Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool
Toly, I majored in math in college, and I disagree with pretty much every comment you've made about tennis strokes. Most of your comments seem to be about how players are wristing their grounstrokes, and vectors can prove it somehow. I think If anything is happening with the wrist at the end of the stroke, it's because of the preparation that happened earlier. In my mind, players have relaxed, fluid strokes, and their wrists are relaxed at the end. I'm not sure how vectors fit into all your wristy groundstroke arguments.
I question whether you understand even basics concepts surrounding vectors. Most of your posts on technique are so off the wall, then you will draw a vector and claim it somehow supports your post. I'm not seeing the connections.
I have to agree here. You made tennis look unnecessarily complicated here, toly.
For an observational standpoint, I think you'll have to incorporate much more than just vectors here. If a standard player were to look deep and study your post, they wouldn't get around to hitting very well without more information.
There's a lot more to tennis than just vectors. You have to bring physics into this. Why not discuss force? Or leverage? Momentum? Vectors only go so far into explaining something literally everybody on this forum does when hitting a tennis stroke.
The biggest problem I have with this post is that it focuses too much on the racquet itself. The player
is the one who controls the racquet, and therefore hits the ball. How about you post something that discusses how to attain the maximum magnitudes for the vectors you described in your original post?
Taking a solely math-based approach to tennis is limiting. It's better if you expanded to physics instead; it'll be much more applicable. Tennis is a physics-based game, anyway.