree, I have no interest.

PS. I do not know of ANY coaches who told Sampras not to hit that "reverse" forehand. It was actually encouraged by Landsorp when he was a junior. However, I disagree with the entire "reverse" terminology, or the ridiculous myth that it is a "new" shot. It has been used since the 30's and probably before that as well. Even in modern times, Graf used it on a far more regular basis than any other player I recall. Nor are the mechanics of it particularly different from any topspin forehand. It does require a different name, nor does it need to be "taught". That's just another ploy to make pseudo-coaches/experts sound knowledgable and to sell "new techniques".

Datacipher
06-23-2009, 01:03 AM
Wow, this just boggles my mind. I can see why you might think that, but the difference is that Stich was one tall man. Smooth strokes yes, but Stich could end points on a dime if he wanted to. Tall guys like Medvedev and Stich didn't need to take big exaggerated swings to deliver point-ending pace.

Don't mistake smooth for extra gear. Did you see Becker vs. Stich Wimbledon final? That is the very definition of extra gear. He made Becker look like a little school boy that day. His serve ABSOLUTELY in the top tier of his time. If you go back and watch the commentary, his serve was always considered one of the VERY best in its day. Stich and big serve were ALWAYS mentioned in the first sentence. Becker and Goran themselves will tell you that.

I also saw Stich playing Becker another day on clay, and it looked like the same thing. It was BECKER who looked like he didn't have an extra gear. He cared more yes, but Stich you clearly got the sense that if Stich was playing well, Becker had almost no chance.

Ask Courier, who the most talented player of his generation was, and he won't hesitate to tell you what I think quite a few people of that generation thought. It was Stich. No, not Sampras, Stich.

Sampras himself feared Stich's game.

Stich could match Sampras' serve, was far more consistent and balanced off the ground, handled topspin with aplomb, volleyed immaculately, hardly made a whisper when he moved (that's a good thing).

He had the TOTAL package. He could best Muster from the baseline like a red headed step child like he did at the French, he could serve and volley with the very best of them, was comfortable on ANY surface under ANY conditions.

The ONLY thing that held him back was his lack of commitment to the game. I believe it was our very own Thomas Martinez, stringer to the stars, who said Stich was the most relaxed and laid back player in practice he's ever seen.


Most talented? No, but close, and I agree that he had a complete game, could have always been contending at the top, and had a tier 1 serve.

Stich's problem was mental. Not so much "commitment", as the simple fact that he often had poor concentration and a bad temper. He lost MANY matches due to little hissy fits that caused him to lose focus, especially when he was fallng behind.

Stich also had a forehand that could occasionally become slightly disjointed, when he lost confidence in that, his backhand could also suffer.

!Tym
06-23-2009, 02:35 AM
You can opine whatever you like. I merely pointed out that his theories are often stolen (uncredited) from various other sources, and, when it comes to actual playing theory, often poor.

But this thread isn't about "Tym". If you have something about the content of my post that you disagree with, do so. If you are merely wanting to say that you like Tym, and think I should not disagree, I have no interest.

PS. I do not know of ANY coaches who told Sampras not to hit that "reverse" forehand. It was actually encouraged by Landsorp when he was a junior. However, I disagree with the entire "reverse" terminology, or the ridiculous myth that it is a "new" shot. It has been used since the 30's and probably before that as well. Even in modern times, Graf used it on a far more regular basis than any other player I recall. Nor are the mechanics of it particularly different from any topspin forehand. It does require a different name, nor does it need to be "taught". That's just another ploy to make pseudo-coaches/experts sound knowledgable and to sell "new techniques".

One thing I don't get is that you seem to think I'm "stealing" something, as if I just want to look good or "impressive" on here and it's just not true. That's one HUGE misinterpretation that's popped up on here through the years. It's INCREDIBLY easy for me to post voluminously, and I take ZERO pride in that either. People often think that I take my stuff soooo seriously, when in reality I honestly don't. It's just rote to me. It's easy for me. I get nervous, frenetic, but that has NOTHING to do with tennis, this is just an easy way to get that nervous energy out, nothing more, nothing less to me.

The reason I don't mention Neidnagel by name ANYMORE (because I used to A LOT in the past) is because so many believe it to be an eggregious act of pseudo science, many of whom are threatened by the man. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with me "stealing" anything. If you think I actually take pride in this, you're WAY off the mark. Believe me, I've got far, far, 100 MILLIION times FAR, FAR, FAR more PRESSING issues than that to deal with.

In other words, I just don't feel like going into it arguing for or against some inane pseudo science.

I think what you're doing is that you're taking what I say too LITERALLY.

It IS my opinion. I'm not your average chicken either, and yes, believe it or not, this has been "scientifically" validated...but that's all I'll say about that. I'm as kook-brained, and free-flowing as it gets. I don't hold hard and fast, I let myself think outside the box, and yes, that does mean that I don't let myself get grounded in physics all the time either. I'm an outer body thinker. And I also know that through some of my own random experiments in thinking outside the box, I would defy what many think is possible in many realms. It's both a good and bad thing. I'm FAR from a rigid thinker, I'll experiment and tinker with anything and everything in a random way.

I mean honestly, this whole bet about me STEALING stuff really ticks me off. I'm sorry, but I find that personally insulting. As I don't know what you're trying to insinuate about me. Again, you have NO idea just how little tennis really matters to me right now...put it this way, I went about a year or so without even so much as playing, absolutely ZERO interest, the other issues are too real and too deep. Stealing what? About a MEANINGLESS inconsequential game? If you think I actually "craft" my thoughts on here, you really just have no concept of what "depths" I've gone when I actually "dedicate" my thoughts, seriously.

To me, this board is just a sounding board for whatever. It's just random chatter in my brain to me, because I'm frenetic about something FAR more pressing to me for the past several years. I don't understand why things must be taken so literally. It's JUST A GAME, nothing more, nothing less.

It's just opinions, nothing more, nothing less. I wasn't trying to do anyone any damage or harm. And if someone wants to listen to me about "expert" advice, go elsewhere. Did I ever claim to be some expert in the field? Do I even CARE? HECK NO, not one iota. Again, tennis means in all honesty next to NOTHING to me these days--NOTHING. If you had any concept of what I've been through these past few years, you would know why. Anhedonia, Datacipher...anhedonia.

!Tym
06-23-2009, 02:37 AM
EVERYONE "steals" theories on here by the way. WHO CARES? It's not some stodgy board where everything must be cited. WHAT is so important that is being stolen here? I mean seriously, what could be so important that it needs to be pointed out that I'm steeling whatever. It doesn't even enter my head, I just say what pops into my head stream of consciousness when I'm wrestling with dire thoughts on the other end that I need to block out. Seriously.

Datacipher
06-24-2009, 02:23 AM
One thing I don't get is that you seem to think I'm "stealing" something, as if I just want to look good or "impressive" on here and it's just not true. That's one HUGE misinterpretation that's popped up on here through the years. It's INCREDIBLY easy for me to post voluminously, and I take ZERO pride in that either. People often think that I take my stuff soooo seriously, when in reality I honestly don't. It's just rote to me. It's easy for me. I get nervous, frenetic, but that has NOTHING to do with tennis, this is just an easy way to get that nervous energy out, nothing more, nothing less to me.
[QUOTE=!Tym;3591286]
The reason I don't mention Neidnagel by name ANYMORE (because I used to A LOT in the past) is because so many believe it to be an eggregious act of pseudo science, many of whom are threatened by the man. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with me "stealing" anything. If you think I actually take pride in this, you're WAY off the mark. Believe me, I've got far, far, 100 MILLIION times FAR, FAR, FAR more PRESSING issues than that to deal with. ]

Ah yes, you don't want to support "pseudoscience" by crediting the originator, (which you admit you are aware of) BUT you are willing to present the same idea as your own. Get real. What a bunch of malarky.


I mean honestly, this whole bet about me STEALING stuff really ticks me off. I'm sorry, but I find that personally insulting.]

Then don't do it. You just admitted above you've done it. If you don't want to be seen as STEALING ideas, when you know where they originated from, credit the originators, instead of writing "voluminous" posts about it, implying they are your ideas. Takes a few words to give credit. Why is that so difficult for you?



It's just opinions, nothing more, nothing less. I wasn't trying to do anyone any damage or harm. And if someone wants to listen to me about "expert" advice, go elsewhere. Did I ever claim to be some expert in the field? Do I even CARE? HECK NO, not one iota. Again, tennis means in all honesty next to NOTHING to me these days--NOTHING. If you had any concept of what I've been through these past few years, you would know why. Anhedonia, Datacipher...anhedonia.

Great, then you should have no qualms with simply mentioning the "experts" from whom you read the idea. Simple. As you can see, in many responses to your posts, MANY THINK the ideas come from you. You shouldn't want that misconception should you? And yet, I have noticed even in follow-up replies you always fail to mention that the idea was not yours and have even accepted "praise" for them. You are quite correct, that I have little respect for that.

Datacipher
06-24-2009, 02:27 AM
EVERYONE "steals" theories on here by the way. WHO CARES? It's not some stodgy board where everything must be cited. WHAT is so important that is being stolen here? I mean seriously, what could be so important that it needs to be pointed out that I'm steeling whatever. It doesn't even enter my head, I just say what pops into my head stream of consciousness when I'm wrestling with dire thoughts on the other end that I need to block out. Seriously.

No. Not "EVERYONE" steals theories. But no, you're certainly not the first or only to do this. It was common practice from many wanna-be-gurus on the instruction board long ago. However, not everyone writes voluminous posts for years, never citing where many of their ideas actually came from, even when writing follow-ups to people asking questions about them and/or praising the ideas.

If indeed, you have just been streaming out these ideas with no thought whatsoever to where you got them from, you should be thankful that I've pointed out how often you have "borrowed" ideas from other books, commentaries, analysis, magazines, videos etc. It makes you look bad to those who do know where these ideas came from, and I"m sure that if that was the case, you don't want to look like your stealing ideas. Now you're aware of it. It will only take you a sentence or less to acknowledge some of the people you got these ideas from. You should be thankful to them and want to give them due credit.

1970CRBase
06-24-2009, 11:30 PM
[QUOTE=!Tym;3591286]One thing I don't get is that you seem to think I'm "stealing" something, as if I just want to look good or "impressive" on here and it's just not true. That's one HUGE misinterpretation that's popped up on here through the years. It's INCREDIBLY easy for me to post voluminously, and I take ZERO pride in that either. People often think that I take my stuff soooo seriously, when in reality I honestly don't. It's just rote to me. It's easy for me. I get nervous, frenetic, but that has NOTHING to do with tennis, this is just an easy way to get that nervous energy out, nothing more, nothing less to me.


Ah yes, you don't want to support "pseudoscience" by crediting the originator, (which you admit you are aware of) BUT you are willing to present the same idea as your own. Get real. What a bunch of malarky.



Then don't do it. You just admitted above you've done it. If you don't want to be seen as STEALING ideas, when you know where they originated from, credit the originators, instead of writing "voluminous" posts about it, implying they are your ideas. Takes a few words to give credit. Why is that so difficult for you?




Great, then you should have no qualms with simply mentioning the "experts" from whom you read the idea. Simple. As you can see, in many responses to your posts, MANY THINK the ideas come from you. You shouldn't want that misconception should you? And yet, I have noticed even in follow-up replies you always fail to mention that the idea was not yours and have even accepted "praise" for them. You are quite correct, that I have little respect for that.



Why all the aggression & hostility?

Whatever the reason, I think this person isn't particularly stable, judging by his comments. Too many people with rage issues on tt. Best to leave them alone.

ericsson
06-24-2009, 11:39 PM
Krajicek by far. Ivanisevic, Sampras, and Krajicek were the top 3 servers of the 90s. Stich was on the next tier of best servers.

Second that, though i would add Boom Boom to that list.

Tshooter
06-28-2009, 01:11 AM
RK. Not even close.

grafrules
07-05-2009, 05:51 PM
Krajicek for sure.