SHRINKING GRIPS of modern day player from TENNIS magazine. Don't get it???

Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by Fedace, Aug 16, 2009.

  1. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Exactly... teachestennis (again) fails to make the connection. I've posted numerous pics demonstrating the point and he continues to ignore the evidence.
     
  2. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    The truth is, you have no clue whether he's struck the ball or is about to strike it in that pic. The facts are... the racquet face is fully closed and the ball is almost directly on the strings.

    Verdict: mishit
     
  3. tennisboy777

    tennisboy777 New User

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Messages:
    32
    im just wondering (im not intending to be rude im just curious) but what question were you answering?
     
  4. teachestennis

    teachestennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Ojai, CA
    Bud, I suspect most people on this thread would disagree. I have seen other films of this in super slo mo beginning with Agassi film of the Advanced Tennis Project; this was just the most unique picture I could find which is why I posted it. Pros whip so fast they can do this, and Melzer's pic almost indicates such. How many times have you seen a pro hit one directly into the ground such as would have occurred here if what you are saying is true. That shot would make any tennis highlight film more than likely. Anyway, the young players on this site learned a lot from this thread and I note they like my interesting different viewpoints.
     
  5. teachestennis

    teachestennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Ojai, CA
    some people on this thread state that the ball is on the strings, and I point out it is not, it has already left, and the fact the ball is not compressed is proof, that is what he was referring to.
     
  6. ronalditop

    ronalditop Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,745
    Location:
    in my room
    what is the forehand grip querrey is using on that pic? it looks very extreme, maybe hawaian fh grip.
     
  7. teachestennis

    teachestennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Ojai, CA
    Querrey is a full western, one turn short of Berasutegui's, the grip you are referring to. I watched him play in the Calabasas Challenger a few years ago (his home tournament) sitting first row. Really a giant of a player who moves very gracefully. The wind was horrible that day, and yet he still killed the ball with that strong western grip which he barely held at times. You have to remember that racket shifts in their hand during the twist as they hold it so loose and then they regrip it as they follow across the ball again.
     
  8. ronalditop

    ronalditop Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,745
    Location:
    in my room
    IMHO I think teachestennis is correct, that pic of Querrey does seem to be a normal forehand and not a misshit. The difference between fed's pics Bud showed and the one of Querrey is that feds fh grip is a lot less extreme than Querreys, therefore the racquet doesnt seem to twist that much after impact.
     
  9. tennisboy777

    tennisboy777 New User

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Messages:
    32
    the racket face is closed and hes ABOUT to make contact with the ball or he already hit it. if he is ABOUT to make contact with the ball the ball is going to the floor. if he already hit it its obviously a mishit because no human can twist his wrist that fast after contact so that his racket is that close to the ball with a face that closed unless his racket face was already closed at impact which will result in the ball going down. orr if he was hitting this forehand super slow until impact and then sped up really reallly really fast on the follow through.. either way its a mishit
     
  10. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Agreed. This is obvious to most of us, here. Teachestennis just can't admit he's incorrect in this case.
     
  11. tennisboy777

    tennisboy777 New User

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Messages:
    32
    i mean i get what hes saying, but i dont see how its possible that querry is able to pronate that fast
     
  12. teachestennis

    teachestennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Ojai, CA
    Bud, the whole reason I posted the thread was to show that the wrist does not twist, in fact, the wrist plays almost nothing but a passive role in Modern Tennis, this was confirmed by Yandell's Advanced Tennnis Project. Pros hold the racket so loose it simply twists in their hands while the wrist stays at same angle and then their fingers regrip it. How do you explain Fed's twisting,do you think he just twists his wrist to make the racket do that? I have studied this phenonenom carefully.
     
  13. tennisboy777

    tennisboy777 New User

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Messages:
    32
    i thought the wrist played a major role in creating most of the topspin in modern day tennis
     
  14. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916


    It doesn't. Topspin is created by pronation of the arm.
     
  15. teachestennis

    teachestennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Ojai, CA
    Young man, the wrist has been confirmed by Johnny Yandell's Advanced Tennis Project to play "virtually no role in all the tennis strokes." Modern Tennis, which I teach as MTM, Modern Tennis Methodology, simply teaches to touch the ball and bend the arm up and across. The wrist plays a passive role. That is why the racket twists, the players bend the arm across and pull their hand right to left and the racket head whips across and does the work for you. The wrist pronates as necessary, but it's not really a conscious thing like you would think it is. The key to the kinetic chain is connecting large muscle contraction to the feel of the hand. Small muscles such as in the wrist are very dangerous. For some free tips that are simple and a good way to begin to learn to play like the pros, go to www.tennisteacher.com and enjoy the free tips. No one keeps it as simple as Oscar but as effective in my opinion.
     
  16. Don S

    Don S Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    368
    I can't for the life of me figure out how, if this isn't a mishit, did Sam have a squared up (more or less) racquet face at impact? I can't even figure out how he could have a squared up racquet face at impact.

    Are there any other pics of Sam doing the same thing?
     
  17. moopie

    moopie Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    177
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    mishit

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    It's no optical illusion, the ball is so close the racket is casting a sharp shadow on it.

    Plus look at where Querry's left arm is... that's some craptastic form. I don't think that's how he usually hits a forehand.

    Really you just have to conclude that it's a mishit. All the other pictures look natural, this one does not.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2009
  18. nereis

    nereis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    545
    I have a background in table tennis, I also hit with lots of spin. Querry's shot, 'mishit' or not, is guaranteed to be one spinny mofo. I know because I hit my forehands with a closed face rather than a squared one. When you go for angles, you close the face more and wipe across the ball.

    But this entire spiel about one photo is all just to detract from the original statement. Theres buttloads of photos that prove him right.
     
  19. aptennis91

    aptennis91 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Messages:
    350
    I thought Querry's shot was a mishit until I saw swingvision during the Nadal Almargo Match.
    They showed a super slow mo of Nadal's forehand and the racquet immediately folded over the ball at the moment of impact.
    The ball was just as close or ever closer than Querry's
     
  20. aptennis91

    aptennis91 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Messages:
    350
    I also think that this does not happen consistently.
    I think in most cases, the folding is very minor as seen in many slow mo.
    However, if the opponent's shot has a lot of speed, it could cause the racquet to twist around a little more, especially with the loose grip.
    When nadal's racquet was folding back, he was way behind the baseline returning a absolute bomb from almargo.
     
  21. bertrevert

    bertrevert Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,309
    Location:
    Syd, Oz
    Just wondering: if one were to get a 4 3/8 and replace the synthetic grip with leather and wrap 2 og's are you about where you started off, that is, back at 4 3/8?

    I'm hoping someone has probably done what I just described and can say (leaving aside the diff weight)if a leather + 2 og's is the same size as a synthetic...?
     
  22. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
    revival!

    [​IMG]
     
  23. Fedace

    Fedace Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Messages:
    23,292
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    ^^This is after the ball has been struck, so it is a bit deceptive.
     
  24. Noveson

    Noveson Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,241
    I'm sorry but that's not even close. I can't believe people are arguing this it is completely ridiculous. In the nadal shot the ball is past his racquet, already headed away from him, the camera angle just forshortens. In querrey's pick the ball is directly under the racquet. This isn't close.
     
  25. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
    I guess the camera men just aren't quick enough.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  26. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
  27. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,398
    you think these photos prove your point?? The only difference in these and the Q one is probably swing plane.
     
  28. crash1929

    crash1929 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,902
    alls i know is i play with a lower size grip now and my game is getting better (babolat).
     
  29. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
    Do you guys even know what my point is? Did I even say it yet? :confused::shock::oops:
     
  30. bertrevert

    bertrevert Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,309
    Location:
    Syd, Oz
    See I think these photos confirm the throwing the racq at the ball, loose-handed, manouver made possible by a smaller grip, the photos don't lie about that at all - surely this cannot be open to debate?

    I don't think it's all just wrist flick btw, I think it's also a greater movement in the palm.

    Whether they also mean hitting the ball at the trailing edge is a ditferent matter - but the more closed the racq at impact surely the more likelihood of hitting at trailing edge...?

    (All up, inspired by this thread, and some other experimentation with secondhand racqs, I'm going from 4 1/2 to 4 3/8 with new racq.)
     
  31. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,398
    my comment is clearly a question.
     
  32. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
    right......
     
  33. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    This isn't even a close comparison to the Querrey pic :roll:
     
  34. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Again, none of your pics show the same scenario as the Querrey pic. Nice try, though.
     
  35. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
    Impossible to tell since the camera man wasn't quick enough to get the ball while it was still on the strings/frame. Same for Sam's pic. Without a vid, a pic is worth all your little words--and everyone else's. Verdasco's/Murray's pics come pretty close, but you get the idea, don't you?
     
  36. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    No. Querrey's racquet face is completely closed WHILE the ball is on the strings. You can even see the ball being flattened by his string bed in the blow up pic... proving that the photo was snapped exactly on impact.

    The other pics show the ball either way off the strings or the racquet face is opened at least 30 degrees. Completely different scenario.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  37. Cody

    Cody Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Messages:
    543
    Video evidence is needed......

    The others don't match Q's
     
  38. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
    That's a PICTURE, not a video, and the ball doesn't look flattened at all. My point is: it's all speculation. Mishit/shank/reverse forehand, whatever it is, it's hard to argue one or the others. Am I being fair here?
     
  39. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
    EXACTLY my point. Too bad some ppl think their opinions are straight up facts. :shock::oops:
     
  40. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Those of use who have tried hitting a ball with the racquet face completely closed know that it won't clear the net. It's common sense that no lift is provided on the ball with a closed racquet face at impact.

    It one thing to close the racquet face on follow through and another to actually strike the ball when the racquet face is completely closed.

    In the blowup, it's obvious the ball is not round as it impacts the strings. If you look really closely, it even appears the strings are slightly pushed back as the ball hits the string bed. Note how the string nearest the ball is not parallel with the one beside it.

    In fact, it appears he may have even framed this shot... as the ball is striking the outter 2 strings on the racquet.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2009
  41. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
    "Bud", are you here to pat yourself on the back while making a fool of yourself, or are you here to discuss opinions? I don't care if it's a shank or a reverse forehand, and I don't care for whether or not I could be right for labeling it for what it really is. I'm posting here because I think it's ridiculous for someone to say that they know exactly what's going in those pics when he/she has no idea on how the ball was struck.
     
  42. Cody

    Cody Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Messages:
    543
    I don't see how this shot it possible, i'm with bud here...
    It seems like a miss-hit, no way does the wrist take that position aftr contact.
     
  43. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    It's simple physics. Stop beating a dead horse. Did you revive this thread just to argue what is obvious to 95% of those looking at the pic?

    Also, why would you even think of labeling this a reverse forehand. You have no idea what his follow through will be on this shot... assuming he even hit the ball with a full follow through.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2009
  44. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
    What's obvious is post 66, and that this is all still speculation since we don't have video of the entire stroke. Was that fair to say? It's a discussion, and so I'm not sure why you want to enforce your opinion on someone who's pointing out the obvious.
     
  45. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Yeah yeah... If you truly thought it was speculation you wouldn't have revived it with numerous pics of what you thought was a similar scenario.

    Let's let the thread rest in peace now.
     
  46. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
    Video killed the wrong comments on a picture? Yeah, let's kill the thread now.
     
  47. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
    You need to start proof reading your posts because your constant editing is confusing me.

    I revived this thread to show pictures of similar forehands. But if you think you can automatically tell me if it was a shank or a not, I'll welcome your opinion. :oops:
     
  48. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,165
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I edit so they read more easily. As you can see, there is no time stamp so it was created and edited quickly. Perhaps, you need to be more patient and wait until I finishing posting/editing prior to responding ;-)
     
  49. AlpineCadet

    AlpineCadet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    4,649
    K, I waited. You didn't edit. Congrats.
     

Share This Page