Gonzalez Serve

[Ripper014]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I remember more the other way around. JK Pro Staff seemed stiffer and heavier, more powerful to me. JK Autograph seemed lighter, flexier, and maybe had more touch IMO.

I played with a Kramer Pro Staff for about eight years before moving to the PS 6.0 85 in the 80s.

Weight of the frames not accounted for... I thought the JK Prostaff was much more flexible through the shaft... and the JK Autograph was a much more solid firm frame allowing it to be more accurate. IMHO but that was back in the 70's and I play tested a lot of rackets during my search for the perfect frame.

[joe sch]

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

Thanks. Do you know if it can be ordered?

The email address you sent me failed to deliver

[LeeD]

Well, let's revisit a bit...
I've strung maybe 200 JackKramerAutographs.
Maybe closer to 30 ProStaffs.
Probably around 50 StanSmiths.
Easily 50 CrissyEverts, but latter in my stringing career.
JK's, the white ones, were head heavier and stiffer shafted than PS's.
PS',s the medium brown ones, were close to equal total weight, but balance was different, and the wood in the shaft was softer but more layered. The head was also softer, leading me to believe PS's were good for about 3 string jobs total, before they turned into flexi flyers without rebound.
Why would I think PS heads were softer? Easy, you run string thru the wooden holes to deburr. Smiths and Kramers resisted, PS's not, nor did Everts.
For one season, before I got PS's, I bought my own Kramers and Smiths. They were bricks to be sure, but they were durable. Once I got on the ProStaff bandwagon, I'd stress the top layers of the throats on all my PS's within 2-3 string jobs. That allowed me multiple PS's thru my 2 following years of decent tennis. I think I wore thru more than 10 of them. Stress fractures on the throat and jello soft heads. NONE broken.

[gzhpcu]

Originally Posted by joe sch

The email address you sent me failed to deliver

Sorry, corrected it with the new email address...

[gzhpcu]

Here is a clip of Gonzalez versus Hoad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XTR8z5kjWc

[2ndserve642]

Originally Posted by LeeD

So why copy something used under different rules, and 50 years ago, outdated, outmoded, and out of style.

Sorry If I'm a little late but, my coach fixed my serve using this method because I was off balance on my serve this serve taught me balance on the serve and eventually I went back to jumping but on balance.

[the little dasher]

Originally Posted by J011yroger

Oh, and for the record I don't buy the with modern technology these old guys would serve harder crap in the least... for pure MPH, I call BS on anyone claiming more than 5mph.

J

What about the leap? Would you add another 5 or 10 mph making perhaps another 15 mph overall? Some older guys like Les Stoefen would start to crowd Roddick's modern record.

[gzhpcu]

The jump rule was changed in 1960. What I have not managed to find is a video of how Gonzales was serving after 1960. I would think he probably jumped but retained the crossover step, as did many initially. Would be nice to find some old footage of his record 1969 match against Charlie Pasarell in Wimbledon.

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by joe sch

Im not sure what the exact diff in mph would but suspect it would differ by player and skill. Flipper is a great server and Tennis Mag did that comparison where he was within 10% diff (dont remember details) using wood vs graphite. I suspect Andy roddicks serve would suffer more since his modern service form is not suited to a heavy small head racket.

Like the case in many trades, the best tool for the task. I can play classic tennis (eastern grip, flat hits, slices, half-volleys) better with a woody and modern tennis (SemiW grip, lots of topspin, big service returns) better with a modern racket.

I am in agreement with Jolly. My max recorded speed with graphite was 130mph, I can hit 120mph with HORRIBLE wood racquets that probably have ORIGINAL strings in them. Nor does switching to the most powerful widebody add much. Incidently, Flipper hit 122mph with the wood on average, and 124mph with the graphite on average.

[J011yroger]

Originally Posted by the little dasher

What about the leap? Would you add another 5 or 10 mph making perhaps another 15 mph overall? Some older guys like Les Stoefen would start to crowd Roddick's modern record.

I don't really know how much it adds.

J

[LeeD]

Leap on the serve...
One view would be that the older players who weren't allowed to leap actually played a tennis game that allowed their wind to stay within reason, so they were NOT as out of breathe as the new players. Their whole game was slower, they walked slower in general, and were NOT huffing and puffing as they served.
When NOT huffing and puffing, heartbeat up to the working max, you are more accurate when you serve....just like you're more accurate when you shoot, throw, or hit a golf ball.
Try hitting a golf ball after you ran the 200 yards.
Try shooting a heavily mod custom .40 after you RAN 10 yards, slowed down, ducked the obstacle, hid behind the doorframe, drew the pistol, THEN try to hit the target.
Notice that in gunfights, especially RUNNING gunfights, nobody hit much except for background scenery!
Modern tennis doesn't allow us to catch our breathe because of PUSHERS !
they get most everything back

[J011yroger]

If one is huffing and puffing when they serve, I would humbly suggest that they address their fitness, or take more time between points rather than staying on the ground when they serve.

J

[LeeD]

Are you saying that when you are playing a tough, even match, that you never huff and puff DURING your service motion? No way, you didn't play a tough match!
And when you're losing a match, you huff and puff more!
Tennis is not only about YOU. Maybe your opponent is in good shape too.

[J011yroger]

Originally Posted by LeeD

Are you saying that when you are playing a tough, even match, that you never huff and puff DURING your service motion? No way, you didn't play a tough match!
And when you're losing a match, you huff and puff more!
Tennis is not only about YOU. Maybe your opponent is in good shape too.

That is correct, I have never, nor do I ever intend to huff and puff during my service motion.

J

[LeeD]

Of course, not DURING the motion.
You'd hypervent 2 gulps, hold your breathe, then start your motion.
So you don't get to huff and puff stage when you play a superior player?
I see all the pros sweating like buckets and some almost ready to throw up from extreme high efforts.

[J011yroger]

Originally Posted by LeeD

Of course, not DURING the motion.
You'd hypervent 2 gulps, hold your breathe, then start your motion.
So you don't get to huff and puff stage when you play a superior player?
I see all the pros sweating like buckets and some almost ready to throw up from extreme high efforts.

Yea, and then they walk around, and tie their shoes, and towel off until they regain their breath, and their HR comes down, and then they serve.

Interval work in the gym helps a lot with shortening up the recovery time required to get your HR down from the 180's to the 120's pretty darned quickly.

As I said before, if you are out of breath when you step to the line to serve or receive then either your fitness is questionable, or your time management is poor.

J

[the little dasher]

Originally Posted by LeeD

Leap on the serve...
One view would be that the older players who weren't allowed to leap actually played a tennis game that allowed their wind to stay within reason, so they were NOT as out of breathe as the new players. Their whole game was slower, they walked slower in general, and were NOT huffing and puffing as they served.
When NOT huffing and puffing, heartbeat up to the working max, you are more accurate when you serve....just like you're more accurate when you shoot, throw, or hit a golf ball.
Try hitting a golf ball after you ran the 200 yards.

It would seem to me that your comparison with golf is a non sequitor not an analogy. Neither sportsman runs 200 yards immediately proceeding the strike off the tee or at the serve. Tennis can accomodate the relatively modest leap bcos the ball is a larger target and the racquet a larger surface area. Almost complete stillness is required to hit a golf ball.

All modern athletes are fitter. That increased fitness level allows tennis players to recover from the exertions of the rally without unduly impacting on their serve. Fact is accuracy isn't as big an issue in tennis as golf bcos of the different margin for errors. There can only be good reasons all tennis players use the leap; their fitness levels allow it and it gives them an edge in hitting the ball faster without impacting on their accuracy.

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

Originally Posted by LeeD

So why copy something used under different rules, and 50 years ago, outdated, outmoded, and out of style.

Cause his motion worked, it has almost everything fundamentally you would need in today's serve, and it is indeed a motion so excellent he could crush people with second serves alone!

Sampras' motion was a product of the 90s. Is that outdated? No! It is by far the best service motion ever! Pancho Gonzalez's serve has to be in the top 5 though.

Very few people can say they possessed a single shot (and game) so great, that it alone changed the rules of tennis!

For a period of time, the rules of tennis were changed in an attempt to hinder his ability to take full advantage of his serve. He still won, so the rules were changed back.

They had tournaments where players could only use one serve instead of two. He came out of that tournament with the trophy more easily than any other he played.

Sampras and Ivanisevic changed the game in a different way. Their booming and well placed serves made people actually bored about how quickly things were going and that they were watching nothing but a battle of the serves (damned idiots WISHED they had serves like that). The result was that the surfaces would gradually be slowed down in an attempt to slow down the pace of play and give others a chance to do something if they didn't have booming serves backed up by a solid attacking net game.

Borg, Lendl, and Navratilova changed the game in the fact that you had to be fit to be the best. They added physicality to the game; which, ironically in Navratilova's case, would bring about the endangerment of the pure serve and volley game.

Chris Evert brought about the groundstroke game, and with Connors and Borg she popularized the two handed backhand. Monica Seles brought about the aggressive baseline game to the women's tour and the idea of taking the return very early with a big groundstroke (just like Agassi, and also with the help of Bollettieri).

Agassi and Courier brought about the booming groundstroke game with the help of Bollettieri. Agassi also brought about the rise of taking the ball on the rise as more of just taking away the opponent's time. He would blast big groundstrokes on the rise, which has never before been heard of. He also brought about the baseline half volley, which has been taken to the next level by Roger Federer.

Federer and Nadal will probably bring about massive changes to the sport, but the full effects of their presence on the tour probably won't be felt until at least 5 years from now.

The game has evolved over time because of the players. Throughout these decades, the fundamentals of good strokes have still remained the same, though new ones have been added and some old ones removed due to the increased speed of the game (this generally only applies to groundstrokes though). 80 years from now, people like you will say "why copy Federer's forehand? It's outdated crap!" You overlook the fact that it worked incredibly well in his time, and will still work well decades after his time (though more racket head speed will need to be applied). Federer's forehand alone will probably bring about an evolution of forehands. Before, people would change the rules to try and hinder a player. Now they change the surfaces and keep everything else pure (which is the better way to go, though I personally dislike both choices to change the conditions under which players play under that aren't affected by the person on the other side of the net). Nowadays, players adapt. The newer generations emulate the older generations, and become greater. And one person surpasses the rest in this evolution, and the future shall follow him. The cycle repeats infinitely, resulting in the game becoming faster and more athletic. One day we'll probably have 8 foot tall players who can easily beat out Nadal in a battle of movement.

But through all these years, the serve has gone through the fewest changes. Gonzalez's serve, Sampras' serve, and Federer's serve still have an amazing amount of similarities between them.

Regardless of the fact that the game has evolved, copying the strokes of a dominant player in the past will still yield some benefits because they still possess many of the fundamentals required to hit a great shot. And since the serve is still very much the same throughout the years, emulating a serve from as far back as the 20s is still a very solid choice.

[Ripper014]

Originally Posted by xFullCourtTenniSx

Cause his motion worked, it has almost everything fundamentally you would need in today's serve, and it is indeed a motion so excellent he could crush people with second serves alone!

Sampras' motion was a product of the 90s. Is that outdated? No! It is by far the best service motion ever! Pancho Gonzalez's serve has to be in the top 5 though.

Very few people can say they possessed a single shot (and game) so great, that it alone changed the rules of tennis!

For a period of time, the rules of tennis were changed in an attempt to hinder his ability to take full advantage of his serve. He still won, so the rules were changed back.

They had tournaments where players could only use one serve instead of two. He came out of that tournament with the trophy more easily than any other he played.

Sampras and Ivanisevic changed the game in a different way. Their booming and well placed serves made people actually bored about how quickly things were going and that they were watching nothing but a battle of the serves (damned idiots WISHED they had serves like that). The result was that the surfaces would gradually be slowed down in an attempt to slow down the pace of play and give others a chance to do something if they didn't have booming serves backed up by a solid attacking net game.

Borg, Lendl, and Navratilova changed the game in the fact that you had to be fit to be the best. They added physicality to the game; which, ironically in Navratilova's case, would bring about the endangerment of the pure serve and volley game.

Chris Evert brought about the groundstroke game, and with Connors and Borg she popularized the two handed backhand. Monica Seles brought about the aggressive baseline game to the women's tour and the idea of taking the return very early with a big groundstroke (just like Agassi, and also with the help of Bollettieri).

Agassi and Courier brought about the booming groundstroke game with the help of Bollettieri. Agassi also brought about the rise of taking the ball on the rise as more of just taking away the opponent's time. He would blast big groundstrokes on the rise, which has never before been heard of. He also brought about the baseline half volley, which has been taken to the next level by Roger Federer.

Federer and Nadal will probably bring about massive changes to the sport, but the full effects of their presence on the tour probably won't be felt until at least 5 years from now.

The game has evolved over time because of the players. Throughout these decades, the fundamentals of good strokes have still remained the same, though new ones have been added and some old ones removed due to the increased speed of the game (this generally only applies to groundstrokes though). 80 years from now, people like you will say "why copy Federer's forehand? It's outdated crap!" You overlook the fact that it worked incredibly well in his time, and will still work well decades after his time (though more racket head speed will need to be applied). Federer's forehand alone will probably bring about an evolution of forehands. Before, people would change the rules to try and hinder a player. Now they change the surfaces and keep everything else pure (which is the better way to go, though I personally dislike both choices to change the conditions under which players play under that aren't affected by the person on the other side of the net). Nowadays, players adapt. The newer generations emulate the older generations, and become greater. And one person surpasses the rest in this evolution, and the future shall follow him. The cycle repeats infinitely, resulting in the game becoming faster and more athletic. One day we'll probably have 8 foot tall players who can easily beat out Nadal in a battle of movement.

But through all these years, the serve has gone through the fewest changes. Gonzalez's serve, Sampras' serve, and Federer's serve still have an amazing amount of similarities between them.

Regardless of the fact that the game has evolved, copying the strokes of a dominant player in the past will still yield some benefits because they still possess many of the fundamentals required to hit a great shot. And since the serve is still very much the same throughout the years, emulating a serve from as far back as the 20s is still a very solid choice.

I agree with your assessments for the most part... but I would give more credit to an attacking baseline game based on taking the ball as early as possible (ie. off the rise) to Connors... I also believe good classic strokes survive the test of time... Federer is pretty much a classic ball striker as was Sampras... and I would say the Laver backhand would do just fine in the current game. What I would argue would be that we have much better athletes playing now then ever before, in the past we had great tennis players... now we have great tennis players that are great athletes.

In the past the best athletes would gravitate to the core sports of baseball, football and basketball... in other parts of the world I guess that would be football, cricket and rugby: that is no longer the case.

[joe sch]

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

The jump rule was changed in 1960. What I have not managed to find is a video of how Gonzales was serving after 1960. I would think he probably jumped but retained the crossover step, as did many initially. Would be nice to find some old footage of his record 1969 match against Charlie Pasarell in Wimbledon.

I would also die to find that match.
BTW, Charlie Pasarell also had one of the most efficient and beautiful serves in the history of tennis.