Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by julian, Dec 19, 2009.
I saw it Julian, do you have a specifc question on it? Or want to talk about it?
I saw this too. Quite difficult to know what to make of it.
See post #8
See post #8 at a link mentioned.
It clarifies one part a bit better
An idiotic question
"Shoulder internal rotation: 43% of racquet speed.
Forearm pronation: -5% of racquet speed."
I did NOT understand why there is A MINUS in the phrase "-5%"
If it would be 5% I would understand.
PS Before you bust my chops I have a Ph.D. in Physics
Maybe the "-" means it contributes less than 5%? Or it could be a typo?!
A valid point - it should read forearm twist rotation - pronation is by definition a joint rotation (relative to the upper arm) - at that point of the serve, pronation would add to the speed of the racquet - my data shows that on the average for these servers - the rotation of the forearm relative to the ground less the rotation of the upper arm relative to the ground (the joint angular velocity) projected onto the anatomical axis as as a supination at the the joint - therefore a subtracting from the speed of the racquet - hence the negative sign.
Wondering why you just did not ask me directly rather than taking this circuitous route - either way, congratulations on your PhD. - never knew of that accomplishment
It would be very interesting to see if this area was still in the negative range if the study was of top serving Pros.
This is not intended to complain about the study, as we can study only that which is available. This study is important on it's own and will be important again when the Pro serve study is done, as a comparison.
Agreed - should happen real soon - based on the trends I've seen I have a pretty good idea what we'll see - what do you think?
Yeah - I get it.
This is stuff coaches need to know to learn more about their trade. It is good for technical analyst to know as well. At some point, coaches need to simplify what is said in the article and turn it into instruction, education, tips, and advice that is simple for the player to understand and execute.
This is the stuff that I would definetly agree with those that feel sometimes people can get way to technical and get into paralysis from analysis.
Well said - could not agree more!!!
I hope you do get it, as I my intent is support and take serious looks at your fine work. As you well know, it is all a path of progress, as illustrated by your latest updates. By the way, how is the progress towards your Phd coming? Very well I hope. It can be challenging to "get it done" there towards the end, but I'm sure you are ready for that; that is if you have not already got it completed.
As to what I think- I don't mind saying that I don't know where this will fall. I also don't mind saying that I find the current finding on this somewhat surprising as well.
I do think that the top servers are doing some things different and I have not been shy about saying that I feel that the most significant is related to racket drop depth and delayed extension of the elbow. I presented this perspective to JY over 9 years ago and have seen nothing to change my mind to this point. Your work has gotten me interested in how these two aspect interrelate to what you are learning about the forearms movements.
thanks for your kind reply,
For Brian Gordon
FYI: i posted one question for you at www.tennisplayer.net
PhD is done - the updated results on TP were a tiny part of the dissertation - thanks for asking - will keep you updated on future findings.
I know I'm not the first, but maybe the first on TT--
My strongest Congratulations!
And thanks for making so much of your work in the area of Tennis!
Any chance you will share your expectations on this??
It was also excellent information for us that like to see the science in things. I appreciated the study.
Increasing trend towards utilization of shoulder internal rotation - more bang for the buck available from that rotation due to the joint's location relative the the racquet face among other things - the possible combinations of internal rotation and pronation/supination that get the racquet face where it needs to be are not infinite however - perhaps an optimum will emerge - only time will tell, right?
I will answer in a general sense later - for many reasons I prefer not to get into specific interventions on this - mostly because in this case the approach would need to be carefully supervised a coach and trainer who know what they doing - that I can't control - would be happy to discuss personally after the holidays - drop me a PM at some point.
this makes sense to me.
back to the idea of finding that balance.
I'm back to read more on your work, but wondering about the utilization of the shoulder extension aspect? any thoughts there?
I do but I'm on my way out the door to catch a flight - let's visit this after the joy of the holiday season fades - Happy holidays to all!
Ok, we can hold that thought and look forward to your safe return after the Holidays.
Also maybe I can add the question of ulnar deviation for the serve or was this mixed in with flexion?
Ha, what a worthless bunch of pontification from posters trying to prove to the room how intelligent they are. Funny how Macci and Lansdorp and Gould and Saviano and Sanchez-Vicario and Sekou Bangoura, Sr. develop champions and D-1 players without analyzing what percentage of their racquet speed comes from what aspect.
From working with some of them and observing others I see their methods involve actually working with the individual players. Observing body type, flexibility, style, personality, etc. and determining how they can be the best player they can be. Each individual generates their racquet speed in slightly different ways.
Perhaps they should bring their calculators with them next time.
You guys crack me up. Especially BB, filled with so much worthless information it is beyond funny.
Julian, the only thing I can offer here is this. Brian has done some great work in researching, testing, and providing his analysis in this area. Brian is doing his job and is greatly contributing to the tennis community.
Our job is to understand his information in a more intimate way with an eye on using what we know, the experience we have gained, the feedback from our students, and the various insight we have gained from those that are current and that have come before us. From this, our job is to take what Brian has provided and simplify it to explain this in laymans terms, concepts, illustrations, and analogies so that we can transfer this knowledge into a players ability to execute this without confusing them.
We can take this information and develop instruction, advice, and insight around this whether spoken or not to help our students perform and reduce their risk with injury. For example, if you can take the science of this and use the word "relaxation" to get the arm to work as Brian has described you have simplified the science for the student to execute.
I know you know this but I wanted to emphasize that Brian IMO has done his job, our job is to simplify this information for ourselves so we can add value to our students.
Good lord, Brian and you are so extremely full of garbage. Honestly, how do you move around the court with that stiff a rear end?
What players have you developed using all this nonsense? I would like to compare that list to the great coaches I have worked for and/or observed.
LOL! Really? And you are a coach?
If a coaches job isn't to simplify things for his/her students what would that make you? For a person that is a supporter of MTM and Oscar's methods with its main concern to reduce complexity and simplfy information for the student, because you don't agree with my post, again what would that make you?
Aren't you the one that was promoting we should get along and not be annoying? Aren't you the one promoting good will? Understanding? Considering others ideas, research, and information? What, can't practice what you preach?
It is obvious that others want to expand on Brian's research and have an interest in it.
What it sounds like is you are trolling and hijacking this post looking for a fight and doing the very thing you asked me and others not to do.
Sorry you feel that way – what we were talking about is the next level of understanding of stroke mechanics – and far from “worthless information” or “garbage”, the overall information I’ve seen from the poster’s involved in this thread is great – sometimes contradictory – sometimes heated – but always from people who have spent a lot of time and effort to think about and explain their points – I commend them and often follow their posts to get ideas for new approaches to investigate quantitatively.
Further, I appreciate their openness to new technologies and the information to be gained from them. Ironically, some of the coaching legends you mentioned apparently feel the same way. In fact, I’ll be headed your way after the first of the year to work with one of them directly, and others you neglected to mention.
Perhaps if you take some time to understand what we’re talking about you would not be so negative – so, I invite you to visit me, introduce yourself, and I’ll be happy to show you what I do – if you are really a coach in Florida, you will find out soon I’m very easy to find as official announcements will be made in early 2010 – or PM me if you are interested – now, back to my “holiday” and a happy one to you.
Keep going Brian, even coaches like Dougherty get into the biomechanics of things. It is research and that is not what he is understanding it is. Now, whether it is accurate research or we can project reasonably accurate from your sample is another story. That I leave up to people like you.
However, thanks for taking interest and doing the work.
Separate names with a comma.