Was Courier really serving this slow??!

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Trickster, Sep 27, 2009.

  1. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    OH yuck....now it's speed training....sigh.

    Indicently, Nellie, you might wish to re-evaluate Agassi's strength training. It certainly didn't allow him to hit the ball any harder, though it might have helped with injury prevention, hard to say. Agassi certainly believe it helped him, though others believe that steroids were what really helped Agassi in his "fitness"....certainly, Agassi's cardiovascular training was far more crucial to his tennis success. Others, like Michael Chang, ultimately came to feel that weight lifting was detrimental to his game. It is NOT clear cut whatsoever.


    As to the rep range. Most protocols for producing peak power involved very low rep ranges with very high loads. Although many studies of this have also failed to produce statistically significant increases in peak power....which is not suprising.
     
  2. Chopin

    Chopin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,110
    Location:
    St. John, USVI
    Strength training IS not beneficial for a tennis player. Look AT Nadal. Also, look at MURRAY.

    Yes, I AM William Shatner.

    GREAT stuff, guys.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2009
  3. J011yroger

    J011yroger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,331
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    No, strung with head syn gut.

    J
     
  4. Mike Cottrill

    Mike Cottrill Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,626
    When I first saw Courier practicing serves and first few serve games in one of his matches, I thought the same thing. How could he of won those slams with that. However, once he warmed up his serves got more pop, more spin and better angles. He serves just as hard today as he did in the past, but at times he can not hit the side of a barn.

    Here are a few high speed clips of his first severs from a year ago. The returner is no slack and only a few years off the main tour.

    http://www.vimeo.com/2220258

    http://www.vimeo.com/2220333


     
  5. Andres

    Andres G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    12,540
    Location:
    Mar del Plata, Argentina
    "Tennis: What's the secret of power and speed in serving?

    Goran: Whenever I try to hit hard, I serve weak. When I don't worry about speed, but about the serve quality, then I serve faster. Anyway, for a fast serve you need to be relaxed- your hand needs to be loose, you must not force anything. And the speed also depends on the gun
    position. If the gun catches your serve at an angle, it appears slower than it is. Sometimes I feel I've hit a fast one, and it's only 110 m.p.h. Other times the serve doesn't feel so fast, and it turns out to be 130 m.p.h. The angle has a lot to do with it."


    This was 1995. The guns were measuring the ball as they approached the net, instead of the contact point.

    Modern guns are not a single "radar gun pointing at the serve", but a combination of several measurement devices.

    T serves on 90s guns measured the highest, while body serves had less OOMPH on them, and wide serves (Goran's bread and butter) measured the lowest.

    I have at least, 40 or 50 Goran matches on DVD, and must have seen at least 120, and lemme tell you, his fastest serves are JUST AS FAST as Roddick's cannonballs.

    In fact, I watched a youtube video not so long ago with a HUGE first serve by Ivanisevic in 1996. I mean, HUGE. Looked no slower than Roddick's 150. The gun clocked 128 mph. It was a flat serve outwide on the deuce side. I'll try to find the vid and post it.
     
  6. li0scc0

    li0scc0 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,173
    Here is what is interesting.

    #1 - actually I could argue that the old method of measuring is more accurate. Measuring serve speed as it crosses the net is more what the returner is actually facing. If Roddick hits a serve 140mph and it is 128mph as it crosses the net...the serve returner is NOT seeing a 140mph serve, he is seeing a 128mph serve (or thereabouts). Obviously it is more 'exciting' saying Roddick is serving 140mph...because he is....but what is the returning really facing? How fast is the ball going? Certainly a complex issue, measuring at the net is close to the midpoint between the server and the returner, and is a reasonable means of measurement.

    #2 the old guns were highly accurate. If we want to say the measurement point is inaccurate, then fine. But to say the guns were inaccurate means they might be +/- 5 mph off, which they were not. The guns themselves were accurate.
     
  7. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    WOW. THIS is what YOU find interesting? LOL.

    1.Ridiculous. Why measure at the "midpoint". Do you understand how the velocity changes? There is no compelling reason to measure at the net. One could make a much stronger case for measuring at the highest point or at the receiver's position (or as close as possible), HOWEVER, no speed measurement actually reflects the experience of the receiver EXCEPT as a relative benchmark for comparing between serves. By the way, the receiver DOES not "see"(depending on what you actually mean by that...I doubt you know...considering the illogic in this post). The receiver WILL return a ball about 70-80mph. However, that again, is virtually meaningless given the constant rate of change (velocity) of the ball, EXCEPT as a common comparison benchmark

    2.WOW. Bizarre. The standard convention for recording serve speeds is to try to record the maximum speed. That is what the majority wish to discover, and assume is being recorded. The guns ARE innacurate at doing that. One must look at the purpose of the system or device as a whole. If one wished to legalisticallly and irrationally argue the point, all devices are "accurate" when reduced to the level of pure physics. However, as a complex device, engineered for a purpose, the device is innacurate.

    It's hard to believe somebody is actually trying to publicly argue such silly points. Talk about not wanting to admit they were wrong....
     

Share This Page