Heavy Topspin is Overrated.

[LeeD]

It's not topspin vs slice, or topspin vs less topspin.
It's all about where you hit the ball with the strokes you use.
There was a time they thought slice gave the best placements.
There was a time they thought topspin was only wild and a waste of energy.
There was a time they figured out topspin can be tamed with practice and bigger rackets.
There was a time they figured the grips to use with heavy topspin.
There is a time they figured the grips for heavy topspin aren't nearly idea for volleying.
But all this time, through all the different idealogy, we knew good placement beats hitting up the middle.

[KenC]

Originally Posted by gatorbait01

On a similar note. Do you guys feel it takes more energy to hit massive topspin?

I swing basically as hard as I can and transfer the added energy into spin to keep the ball in play. Better players handle my spin fine, but I find myself worn out in long matches much sooner than my opponents. At first I thought it was a fitness thing. Now I'm wondering if I'm "wasting" too much energy trying to hit the "heaviest" ball I can. This could be a bad idea. Not sure.

Thoughts?

How much damage does your heavy ball really do to your opponents? Obviously generating those heavy balls is doing damage to yourself, so is the tradeoff worth it? If not, you are helping your opponent wear you down and beat you.

[5263]

Originally Posted by KenC

Makes perfect sense to me. No one doubts the benefits of topspin here. I personally love the stuff as it keeps my balls in.

It doesn't change the fact that I see players whose whole overall strategy seems to be to kill their opponent with topspin. Use the full western grip and put all the effort into generating max spin even if that means not hitting with great pace. It's as if they are saying "I'm going to beat you with topspin. You are not going to be able to handle my topspin."

So let me just make a crucial point here. No one at the middle competitive levels (4.0 to 5.5) hits a ball like Nadal or Federer with both great pace and great spin. Some can hit with great pace, others with great topspin, but both?

So we all agree, TS as a one dimensional strategy is not good, and worse if it is
to the detriment of other important aspects of your stroke.
I'm thinking since everyone has agreed to this quite easily and their is really no
debate... it is likely not that prevalent.

To your other point that no one is hitting like Fed and Nadal...maybe some
truth to that, but they are not playing against Fed and Nadal either, which is
likely far more relevant. Hitting a shot with a combo of spin and pace
is actually easier to do at a level that will hurt the opponent at the rec level, not
harder, because the pro level defense is so much better.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by 5263

So we all agree, TS as a one dimensional strategy is not good,

It is if it works (and often it does).

Good top shots that hit deep in the court and pin your opponent behind the baseline work great IMO. Depth is important. So is weight of shot.

Nobody I've ever faced is doing much damage from deep in the court. Much of my gameplan is hoping and goading my opponent into pulling the trigger from back there.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by gatorbait01

On a similar note. Do you guys feel it takes more energy to hit massive topspin?

Yes. Look at Nadal's muscles.

You are swinging up against gravity rather fast.

[5263]

Originally Posted by r2473

It is if it works (and often it does).

Good top shots that hit deep in the court and pin your opponent behind the baseline work great IMO. Depth is important. So is weight of shot.

Nobody I've ever faced is doing much damage from deep in the court. Much of my gameplan is hoping and goading my opponent into pulling the trigger from back there.

Well there you go. If you get depth and have wt of shot...it's not just TS now
is it? You are adding other helpful aspects to help the TS be more effective,
right?

I do like that part of your game plan though!

[FloridaAG]

Originally Posted by r2473

It is if it works (and often it does).

Good top shots that hit deep in the court and pin your opponent behind the baseline work great IMO. Depth is important. So is weight of shot.

Nobody I've ever faced is doing much damage from deep in the court. Much of my gameplan is hoping and goading my opponent into pulling the trigger from back there.

This is the critical point - if the person using topspin is hitting a heavy ball that is deep, then the opponent is being pushed back, cannot be agressive and when directed to the backhand particularly will generate frequent errors - if they are landing at the service line, then the spin is relatively useless and the person will get hammered by a decent player.

[r2473]

And if I can't get weight of shot, I'll settle for depth.

It all gets easier as the opponent gets more physically and mentally tired as the match goes on. They make more routine errors. Get far more impatient, etc.

[LeeD]

Without weight of shot, you need not only depth, but you need good side to side PLACMENT.
See JonnnyMc. He needs to move his opponent's alley to alley, because while he has depth, he has no weight of shot. At his level, we're talking.

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by KenC

Last night I watched the semifinal of a local 5.0+ tournament and there was this 14yo 5.0 phenom against an 18yo 5.5 topspin monster. The 14yo hit with a modest to normal amount of topspin just to keep the ball in while the 18yo used a full western grip with the typical overworked strokes. Every time the 18yo hit one of the massive topspin FHs the 14yo just nailed it back twice as hard. The massive topspin had no effect on a 14yo. The 14yo won 7-5, 6-3.

I've been noticing a lot of these matchups lately. It seems those who hit with more pace and just enough topspin to keep the ball in are doing more damage than those who try to hit massive topspin. Apparently, all the effort going into hitting massive topspin is robbing them of needed pace.

I know everyone is enamored with topspin, but it begs the questions: Do you really do damage to your opponent with all that topspin? Really? When was the last time a player beat you with topspin?

well making that conclusion based on one match is very flawed.

it is not so much about the spin but about the level of play. no style is inherently superior (although some styles like the pure pusher will hit a ceiling).

if the flat hitter won he did so because he was the better player not because of his flatter strokes.

a 4.0 flat spinner beats the 3.5 flat hitter and the 4.0 spinner will be easily beaten by a 4.5 flat hitter and so on.
fabrice sontoro plays an akward style but will double bagle any "modern hitting" 5.5 player (but lose to the modern playing top guys from today).

this is entirely about the level of play. you are fooling yourself that this player won because his style was superior.

however I agree that you need a good mix from pace and spin. too much spin and the strokes will lack penetration. and too little spin and your strokes will will lack consistency and weight (can be blocked back more easily). everyone needs to find happy medium were he can hit hard and with spin.

[bhupaes]

Originally Posted by 5263

You really are on the right track with this and I agree with your intended point.
I just think you underlying premise is flawed with what I underlined above.
There is NO reason to believe "heavy Topspin" just means loop the heck out of the
ball. Very good players can hit some very major TS without this big loop you
seem to assume. Maybe without the loopy effect, you don't recognize it.
I see this from several other on here as well, but if you look at what JY shared
from BG's work...it shows how some pretty mighty TS can be hit without going
so much below the ball before contact, so the player can really drive the heavy
TS.

IS this TS as heavy as your loopy version? Most of can't say cause there is
little way to measure on a rec basis, but I'd say it lends it'self to a heavier
ball and overall effect, with the TS being extremely effective in keeping it in
play. I expect that many using this version of a hard/heavy TS can get more
spin than many you see hitting the loopy version.
Make sense?
For those who wonder why this is being discussed...well it is a subtle, but
important concept to grasp in moving up a level, so I'd say pretty important.

This is probably the best thing I've gotten from JY and TP.net in years! Excellent
stuff imo and way better than the flip aspect that was more highlighted in the
work, but also related to that flip to an extent. Yes, I knew how to do this by
feel, but seeing it and understanding it better helped me to teach it and use it
better for my players.

Hey 5263, could you post a pointer to where JY has shared BG's work? It sounds really interesting. Thanks!

Edit: Forgot to say, you don't have to if it was a private communication, of course!

[5263]

Originally Posted by bhupaes

Hey 5263, could you post a pointer to where JY has shared BG's work? It sounds really interesting. Thanks!

Edit: Forgot to say, you don't have to if it was a private communication, of course!

It was on here, and maybe in one of the posts that got deleted unfortunately.
He gave a link that showed for a time how there was a racket flip right around
the forward part of the swing after the tk back that gave a pre-stretch (someone
pls provide the acronym- ssc??)
It also talked of not getting far below the ball prior to contact and slightly closing
the racket face for a hard driving TS.
Things you are likely doing instinctively, but helps to be more aware...at least in
my case
I'll look around, but expect the link to the work is now dead or closed regarding
the fee look.

[KenC]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

well making that conclusion based on one match is very flawed.

it is not so much about the spin but about the level of play. no style is inherently superior (although some styles like the pure pusher will hit a ceiling).

if the flat hitter won he did so because he was the better player not because of his flatter strokes.

a 4.0 flat spinner beats the 3.5 flat hitter and the 4.0 spinner will be easily beaten by a 4.5 flat hitter and so on.
fabrice sontoro plays an akward style but will double bagle any "modern hitting" 5.5 player (but lose to the modern playing top guys from today).

this is entirely about the level of play. you are fooling yourself that this player won because his style was superior.

however I agree that you need a good mix from pace and spin. too much spin and the strokes will lack penetration. and too little spin and your strokes will will lack consistency and weight (can be blocked back more easily). everyone needs to find happy medium were he can hit hard and with spin.

Did you happen to notice the middle paragraph? Here it is again:

"I've been noticing a lot of these matchups lately. It seems those who hit with more pace and just enough topspin to keep the ball in are doing more damage than those who try to hit massive topspin. Apparently, all the effort going into hitting massive topspin is robbing them of needed pace."

Now, the match I highlighted is just illustrative of a trend I am starting to see as I play and follow more 5.0+ equivalent tournaments. When I played and followed the 4.0+ equivalent tournaments I didn't notice this trend.

Why would I use that particular match to illustrate a point? Well, at least for those with good reading comprehension, on paper an 18yo 5.5 should beat a 14yo 5.0 right? Understanding that one is a 5.5 means he is a damn good tennis player. So, why did a 5.5 18yo lose to a 5.0 14yo? Well, to make an Internet topic and not a Doctoral Thesis, I had to narrow down to the obvious differences between the two. The BIG difference is that one seemed to be a Nadal clone and the other seemed to be a Del Potro clone. One had an overall game strategy to disrupt the opponent with massive topspin and the other had a game strategy of hit the ball really hard. In this particular match the hit the ball really hard strategy prevailed, and I see this happening a lot against the 'hit with massive topspin type' Nadal clones.

Now the central theme is not topspin vs flat, it is about where we decide to dedicate our effort and strategy. Trust me, there are a lot of Nadal clones out there trying to implement his strategy and failing. They seem to be able to generate a whole lot of impressive spin with their western FHs, but they are not achieving the pace that Nadal gets. And their spin seems to be easily handled by decent players. OTOH there are a lot of Djokovic clones out there that are starting to generate a lot of impressive pace with just the necessary amount of spin. At the 5.0+ level the typical Djokovic clone is prevailing over the typical Nadal clone. And this is here in Italy where almost all tournaments are played on clay.

And just to be perfectly clear, yes Djokovic clones sometimes use a lot of topspin, even heavy topspin when necessary. It still isn't the same as the insane topspin that the Nadal clones are trying to use on every shot.

What is the purpose of this thread? There are a lot of people out there that are way too enamored with topspin and, because of the success of Nadal with his really heavy/insane topspin, have decided to use topspin as a weapon and base their entire strategies around topspin. I mean come on, every other day someone asks what the spinniest racquet is on the racquets subforum, and when he goes out and gets his spin monster racquet he then goes to the string subforum and asks whats the spinniest string. This is taking topspin way too seriously. My point is to put topspin in proper perspective and see it as just a necessary ingredient to help accomplish better strategies. Topspin by itself doesn't win matches. Kill them with insane topspin only seems to work for Nadal on clay.

[Thud and blunder]

I'm sympathetic to your point, but the most parsimonious explanation for the result is that your ratings are wrong...very plausible when we are dealing with improving players.

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by KenC

Did you happen to notice the middle paragraph? Here it is again:

"I've been noticing a lot of these matchups lately. It seems those who hit with more pace and just enough topspin to keep the ball in are doing more damage than those who try to hit massive topspin. Apparently, all the effort going into hitting massive topspin is robbing them of needed pace."

Now, the match I highlighted is just illustrative of a trend I am starting to see as I play and follow more 5.0+ equivalent tournaments. When I played and followed the 4.0+ equivalent tournaments I didn't notice this trend.

Why would I use that particular match to illustrate a point? Well, at least for those with good reading comprehension, on paper an 18yo 5.5 should beat a 14yo 5.0 right? Understanding that one is a 5.5 means he is a damn good tennis player. So, why did a 5.5 18yo lose to a 5.0 14yo? Well, to make an Internet topic and not a Doctoral Thesis, I had to narrow down to the obvious differences between the two. The BIG difference is that one seemed to be a Nadal clone and the other seemed to be a Del Potro clone. One had an overall game strategy to disrupt the opponent with massive topspin and the other had a game strategy of hit the ball really hard. In this particular match the hit the ball really hard strategy prevailed, and I see this happening a lot against the 'hit with massive topspin type' Nadal clones.

Now the central theme is not topspin vs flat, it is about where we decide to dedicate our effort and strategy. Trust me, there are a lot of Nadal clones out there trying to implement his strategy and failing. They seem to be able to generate a whole lot of impressive spin with their western FHs, but they are not achieving the pace that Nadal gets. And their spin seems to be easily handled by decent players. OTOH there are a lot of Djokovic clones out there that are starting to generate a lot of impressive pace with just the necessary amount of spin. At the 5.0+ level the typical Djokovic clone is prevailing over the typical Nadal clone. And this is here in Italy where almost all tournaments are played on clay.

And just to be perfectly clear, yes Djokovic clones sometimes use a lot of topspin, even heavy topspin when necessary. It still isn't the same as the insane topspin that the Nadal clones are trying to use on every shot.

What is the purpose of this thread? There are a lot of people out there that are way too enamored with topspin and, because of the success of Nadal with his really heavy/insane topspin, have decided to use topspin as a weapon and base their entire strategies around topspin. I mean come on, every other day someone asks what the spinniest racquet is on the racquets subforum, and when he goes out and gets his spin monster racquet he then goes to the string subforum and asks whats the spinniest string. This is taking topspin way too seriously. My point is to put topspin in proper perspective and see it as just a necessary ingredient to help accomplish better strategies. Topspin by itself doesn't win matches. Kill them with insane topspin only seems to work for Nadal on clay.

I agreee that you should not sacrifice all penetration for spin. even nadal can hit the ball extremely hard. no pro just hits soft all spin floaters.

but on the other side the flat and hard slapper is really rare in the pros. DP and berdych are a little bit like this but most other guys hit with extreme spin AND pace. federer uses extreme topspin only second to nadal but that doesn't mean he has no penetration.

[KenC]

Guys, I'm not talking about pros.

This concerns the masses here who typically play at the recreational and lower competitive levels. There are no Federers and Nadals here.

Since everyone here seems to be focused on what the pros do and not what typical players are capable of, maybe I could get to the same point by asking:
If you wanted to start playing competitive level tennis, would you rather model your style of play and strategy after Nadal or would you rather model your style and strategy after Federer?

[Thud and blunder]

Seen a few 4.0 Nadals; never seen a 4.0 Fed

[5263]

Originally Posted by KenC

maybe I could get to the same point by asking:
If you wanted to start playing competitive level tennis, would you rather model your style of play and strategy after Nadal or would you rather model your style and strategy after Federer?

Don't you think either one would be fine, as they are both excellent.
I think Nadal's is more attainable and common as a jr style with how his serve is
slower, but works to get a Fh and he attacks the Bh most often of the other
player, along with his strong tendency for BL play dominated by his own Fh.

[sundaypunch]

Originally Posted by KenC

Guys, I'm not talking about pros.

This concerns the masses here who typically play at the recreational and lower competitive levels. There are no Federers and Nadals here.

Since everyone here seems to be focused on what the pros do and not what typical players are capable of, maybe I could get to the same point by asking:
If you wanted to start playing competitive level tennis, would you rather model your style of play and strategy after Nadal or would you rather model your style and strategy after Federer?

The masses and lower level rec. players I see are exactly the ones who would benefit from more topspin.

[Frank Silbermann]

I find I am simply _unable_ to apply heavy topspin against someone who hits hard.

If he hits heavy topspin then I have to take it well on the rise, which means my ball will be rolling backwards as often as forwards.

If he hits it hard and flat, then I cannot time time the shot if my racket is moving perpendicular to his balls flight. So light topspin is all I can manage.

If my opponent hits soft to medium pace shots (so I can take them after they start to drop without retreating way behind the baseline), then I can load up on the topspin.