hitting through the ball analogy: pistol vs rifle
 

Hitting through the ball analogy: Pistol vs Rifle.

This is an analogy a coach used to teach me the contact phase of the groundstroke that Vince Spadea is discussing in a video clip in another thread.

He explained it by talking about the rifling in a gun barrel. When a bullet is travelling down a rifle barrel it has a longer distance where it's being guided by the rifling. After going through that longer distance and being guided forward it really picks up more speed and power and spin.

In a pistol, it's not as accurate or powerful, because their is less distance forward and rifling over which to control the bullet and add power and spin.

Now if you look at the physics of a tennis groundstroke, this analogy isn't even true. because the dwell time of the ball on the strings is so short, during a lot of the time where you're hitting through your contact zone and getting that power forward the ball isn't even on the strings. But it's a visualization technique to teach the student to have a long contact zone and follow through, which will create power, control, and spin.

I'm not familiar with guns, that part of the analogy might not be true either from a physics perspective. It's a visualization technique to teach students firm clean contact, a long consistent contact zone, and a long follow through. If a student has these fundamentals, they will be learning the basics, and develop consistent spin, power and control.

Darn right you are not familiar with guns, and neither is your coach, who is basically clueless on that subject.
Rifling exists in both handguns and rifles. BOTH grab the bullet and spin it fully before the bullet leaves the barrel, so it don't matter the length.
If you pushed a bullet with handgun levels of powder thru a rifle barrel, the bullet will get stuck in the barrel.
If you pushed a rifle amount of powder thru the pistol barrel, it will not burn fully and probably barely increase the speed of the bullet, but adding tons of unburned powder thru the air.
A rifle of approximately the same caliber normally uses THREE times more powder!
It can, because a rifle is 3 times heavier and is more anatomical against the kick.
Forget using rifle and handguns.
WE cannot add the power whenever we need.

I know the pistol and the rifle both have rifling. Read the first post more carefully. The analogy is that in the groundstroke with a long contact zone and follow through, the bullet is being guided by the rifling over a longer time period and distance, like in the rifle. This actually isn't true, because if you look at the dwell time on the strings its actually very short. It's just an analogy to emphasize that a longer contact zone and follow through adds spin and power. Beginner's often think they need to pull off the ball to add spin, the analogy helps show how a longer contact zone and follow through help you control the ball with spin.

LeeD you stay away from me, OK?

In the tennis stroke you're only touching the ball for a very short amount of time. But during that time, in order to contact the ball powerfully, cleanly, and consistently you want a long contact zone and follow through. Look at Federer and and all the top guys. It's what gives you the power and control.

It's just an analogy. Have you ever heard the commentator says he rifled the ball on a groundstroke. It just means that player generated a lot of racket head speed by hitting outward and following through outwards towards his/her target. Beginners and internet denizens often miss what's happening in the long contact zone and follow through before the deceleration at the end of the stroke.

OK...
But...
Hardly a better guy to have around when it comes down to crunch time.
Owned over 45 different guns, of all different calibers, fired them all at least 50 rounds, some as many as 25,000.
Spent one year in the USArmy, all training, tossed grenades, fired ATM's, .50, used to be able to break down M-16's blindfolded and in the dark....and put it back together correctly and functionally. Can breakdown and maintain AK's, AKM's, Valmet, SKS, FN's, HK's, and a few more.
Passed the E&E training, passed the GW training with flying colors, top 10%.
Speak some Chinese (:)).
Drove night taxi in SanFrancisco for 8 years, needing some of the above for a triad of hijinks including State of Calif. vs LeeD, the landmark decision that allowed taxi drivers to carry guns in California.
Watched almost every survival movie ever...:) Loved CharlesHeston.
Having tons of law enforcement officer friends, I kinda know a little of the insides needed to get by.....
Currently living off the beaten path, can relocate on a whim and less than it takes to decide....
Can get by on very very little....
:):)

It's great that you know so much about gun's, and you have an impressive life story. I'm your biggest fan, LeeD, but I'm missing your point. My post is just an analogy where I compare the long contact zone to the long barrel of a rifle. I'm not advocating using guns or anything.

The time when your racket head is traveling through the contact zone towards the ball and the target is analogous to when the bullet is traveling down the barrel. It's just a way to let the student build up racket head speed before contacting the ball and stay with the shot once contact is made without pulling off the ball too early.

In the USA this is normal:D.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY

Well, I only care if leeD is normal

In the words of the famous kiteboard, let's weaponize our groundstrokes, not our homes and streets. lol

Bad analogy, any way you put it.
Rifles take at least 3 times the energy..powder... to push the bullet thru the barrel.
Accuracy is solely by longing aiming point, and fast moving bullet that doesn't get affected as much by wind, gravity, air resistance.
WE cannot add any extra energy. We have only what we have.
Maybe a better analogy is a shooting stroke in basketball. Long and smooth is more replicable than short and jerky, and direct path is one of the keys. More replication equals more consistency, for most.

Well the guy that used it with me was a high performance coach that studied kinesthesiology in college and played for the University of Texas in the mid 2000's, but what does he know. He only rebuilt my strokes and helped me become a more consistent player. He made the point in a variety of ways. It's just an analogy to create a dramatic picture for the student, and help them understand what is happening in the stroke in a way that gets their attention.

So you don't think the shooting...not dunking, a basketball is not a better analogy?
NO, he doesn't know a thing about guns. I'll tell him, if you want.
I never had a coach. I played in over 12 A/Open NorCal tournaments, and have more wins than losses, although I lost by the 4th round in every single event. That's how worthy a coach is.

Agreed with this point 100 percent

You're overthinking this. He's just comparing the long distance over which the bullet travels through the rifling to the long linear forward distance the racket head travels before and during the contact zone and follow through. It's a tool to learn the longer follow-through which is a fundamental part of every pro groundstroke: traditional and modern.

The guy might have been a gun enthusiast himself so maybe the 2 of you could talk guns till the cows come home. I never mentioned gun powder or your life story in the op, but thanks for bringing those aspects into the equation. You truly are a living legend LeeD.

Let's weaponize both! Any guy that likes shooting pistols can't be all bad.

In any case, the analogy I guess is to encourage the player to hit through the ball more. If these tricks work for a person is not for me to say.

I think the hit thru the ball/ hit across the ball discussion is sort of worthless unless we are looking at a particular player. Some players hit too much across or only brush up and can't create their own pace. Some hit totally flat. If you are going to hit a topspin drive you need both a horizontal and vertical component (there will also be an across component in almost all shots).

I believe the solution to this quandary is to either focus on the individual player or emulate video of a pro who hits the way we want to hit. The across/thru argument is just tedious at this point.

Well said. For my particular game the hitting through part is what was missing. I think a lot of people watch tv and see the pros hit, and miss that part of the stroke because it happens so fast. I know I did. Yes everyone also needs to get below the ball and hit low to high. IMHO the way some of these internet forums folks describe the topspin aspect of the stroke is misleading, and confusing, because even on shots where I'm trying to get below the ball so I can hit more topspin, I still make sure to hit through the ball so that I can have a consistent, repeatable, powerful, sound groundstroke. There's just know 2 ways around it. All good players hit through the ball with a long follow through. If people aren't doing this, they're doomed to be playing 3.5 level tennis and looking online for the latest internet secrets of the modern game.

Sounds like you had a good coach and the analogy worked for you.

I've had players who hit with a Western grip that were far too much across and up the ball. What was interesting was that they like pace but hated pushers. That was because they didn't naturally have much through the ball with their stroke mechanics. This wasn't a problem with the Western grip as much as with their particular form.

My current training involves trying to hit like a few of the pros (my current fh model is sort of a cross between Federer and Berdych). I use video to try to assess my form and then in play I vary the amount of topspin based on what I want to do with the ball. My basic take away is video beats talk.

"liked pace, but hated pushers".....
Well pushers DON'T hit with pace, do they?
And player who hit with pace are not pushers.

LeeD, you getting old...er?
>>can handle pace but hate playing pushers since you have to generate pace by hitting through which they don't