|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#61 | |
|
Talk Tennis Guru
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 26,292
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#62 | |
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 406
|
Quote:
Also, this image is wrong: ![]() Upper arm and shoulders should be colinear. The straight line along upper arm and shoulders is an axis of rotation of forearm. This axis should be tilted at ca 45 degrees at serves. Due to educational reasons, you should make corrections in the picture above and add an image with tilted axis. Last edited by sennoc : 03-03-2011 at 11:58 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Talk Tennis Guru
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 26,292
|
^^^ How is he playing without strings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 406
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Professional
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 873
|
I think some of the misunderstanding is perhaps due to misidentification of biomechanical definitions:
Pronation alludes solely to rotation of the radioulnar joint at the elbow around a superoinferior axis, and is confused with internal shouder rotation which occurs at the shoulder. Seems to me that the active internal shoulder rotation results in the passive pronation if the arm is kept loose... ![]() To be clear: we are talking about multilevel movements around two separate joints - shoulder and elbow Last edited by gzhpcu : 03-03-2011 at 11:36 AM. Reason: last sentence |
|
|
|
|
|
#66 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 276
|
Quote:
This guy got it absolutely right. Pronation/supination is only applicable to the forearm. while the actual movement of the serve is the internal rotation of the shoulder which in a way is also pronating the forearm. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#67 | |
|
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto Canada
Posts: 1,712
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
| spacediver |
| View Public Profile |
| Find More Posts by spacediver |
|
|
#68 | ||
|
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto Canada
Posts: 1,712
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
| spacediver |
| View Public Profile |
| Find More Posts by spacediver |
|
|
#69 |
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 406
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto Canada
Posts: 1,712
|
Yea I guess I can re-render all the pics with the upper arm being colinear with the clavicle - good suggestion, thanks.
|
|
|
|
| spacediver |
| View Public Profile |
| Find More Posts by spacediver |
|
|
#71 | |
|
Professional
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,214
|
Quote:
__________________
Anatoly Antipin - one of the most delicate tennis players in the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#72 | |
|
Professional
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 860
|
Quote:
The other thing is the significance of the high elbow. I found that I could not get my elbow high unless my body was tilted. One significance of it therefore is that a high elbow means a good cartwheeling motion. Of course, as you point out, it also enables better utilization of upper arm rotation. I have a question regarding the portion of your post that I have quoted above. Isn't there a lot of biceps action and also upper arm rotation in the topspin forehand, that contribute both to spin and power? Here also, isn't the wrist by itself too weak to do anything other than to orient the racquet head correctly? Try to isolate the pronation movement by holding your upper arm with your non-dominant hand to prevent it from rotating in a topspin forehand motion, to see what I mean. After reading tricky's posts regarding transverse adduction of the shoulder, I now believe that is also a major power source. A similar argument applies to the one-handed backhand as well, except the shoulder rotation is external. Last edited by bhupaes : 03-03-2011 at 02:01 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#73 | |
|
Talk Tennis Guru
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 26,292
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Professional
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,214
|
I think it can be more than 160, but reliability would be next to the 0%. I read somewhere that registered maximum was around 170.
__________________
Anatoly Antipin - one of the most delicate tennis players in the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Professional
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,076
|
It's very simple.. with zero pronation, your wrist would break. It can only flex so much. Pronation is what allows you to swing freely all the way through.
|
|
|
|
| ramseszerg |
| View Public Profile |
| Find More Posts by ramseszerg |
|
|
#76 | |
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 406
|
Toly, you are right, I didn't read everything, have a lot of work. But without reading, I think you must be wrong somewhere. First at all, mathematics behind physics of human body is very complicated and you use very simple methods. They may be good alone, but the result - that pronation generates power at serves - doesn't agree with my experience and knowledge. I'll try to find the weakness of your analysis in a few days, k?
Bhupaes, yes, I know, knowledge hurts I play tennis since late 70., with a 10 years break in 90. (those women...). All my life, I was a very good server. 2-3 aces per game? Where is a problem? 10+ aces per set? Quite normal. 200 kph? Rare, but doable. Unfortunately, my serves were unstable. There were days when I made one mistake after another. Also, I had big problems with my back and elbow. I'm not too young (44 now), so I decided to change my sequence. The goal was to make it more stable and more friendly for my body. Three or four years ago I began to think about new sequence. I knew that the days of powerful serves were finished, I had too many things to change - I made some movies and my serves were technically horrible. So I read many scientific papers, spent many hours thinking about physics of the stroke, played a lot at the wall, watched many pros. I decided to introduce one element after another. Now, my new sequence is almost finished. It's not perfect, I know, but it's technically quite solid. So, it took me three years to do this: http://www.vimeo.com/20614075 There are minor things to improve, but fundamentals are quite solid now and I can think about increasing power. I hope I'll do this in a few months. What's important here is that what you see on the movie is a result of my UNDERSTANDING of tennis physics and biomechanics. No trainers. No mindless copies of pros' movements. Yes, I spent many hours watching Federer, but I am like a cat, I have to find my own way. It was really funny to find an amazing biomechanical part of sequence and... discover it in Federer's sequence. So, if my serves or forehands look a bit similar to Federer's - it's because we both use the same physics. He was not a source of technique for me, he was a method of verification. I'm really proud of my sequence now. Not because it is so good, but because it shows the real power of understanding. My sequence is a product of logical thinking, not a result of mindless rules like "do that", "don't do that", "pronation generates", "jump at serves" etc. Quote:
What's important, tilting gives you better point of view on the ball. That's a small bonus for our visual perception system. Yes, you are right about the role of pronation and supination at modern topspin forehands and backhands. I have some scientific papers and they say that it generates 30-40% of kinetic energy of the stroke. It is quite easy to demonstrate (maybe one day I'll make a movie). Of course you have to remember that power of modern forehand topspin or backhand is also a result of energy transfer along kinetic chain (this is what people usually don't see and don't understand in Federer's strokes). Now you can see the real power of understanding in tennis - in practice. We were talking about serves, but now you know what to do at topspin forehands and backhands. That's a kind of magic for me, that tennis is so intellectually beautiful. Its beauty is very similar to the internal beauty of special theory of relativity. I was so inspired by this coincidence that I created my own "special theory of tennis" (scientifically correct of course). I will present it one day, it's too good to be hidden. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Talk Tennis Guru
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 22,629
|
I'll give you a nice, solid 4.0 serve. No archer's bow, tossing hand not too high (that's OK, neither is mine), no forwards movement, good strong swing, level shoulders not the best, but good balance overall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#78 |
|
Professional
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 860
|
Sennoc, your strokes are excellent - I peeked into the other videos also. You are one of the few people who is able to subject your body to the dictates of logic... normally, either the logic is missing, or the body is uncooperative! I agree with you, there is a beauty and symmetry about tennis that fascinates me, and to the extent that my middle-aged body will allow, my goal is also to make it as perfect a player as I can!
Upon reflection, I believe your statement regarding the elbow is correct, and its position and movement are a side effect of doing other things correctly. Great post, thanks! Edit: Forgot to say, I look forward to reading your "Special Theory of Tennis"! Last edited by bhupaes : 03-03-2011 at 04:09 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#79 | |
|
Semi-Pro
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 406
|
Quote:
http://www.vimeo.com/20613921 is a forehand of 3.0 NTRP. Almost every tennis player I meet laughs loud after your rating (yes, you are a quite famous person here in Poland). I think you should just shut up. You are wasting our time and making idiot from yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Talk Tennis Guru
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 22,629
|
Sennoc, ONE forehand doesn't make you a good player. You know your serve has several problems, which I pointed out, so Mr Pollack, go suck your big toe.
Even YOU admitted your game is still progressing, and as such, you are not close to having a good serve....at least not at the 4.5 level. True, I have not posted a vid of myself, but I can tell you what YOU are doing wrong, and I've already listed the stuff I"M doing wrong. Nobody is perfect, unless you are already playing on the ATP, which YOU ARE NOT! I never accused you of being a 3.0, but maybe you have the intelligence of a 3 year old. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
||||||
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|