MARK ANDERS
Rookie
I say Ivan, how say you?
I say Ivan, how say you?
They both have the same type of forehand, relying on the shear mass of their rackets and a quick, loaded elbow/spring design to unleash a quick hitting, PENETRATING fury on the ball that unlike other "big" swings (see Bruguera/Nadal) didn't take a lot of time to get off.
In short, their forehands were the tennis equivalent of someone firing off rocks with a sling shot. It's a very efficient technique that holds up well over a long career.
If you look at their build, they were virtually identical. Their swing, virtually identical. Their ability to quickly accelerate the racket, virtually identical.
I would say their forehands were thus virtually identical, in terms of MAX pace.
I would say though that Sampras would go for the big one more often, while Lendl was more methodical about he worked the point and would very how often and how much we would go for his forehand based on who he was playing.
Against, Agassi Lendl seemed to go slower in the beginning working points over, letting the young Agassi "blow his wad" so to speak trying to stuff EVERY thing in sight down his throat...then the second Agassi got tired or cooled off, he'd step in for the kill and have Agassi on his heels going for much bigger shots overall than when he had started with.
Sampras was more of a straight forward strategy with what he was going to try to do with his forehand, and that was to hurt you. Lendl had greater modulation.
I guess you could say Sampras had more of a Chuck Liddel mindset (i.e. Reporter: "Who do you favor, Obama or Hilary?" Chuck: "I'm going to knock him out.") with his forehand, meaning he'd gladly take a few hits to his face, because he was confident enough in his kill forehand that he knew he only needed to connect once or twice on BIG points to actually win the match.
Lendl meanwhile, was more of a cerebral assassin out there. Meaning he had the mindset that I'm a trained and lethal, government assasin out there and my job is to bang, bruise, snipe...WHATEVER means justify the ends, AND I know I can do it, because whatever the method *I* know I trained for it...but did you? Ha...ha (Lendl laugh).
I would have to say toe to toe FH was Lendl, but Pete was bigger on the run.
TennezSport
I have a friend and former top 20 player in the world that battled both of these players as well as Connors, Mac, etc. I asked him who was the hardest hitting player he ever played against. Took him less than a second to reply: Ivan.
Yeah, I agree with this. I hit with a guy who was Lendl's hitting partner, and he testified to this, too. He said that he has never hit with anybody who hits the ball as hard as Lendl did. He said it was even worse when he had to 'show up to work' when Lendl was pissed off, as Lendl would hit even harder on those days. He likened it to Packers receiving practice when Favre was angry.
I have a friend and former top 20 player in the world that battled both of these players as well as Connors, Mac, etc. I asked him who was the hardest hitting player he ever played against. Took him less than a second to reply: Ivan.
In the 80s I heard Mary Carrillo and others mention a few times how the other players used to talk about the "weight" of Lendl's shots - something about his "weight of shot" being heavier than the others without necessarily having more pace. I confess I never quite understood the concept of "weight" of a shot as anything other than the momentum of the ball (ball mass times velocity) but it is a notion I've often heard applied to Lendl.
It is the combination of r.p.m. and forward speed that makes a ball feel heavy. Lendl drove his heavy racquet through the ball with tremendous velocity while still generating heavy topspin. A looping brushed topspin and flat shot feel lighter to the opponent.The 'weight' of a ball is hard to describe. I remember P-Mac stumbling on that concept when Drysdale asked him at last year's AO when Andy and Marat played. P-Mac said Safin's was heavier although Andy's was faster. I think it is something you have to experience, and then know--but still cannot describe. I know I would be hard-pressed to describe a heavy ball to someone--but I've experienced it. I just wish I could hit one on more occasion!
It is the combination of r.p.m. and forward speed that makes a ball feel heavy. Lendl drove his heavy racquet through the ball with tremendous velocity while still generating heavy topspin. A looping brushed topspin and flat shot feel lighter to the opponent.
In the 80s I heard Mary Carrillo and others mention a few times how the other players used to talk about the "weight" of Lendl's shots - something about his "weight of shot" being heavier than the others without necessarily having more pace. I confess I never quite understood the concept of "weight" of a shot as anything other than the momentum of the ball (ball mass times velocity) but it is a notion I've often heard applied to Lendl.
Well, it's not very scientific, but when I think of a heavy ball, I think simply in laymen's terms. Think about it, if faced with being smashed in the skull, would you rather be smashed with a razor sharp pencil tip or a heavy, rubber mallet? To me, that was the type of forehand Sampras and Lendl hit. It may not have looked fancy, but it was certainly effective. Their were others who generated flashier, racket head speed, more racket head speed, others who were physically bigger and more imposing, others who took bigger cuts at the ball, etc. and yet their forehands are up their as some of the most fear strokes tennis' has ever seen. To me, the REAL secret to their success is that they used some SERIOUS lumber.
It kind of goes back to the whole controversial swingweight theory of Travlerjam. He maintained while others said he was crazy, that when you lead your rackets to OBSCENE swingweight levels, you'll be amazed by how even taking a little swing at the ball can and does produce a SERIOUSLY heavy ball.
People talk about spin + speed = heavy, I look at it more simply. A heavy ball is anything that you feel BLUDGEONED by. A max pace Roddick forehand to your head for example might feel like a gun shot to the head, quick and damaging but no real sense of lingering aftermath. It's kind of a over and done with type of residual pain. By contrast, a max pace Safin/Lendl/Sampras/Gustaffson/Larsson style forehand (i.e. the more, caveman, "clubbing" style technique) to the head might feel like well? Being bludgeoned to death, AND you'll FEEL it, the residual after effects, afterward like how a good earthquake doesn't just hit alone, it hits with an ECHO effect, it hits with the very real sensation of lingering AFTER SHOCKS, such that you don't quite feel like you've regained your balance yet immediately afterward like you might against a bullet style forehand like Roddick's.
Btw, I don't use a SW2 racket like Traverljam advises, but I can tell you this, I've used approximately 12.7-13oz. rackets for awhile now, and have discovered since doing so that even I'm not swinging all that hard, my opponents seem to be "pushed" back with much less swing required from me. That's the obvious effect of a heavy ball.
As an example, just try a Volkl C-9 Pro (a defacto standby in the "light player's stick" category) back to back with a RD-7 (a famously sluggish, "clubby" response for a "stock" commercially available frame). You'll note a VERY noticeable difference when switching back between the two when playing against other advanced players. You'll find that just no matter how big a swing or cut you take at the ball with the C-9, it never really seems to "effect" the other player quite as you think it should, quite as you thought it would, given the MASSIVE swing you just took.
Then, switch to the RD-7, and take the same swing, and you'll note that for the same swing, your opponent is pushed back and begins making inexplicable errors. Those errors are a result not so much of the "visible" pace you see, but rather the feeling of WEIGHT behind the shot that it seems only true heavyweight, beefy rackets seem to be able to impart. This said, it's a trade-off, because just as important as a heavy racket, is also making CLEAN contact. Clean contact results in precision and knowing what you're going to do to the ball beforehand, which is very important in its own right. When your stretched out wide, or find yourself handcuffed in quick exchanges, a more maneuverable racket can also be a huge benefit as well, as it allows for fine-tuned, agile, positioning when the going gets tight.
To me the secret to Lendl and Sampras having "heavy" forehands is very simple, they used some serious lumber. The reason not EVERYONE doesn't adopt the same route, however, is because not everyone's strokes are TAILOR made to use such hardware. Sampras and Lendl? Their stroking techniques allowed them to get the benefits of using heavy timber, WITHOUT being too badly touched by the associated negatives. Their techniques in other words were mechanically efficient, and "in tune" with the weight of their rackets in other words. Like a perfectly weighted pendulum, when it's in sync, it's just in sync.
Nadal generates a heavy forehand in his own right too, but he uses a frame optimized for his specific technique as well too. I really believe finding an optimum equipment setup for your specific strokes CAN make a difference at this level. Some people discover that secret, and others don't. But if you DO find it, for goodness sake's DON'T CHANGE IT, *use it*...and abuse it, abuse your power to rule the world that is.
I say Ivan, how say you?
I say Ivan, how say you?
I have a friend and former top 20 player in the world that battled both of these players as well as Connors, Mac, etc. I asked him who was the hardest hitting player he ever played against. Took him less than a second to reply: Ivan.
Well, it's not very scientific, but when I think of a heavy ball, I think simply in laymen's terms. Think about it, if faced with being smashed in the skull, would you rather be smashed with a razor sharp pencil tip or a heavy, rubber mallet? To me, that was the type of forehand Sampras and Lendl hit. It may not have looked fancy, but it was certainly effective. Their were others who generated flashier, racket head speed, more racket head speed, others who were physically bigger and more imposing, others who took bigger cuts at the ball, etc. and yet their forehands are up their as some of the most fear strokes tennis' has ever seen. To me, the REAL secret to their success is that they used some SERIOUS lumber.
It kind of goes back to the whole controversial swingweight theory of Travlerjam. He maintained while others said he was crazy, that when you lead your rackets to OBSCENE swingweight levels, you'll be amazed by how even taking a little swing at the ball can and does produce a SERIOUSLY heavy ball.
People talk about spin + speed = heavy, I look at it more simply. A heavy ball is anything that you feel BLUDGEONED by. A max pace Roddick forehand to your head for example might feel like a gun shot to the head, quick and damaging but no real sense of lingering aftermath. It's kind of a over and done with type of residual pain. By contrast, a max pace Safin/Lendl/Sampras/Gustaffson/Larsson style forehand (i.e. the more, caveman, "clubbing" style technique) to the head might feel like well? Being bludgeoned to death, AND you'll FEEL it, the residual after effects, afterward like how a good earthquake doesn't just hit alone, it hits with an ECHO effect, it hits with the very real sensation of lingering AFTER SHOCKS, such that you don't quite feel like you've regained your balance yet immediately afterward like you might against a bullet style forehand like Roddick's.
Btw, I don't use a SW2 racket like Traverljam advises, but I can tell you this, I've used approximately 12.7-13oz. rackets for awhile now, and have discovered since doing so that even I'm not swinging all that hard, my opponents seem to be "pushed" back with much less swing required from me. That's the obvious effect of a heavy ball.
As an example, just try a Volkl C-9 Pro (a defacto standby in the "light player's stick" category) back to back with a RD-7 (a famously sluggish, "clubby" response for a "stock" commercially available frame). You'll note a VERY noticeable difference when switching back between the two when playing against other advanced players. You'll find that just no matter how big a swing or cut you take at the ball with the C-9, it never really seems to "effect" the other player quite as you think it should, quite as you thought it would, given the MASSIVE swing you just took.
Then, switch to the RD-7, and take the same swing, and you'll note that for the same swing, your opponent is pushed back and begins making inexplicable errors. Those errors are a result not so much of the "visible" pace you see, but rather the feeling of WEIGHT behind the shot that it seems only true heavyweight, beefy rackets seem to be able to impart. This said, it's a trade-off, because just as important as a heavy racket, is also making CLEAN contact. Clean contact results in precision and knowing what you're going to do to the ball beforehand, which is very important in its own right. When your stretched out wide, or find yourself handcuffed in quick exchanges, a more maneuverable racket can also be a huge benefit as well, as it allows for fine-tuned, agile, positioning when the going gets tight.
To me the secret to Lendl and Sampras having "heavy" forehands is very simple, they used some serious lumber. The reason not EVERYONE doesn't adopt the same route, however, is because not everyone's strokes are TAILOR made to use such hardware. Sampras and Lendl? Their stroking techniques allowed them to get the benefits of using heavy timber, WITHOUT being too badly touched by the associated negatives. Their techniques in other words were mechanically efficient, and "in tune" with the weight of their rackets in other words. Like a perfectly weighted pendulum, when it's in sync, it's just in sync.
Nadal generates a heavy forehand in his own right too, but he uses a frame optimized for his specific technique as well too. I really believe finding an optimum equipment setup for your specific strokes CAN make a difference at this level. Some people discover that secret, and others don't. But if you DO find it, for goodness sake's DON'T CHANGE IT, *use it*...and abuse it, abuse your power to rule the world that is.
A really good example is the 1997 Australian Open final between Sampras and Moya - that was a forehand clinic by Sampras that day, really incredible ball striking. Probably the last slam final Sampras played where he not only only stayed back a lot on his second serve to get the forehand into play, but also stayed back a lot n his first serve to get the frehand into play. In the press conference after the match Moya said that the key to the match was Sampras' serve and hs forehand and that he never felt comfortable during the match.
That was a common theme that opponents would talk about. As Jack Kramer said when interviewed at the 1999 Los Angeles final, Sampras game was based on his good forehand and serve, many players never mentioned his volley much - they were better volleyers like Edberg during that period, it was Sampras' forehand his oponents were really afraid of throughout his career. Before the 1999 Wimbledon final Agassi said Sampras' forehand was "obnoxious" in the press conference after Agassi's semifinal win over Rafter
A few examples
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0QV2TIRPFY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y11qb5mQrtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS0CQ6kWpm8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrUuRU2pivg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBxV3fd5pYk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xg0pdsLMe8