hitting through the ball?

rkelley · Nov 11, 2013

dknotty said:
Take a look at this video. Its quite representative of this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38nSZrQRItE

3 forehands, each of which is quite different.

The first is flat.

The second is a WW forehand with lots of (maybe even heavy) topspin.

The third is somewhere in between.

I watched the video. What I saw were three fhs that all had the same basic parts. Specific to this conversation, the butt of the racquet was being dragged into the ball with the racquet trailing behind, and then the racquet whips into the ball with both an upward and forward motion. Berdych is not swinging into the contact zone on the “ground stroke hitting track” as Blair was showing in her video.

The first fh is flatter than the other two, but it still has topspin. His forearm and upper arm still create about 180° turning of the racquet in the ccw direction, the motion which creates most of the topspin. Berdych is taking the ball up by his shoulder so it’s going to be harder to get pure topspin on it. Sometimes those higher balls can start having some significant side spin on them because at the point of contact the arc of the WW motion is not going straight up but has a component to the side. The ball will go R to L on a high fh for a right handed player from the perspective of the player hitting the ball. But I don’t see that on this shot. Also that higher ball is a good ball to go flatter (not flat) on since the height will give margin for error.

The other two shots are lower and do have more topspin, but the basic motion of the stroke is the same.

One thing to remember is that these guys are hitting freaking hard. It gets pretty difficult, often physically impossible, to hit that hard and still keep the ball in without some topspin. Also the top and side spin give the ball more action as it flies and when it bounces. It adds an extra dimension to the shot that the other player is going to have to deal with. Nadal uses this in the extreme, but they all use it.

rkelley · Nov 11, 2013

Torres said:
The last thing you want to be doing is to be having to make last moment adjustments in order to hit a clean ball. Not only is it more tiring but it leads to greater inconsistency.

So you'd rather not make the adjustments and miss the ball entirely?

Maybe this shows why I'm not a pro, but I don't always estimate the contact point correctly (understatement of the year). Sometimes I miss judge the amount of spin or pace on the ball and it jumps more or less then I expect, and the ones with side spin can sometimes kick back in other direction like an American Twist serve and even if I know it's going to kick back it's really hard to know exactly how much. Add pace to this whole equation so you have less time to react and yah, keep your eye on the ball and react to the unexpected.

Torres said:
The videos are all very well and good, but how are you going to progress the OP from where he is now to hitting that like that? What are your progressions? Do you think its realistic for you to show him some slow motion Murray video and tell him to copy him?

Reasonable question, though one I never attempted to answer. There are progressions to be sure. I guess I'm not convinced that hitting the way Blair is discussing is a road to an advanced stroke. It seems more like a road to a simpler time, with good solid contact but less spin and pace, where Americans ruled tennis, and the sun is always shining.

rkelley · Nov 11, 2013

user92626 said:
OP,

What grip do you use? Eastern, SW,...? Sometimes the grip you're used to forces you to brush up because that's the natural body mechanic. For example, if you use western, you're required to hit more out front, but that late in the swing path is already brushy, ie racket moving up and around as opposed to going (more) horizontally.

With that said, try a more open face grip like extreme eastern or eastern and contact the ball more parallel with the body.

HoyaPride said:
This is the only post in this thread that comes remotely close to making any type of sense.

My recommendation...

Hit the wall.

While I don't totally disagree with user92626, I think it's important to remember that you can use any grip between an E and a W to create a modern swing path. Federer uses an E. grip and Djokovic a weak W. and both of those guys can hit with similar amounts of topspin. Admittedly the topspin comes a bit easier with the more W. grips, and the hitting through component comes more easily with the more E. grips, but they can both get about the same results.

LeeD · Nov 11, 2013

Maybe just me, nobody else....
I use a very strong SW grip.
Flattish swingpath, barely upwards, so mostly towards the opposite court.
If I WW my finish, I get high looping balls with lots of topspin (for an old guy), good depth, and big hops.
If I don't WW my finish, but finish without the pronation, my shot goes lower, flatter, faster, much less spin, for a flatter shot.
Not saying either is better than the other, or either is any good, but that's the effect WW finish has, for me. To me, WW finish is the pronation of the forearm at the end of the stroke, almost starting around contact.

sureshs · Nov 11, 2013

What she is saying is what Peter Burwash also mentioned in a Tennis magazine article. She is sometimes not doing what she preaches, but that maybe because her advice is for lower-level players than her. For 4.5 and below (but not the ones headed there down from higher levels in their youth), the extra linear time which she says is a buffer of margin is really very useful, as these players cannot get the correct contact with an earlier upward trajectory (and neither can they hit CC and DTL with the same motion). The way you look at her advice depends on whether you are an upwardly-mobile ambitious/previous high-level player or a plateaued one.

5263 · Nov 12, 2013

Ballinbob said:
When I was learning how to flatten out shots my friend told me to imagine I was hitting through 4 tennis balls instead of 1 and it worked for me

Great way to hit a knuckle ball and good for those with real loose, old string and little power in their swing, like 6 yr olds.

Topspin Shot · Nov 12, 2013

5263 said:
Great way to hit a knuckle ball and good for those with real loose, old string and little power in their swing, like 6 yr olds.

How would you teach it? I'd say to hit more across and through than up.

sureshs · Nov 12, 2013

It is not easy to do no matter what anyone says. Multiple coaches including past pro players have confirmed it. There is a reason that good juniors and college players are better than others. It is difficult to get the 3D swing path right in a reliable way. I have seen many adults try it and fail. To realize this in an easier fashion, compare the swing of a table tennis player at your local rec center with that of junior or a pro and you will see how difficult it is to get a fast, forward, across and up swing which imparts just the desired amount of pace, spin and direction to incoming balls in all situations. It requires exquisite timing and coordination. Those who can do it are always better in every other aspect of the game too - it is not an isolated ability.

5263 · Nov 12, 2013

Topspin Shot said:
How would you teach it? I'd say to hit more across and through than up.

Shots are 3 dimensional in this respect, so I teach it that way and focus on any area of lack, while confirming what I see that is good. Stroke should be dragging the stick butt first close to directly to ball/contact point. As the handle approaches the contact point the path should adjust across on a diagonal that will bring the face into/thru the ball, following the diagonal of the handle. The hand/handle lead the stroke thru contact.

USe a steeper diagonal for more lift/topspin, or flatter diagonal for a stronger hit and lower trajectory/net clearance. Done right and the ball with have a diagonal spin to some extent. Get stronger into/thru the ball for more power and less spin.... or less into/thru the ball to spin it more. With good racket accel, you can get into the ball well for power as well as spin it good for biting topspin.

5263 · Nov 12, 2013

sureshs said:
It is difficult to get the 3D swing path right in a reliable way.

I agree that doing anything at the highest levels is very challenging, but just doing it is quite simple with good instruction for an adult. Some kids struggle as they are still learning their bodies and how to control it, but they pick it up quickly from seeing the other kids usually. So it's not that hard to do well, but yes, doing anything at the highest levels can be a bear. Running a 100 yd dash is easy, but doing it fast like Bolt may be impossible.

sureshs · Nov 12, 2013

^^^ That is why I think the woman in the video is right about most adults requiring a "linear buffer" in which to decide to start the upward and across swing rather than jumping into it at just the optimal point.

The way I look at it is (which should be familiar to you) is that a plane could be taxing and then accelerating on the runway for a while before it takes off up, across and forward, or in the future (and possibly even now) there could be a new kind of plane which follows the same 3D trajectory but requiring only a few feet of runway.

5263 · Nov 12, 2013

sureshs said:
^^^ That is why I think the woman in the video is right about most adults requiring a "linear buffer" in which to decide to start the upward and across swing rather than jumping into it at just the optimal point.

The way I look at it is (which should be familiar to you) is that a plane could be taxing and then accelerating on the runway for a while before it takes off up, across and forward, or in the future (and possibly even now) there could be a new kind of plane which follows the same 3D trajectory but requiring only a few feet of runway.

I don't disagree, but just see that drag to the contact as the linear buffer. The pull or work across on the diagonal does not have to be perfect of even strongly accomplished. The better your timing gets, the more you can be aggressive with it. The learning curve for this timing is pretty fast at your level (whatever that may be) and can quickly start to move you up some levels.

I'm teaching my son to drive and was surprised to see the saw turning as something that was almost digital....meaning just move the wheel to a spot at a given moment. With a little work, he is now seeing that turn the wheel is an ongoing process with timing and adjustments throughout. Much of the same is true of working across the ball at contact.

bhupaes · Nov 12, 2013

I think it's all about giving the right cue. If you tell a beginner to hit through the ball for a certain linear distance, it will inhibit what they really need to do, which is pull up and across near contact using the right mechanics (ISR, pronation, pushing off the ground, etc). The correct mechanics will have all the desired directions built-in, and can generate good RHS, as we see the pros do. It's all about how the instruction makes us visualize the stroke, and causes us to activate the appropriate movements.

Sure, with the "through" instruction the ball will start landing in the other side after a while, but the player will not develop good mechanics simply because of the image it conjures. Of course, if the coach is doing this deliberately because of the student's limitations, that's a different matter altogether.

Topspin Shot · Nov 12, 2013

To make an additional point, a concept some people seem to be missing is that the ball does not go in the direction the player is swinging but rather the direction the racket face is pointing at contact. So the real buffer necessary is not a linear buffer through the ball but a "keep the plane the same" buffer the way Dave Smith teaches. So work the racket up, across, and through the contact zone but keep the racket face facing the target for about a foot below through a foot above the contact point.

sureshs · Nov 12, 2013

Topspin Shot said:
To make an additional point, a concept some people seem to be missing is that the ball does not go in the direction the player is swinging but rather the direction the racket face is pointing at contact. So the real buffer necessary is not a linear buffer through the ball but a "keep the plane the same" buffer the way Dave Smith teaches. So work the racket up, across, and through the contact zone but keep the racket face facing the target for about a foot below through a foot above the contact point.

I don't believe your first sentence anymore, though I used to at one time. It sounds right, but isn't. It ignores the aspect of "reflection" of the ball based on its own incoming path and speed, as you might have noticed when you try to direct a heavily topspun CC forehand ball bouncing away from you down the line - it goes right of where you aimed and outside the lines.

I have a different take on the subject. Perhaps Nadal and Federer and the male pros are doing what you are saying. What I see the females doing is that they seem to vary the contact point of the ball on the strings and the amount of closure to get the desired results. When a plane object is sweeping a curved 3D volume in space, it can sweep an object to the side, to the middle, or across depending on where the object comes into contact with the lateral area and what was the objects own path before contact, and sweep it upwards or downwards depending on the degree of closure. To me, that seems to be the main way by which lesser mortals including female pros hit forehands.

OK you have forced me to say it. They make subconscious minute adjustments of contact point and degree of openness or closure while still clinging to a basic prototype swing. They don't think of keeping the face perpendicular or creating a desired 3D arc or maintaining continuity of their swing etc. And perhaps even the part of the basic prototype swing is not correct - they abbreviate and raise their swings and bend their elbow more on higher and closer balls, use a straight arm viper on balls more than an optimal distance away, and other adjustments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFQPweB1L-E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGt2tqXerJ0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXgJCN6KWT0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxUHk4VYBIg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wRRXQGXxQc

Topspin Shot · Nov 12, 2013

sureshs said:
I don't believe your first sentence anymore, though I used to at one time. It sounds right, but isn't. It ignores the aspect of "reflection" of the ball based on its own incoming path and speed, as you might have noticed when you try to direct a heavily topspun CC forehand ball bouncing away from you down the line - it goes right of where you aimed and outside the lines.

I have a different take on the subject. Perhaps Nadal and Federer and the male pros are doing what you are saying. What I see the females doing is that they seem to vary the contact point of the ball on the strings and the amount of closure to get the desired results. When a plane object is sweeping a curved 3D volume in space, it can sweep an object to the side, to the middle, or across depending on where the object comes into contact with the lateral area and what was the objects own path before contact, and sweep it upwards or downwards depending on the degree of closure. To me, that seems to be the main way by which lesser mortals including female pros hit forehands.

OK you have forced me to say it. They make subconscious minute adjustments of contact point and degree of openness or closure while still clinging to a basic prototype swing. They don't think of keeping the face perpendicular or creating a desired 3D arc or maintaining continuity of their swing etc. And perhaps even the part of the basic prototype swing is not correct - they abbreviate and raise their swings and bend their elbow more on higher and closer balls, use a straight arm viper on balls more than an optimal distance away, and other adjustments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFQPweB1L-E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGt2tqXerJ0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXgJCN6KWT0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxUHk4VYBIg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wRRXQGXxQc

One important factor is that the faster you swing, the less reflection matters. So on volleys for instance, you have to take reflection into account, but on modern groundstrokes where the focus is on racket speed, you do not have to worry about reflection as much.

sureshs · Nov 12, 2013

Topspin Shot said:
One important factor is that the faster you swing, the less reflection matters. So on volleys for instance, you have to take reflection into account, but on modern groundstrokes where the focus is on racket speed, you do not have to worry about reflection as much.

There is another kind of reflection - in the vertical plane. When a topspin ball bounces abruptly high, you need to take into account that the ball will go higher than you intended after contact.

To me, the female pros are doing only 2 things - changing the relative contact point on the strings and the degree of closure. It is amazing how many solid forehands are hit at the place where the top half of the frame (towards the tip) intersects the lower half (towards the ground). The ball seems to just slightly above the frame at contact, yet the shot is pretty good. This is a fundamental difference from the wood era. Slight changes in the point of contact in modern frames can completely change the shot and this is what is being leveraged. It is neither hitting through the ball or "pulling" it up and across or things like that that are going on, and most shots seem to be hit with a "glancing" blow and not "solidly."

sureshs · Nov 13, 2013

^^^ How is the above post going unchallenged?

Topspin Shot · Nov 13, 2013

sureshs said:
There is another kind of reflection - in the vertical plane. When a topspin ball bounces abruptly high, you need to take into account that the ball will go higher than you intended after contact.

To me, the female pros are doing only 2 things - changing the relative contact point on the strings and the degree of closure. It is amazing how many solid forehands are hit at the place where the top half of the frame (towards the tip) intersects the lower half (towards the ground). The ball seems to just slightly above the frame at contact, yet the shot is pretty good. This is a fundamental difference from the wood era. Slight changes in the point of contact in modern frames can completely change the shot and this is what is being leveraged. It is neither hitting through the ball or "pulling" it up and across or things like that that are going on, and most shots seem to be hit with a "glancing" blow and not "solidly."

Again, if you pull up and across with enough racket speed, reflection in any plane is not as much of a factor. That's why some people say that with modern strokes, the faster you swing, the more control you get.

sureshs said:
^^^ How is the above post going unchallenged?

Because some of us don't have the time to accumulate 28,000+ posts here!

sureshs · Nov 13, 2013

Topspin Shot said:
Again, if you pull up and across with enough racket speed, reflection in any plane is not as much of a factor. That's why some people say that with modern strokes, the faster you swing, the more control you get.

Because some of us don't have the time to accumulate 28,000+ posts here!

I think it was a revolutionary post. It said nothing less than that there is no hitting through or pulling across. Dwell time is negligible for these things to happen. Players today are hitting on weird spots on the strings to control their strokes and varying the degree of closure a little bit. They are not hitting solidly but relying on the fact that tangential glances will be enough since the rackets are big and stiff. In other words, their entire technique is "wrong" when compared to the wood era, and this wrong technique has become the new normal. Isn't this a revolutionary insight?

Power Player · Nov 13, 2013

Analysis paralysis.

Topspin Shot · Nov 13, 2013

sureshs said:
I think it was a revolutionary post. It said nothing less than that there is no hitting through or pulling across. Dwell time is negligible for these things to happen. Players today are hitting on weird spots on the strings to control their strokes and varying the degree of closure a little bit. They are not hitting solidly but relying on the fact that tangential glances will be enough since the rackets are big and stiff. In other words, their entire technique is "wrong" when compared to the wood era, and this wrong technique has become the new normal. Isn't this a revolutionary insight?

I have a feeling we're inching toward the debates that got ugly the last time around. You're correct that dwell time is negligible, but cues like "up and across" are teaching points, not scientific analyses. And what makes modern strokes "wrong"? Players are simply adapting to the equipment that's available these days.

TimeSpiral · Nov 13, 2013

OP, if we haven't scared you off ... use this graphic to help visualize the relationship between X spin and pace:

Other factors influence the flight of the ball, like string tension, tennis ball rebound characteristics, and impact point on the ball, however; this graphic is meant to help you visualize what the relationship looks like and how you can aim at the ball for these effects.

To get side spin relationships we would need to look at the top down view, and we'd be looking down the Y axis.

Depending on what you're locking the transform axis to (the X, Y, Z 3D axis), whether it be the ball, or the court, you will always be affecting the tilt of the axis the ball is spinning about when you hit it. But it's best to think of it without all that, at first.

Hope this helps!

sureshs · Nov 13, 2013

Topspin Shot said:
I have a feeling we're inching toward the debates that got ugly the last time around. You're correct that dwell time is negligible, but cues like "up and across" are teaching points, not scientific analyses. And what makes modern strokes "wrong"? Players are simply adapting to the equipment that's available these days.

It is not wrong, that is why I put it in quotes.

Are you saying the strokes would be completely different if the equipment was different? Not different in the sense of using a metal baseball bat instead of wood, but in the very technique?

Torres · Nov 13, 2013

rkelley said:
I guess I'm not convinced that hitting the way Blair is discussing is a road to an advanced stroke.

See any similarities?

http://youtu.be/CSwlCKO4Zgg?t=40s

Topspin Shot · Nov 13, 2013

sureshs said:
It is not wrong, that is why I put it in quotes.

Are you saying the strokes would be completely different if the equipment was different? Not different in the sense of using a metal baseball bat instead of wood, but in the very technique?

I'm not going to say completely different, but you would see differences in how the game is played. Remember, classical vs. modern technique is not black vs. white; there are many shades of gray in between. For instance, to take your wood vs. metal bat analysis into account, here's an interesting observation. Composite (graphite) bats were banned from high school baseball when I was in high school, so I saw the game being played before and after the change. In the first season the players had to go back to aluminum, I saw a lot more of choking up on the bat and taking more line drive swings than before. There was also a lot more small ball being played. I'll bet you that if the pros ever went to metal bats, you would see a lot fewer of Derek Jeter/Ichiro Suzuki type swings and a lot more of Barry Bonds/Ryan Howard type swings.

Topspin Shot · Nov 13, 2013

Torres said:
See any similarities?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSwlCKO4Zgg

Del Potro has one of the flattest swings on tour. Even so, he's still hitting up, across, and through; he's just got more through and less up than most other pros. What Blair's teaching is through to the exclusion of up and across. Whether she expects her players to actually hit this way, or whether this is just a teaching point is another story, but I personally am not a fan of teaching the forehand this way.

sureshs · Nov 14, 2013

Topspin Shot said:
Del Potro has one of the flattest swings on tour. Even so, he's still hitting up, across, and through; he's just got more through and less up than most other pros. What Blair's teaching is through to the exclusion of up and across. Whether she expects her players to actually hit this way, or whether this is just a teaching point is another story, but I personally am not a fan of teaching the forehand this way.

She said pull up and across a little later to give yourself a margin, not to not do it. What she is saying is what 99% of club players end up doing. The early "take-off" is pretty difficult to do. I think it was the revolutionary tennis guy who points out that for a top spin ball moving away from you, essentially you are relying on the perfect intersection of two 3D arcs - of the ball and the frame - when you don't have a linear buffer. Look in the clubs and tell me what you think about the success rate of this strategy.

Junior players? Totally different.

Torres · Nov 14, 2013

Topspin Shot said:
What Blair's teaching is through to the exclusion of up and across.

That's not what she's teaching.

Power Player · Nov 14, 2013

I wouldn't worry about the right hand until the left hand and unit turn is proper and consistent. A lot of lower level players focus so much on the hitting hand that they arm the ball and never learn the torso rotation required to hit properly, hence the term - hackers.

Once you get that rotation, then you can fine tune all these little nuances if you must. Many times the proper rotation solves a lot of these issues.

Topspin Shot · Nov 14, 2013

sureshs said:
She said pull up and across a little later to give yourself a margin, not to not do it. What she is saying is what 99% of club players end up doing. The early "take-off" is pretty difficult to do. I think it was the revolutionary tennis guy who points out that for a top spin ball moving away from you, essentially you are relying on the perfect intersection of two 3D arcs - of the ball and the frame - when you don't have a linear buffer. Look in the clubs and tell me what you think about the success rate of this strategy.

Junior players? Totally different.

You can't use club players as an argument because 99 percent of them have inherently flawed technique whether they're attempting modern or classic. The good junior players make modern technique work because they were taught it by good coaches. And I don't think making the two arcs intersect is that hard to do. If you mistime the intersection a bit, you're still good to go as long as you keep the plane the same.

Torres said:
That's not what she's teaching.

From what I'm getting out of the video, she's telling viewers to hit straight through the contact zone and only go up and across over the shoulder long after the ball is gone. Modern tournament level players are swinging the racket up, across, and through within the contact zone.

user92626 · Nov 14, 2013

Topspin Shot said:
From what I'm getting out of the video, she's telling viewers to hit straight through the contact zone and only go up and across over the shoulder long after the ball is gone. Modern tournament level players are swinging the racket up, across, and through within the contact zone.

Sounds like two disjoint paths (and actions), which is not possible in one swing. Who would advocate that?

Torres · Nov 14, 2013

Topspin Shot said:
From what I'm getting out of the video, she's telling viewers to hit straight through the contact zone and only go up and across over the shoulder long after the ball is gone.

Unless you've got telescopic arms, do you think that's feasible? Do you really think that's what she's saying?

sureshs · Nov 14, 2013

Topspin Shot said:
From what I'm getting out of the video, she's telling viewers to hit straight through the contact zone and only go up and across over the shoulder long after the ball is gone. Modern tournament level players are swinging the racket up, across, and through within the contact zone.

After the ball is gone? Is that what you heard? I am not sure that is even possible - humans cannot abruptly change things after impact

TimeSpiral · Nov 14, 2013

What in the hizzle are you guys even arguing about, lulz? You're all drummed up into such a frenzy that you haven't even commented on my SOG-mode graphic!

Topspin Shot · Nov 14, 2013

user92626 said:
Sounds like two disjoint paths (and actions), which is not possible in one swing. Who would advocate that?

Torres said:
Unless you've got telescopic arms, do you think that's feasible? Do you really think that's what she's saying?

sureshs said:
After the ball is gone? Is that what you heard? I am not sure that is even possible - humans cannot abruptly change things after impact

"We want to have a hitting track that goes through the ball and then up."
"It's like a straightaway on a racetrack."
"I'm going to go through all the way here and then finish all the way up."

Blair's words, not mine. Whether she's actually hitting that way or not is another story, but that's exactly what she's teaching.

sureshs · Nov 14, 2013

It is basically similar to the idea of taking the ball early or on the rise. Even among the pros, Nadal and Gasquet don't do what Agassi did. Pros often back up or adopt neutral stance and then appear to take the ball early, which is really not the same thing. If you can, great. Otherwise, it is better to be pragmatic.

Torres · Nov 14, 2013

Topspin Shot said:
"We want to have a hitting track that goes through the ball and then up."
"It's like a straightaway on a racetrack."
"I'm going to go through all the way here and then finish all the way up."

Blair's words, not mine. Whether she's actually hitting that way or not is another story, but that's exactly what she's teaching.

Have a look at that Delpo video again. Then go back to the Blair Henley video.

Or better still, hit a few balls on court, firstly whipping up the back and across the ball, and secondly extending out and through the ball a la Blair Henley, Delpo etc.

sureshs · Nov 14, 2013

Topspin Shot said:
"We want to have a hitting track that goes through the ball and then up."
"It's like a straightaway on a racetrack."
"I'm going to go through all the way here and then finish all the way up."

Blair's words, not mine. Whether she's actually hitting that way or not is another story, but that's exactly what she's teaching.

None of that actually says what you think it says. The first means that the racket goes higher after impact than it does before impact - that is true all the time. The second one could mean that it is linear during the time that she calls the buffer - she doesn't say the racetrack extends till impact. The third one does not talk about linear motion at all - hitting through need not be linear but in an arc. Water can flow "through" a pipe even if the pipe is curved.

hawk eye · Nov 14, 2013

If there's no up component in a stroke hit from the baseline, it's not gonna make it over the net. To me Blair wanted to put relatively more emphasis on the through component for club players, but still implied an at least slight diagional upwards (and across) motion.

Topspin Shot · Nov 14, 2013

sureshs said:
None of that actually says what you think it says. The first means that the racket goes higher after impact than it does before impact - that is true all the time. The second one could mean that it is linear during the time that she calls the buffer - she doesn't say the racetrack extends till impact. The third one does not talk about linear motion at all - hitting through need not be linear but in an arc. Water can flow "through" a pipe even if the pipe is curved.

Oh yes she does. "From here to here, I can make contact anywhere in this range [as she demonstrates the linear hitting track], and it's still going to be a good shot."

Torres · Nov 14, 2013

She's illustrating a point, not asking you to measure the distance and time the racquet stays parallel to the net.

Don't take everything so literally - it's the underlying principle she's asking you to consider. You're making something that's very simple unnecessarily complicated.

Rui · Nov 14, 2013

hawk eye said:
If there's no up component in a stroke hit from the baseline, it's not gonna make it over the net. To me Blair wanted to put relatively more emphasis on the through component for club players, but still implied an at least slight diagonal upwards (and across) motion.

I agree.

The straightaway cannot be the whole story. She must be focusing on direction.

I've hit the shot she describes a lot. You must tilt the racquet head back to clear the net.

Topspin Shot · Nov 14, 2013

Torres said:
She's illustrating a point, not asking you to measure the distance and time the racquet stays parallel to the net.

Don't take everything so literally - it's the underlying principle she's asking you to consider. You're making something that's very simple unnecessarily complicated.

The problem I have with her video is that she's speaking in absolutes. I know better than to take her literally, but the people she's addressing this video to probably don't. When she tells people to extend straight through contact and that the across the body finish is bad for 99% of the population, people are going to take her literally. It's one thing to say that club players should focus on getting a more solid contact and try to get better extension toward the target, that is, a stronger through component; it's another to promote a completely linear way of hitting that doesn't even match how she hits for real (and she's got a pretty classical style of hitting to begin with).

tlm · Nov 14, 2013

rkelly+5263 have it right, so if you want to understand what to do to improve read their posts.

Torres · Nov 14, 2013

tlm said:
rkelly+5263 have it right, so if you want to understand what to do to improve read their posts.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6484456&postcount=1

Do you think that's hitting through the ball?

Shroud · Nov 14, 2013

sureshs said:
The theory says that the racket face should be almost perpendicular to the ground or slightly closed at impact. The topspin is supposed to come from the entire swingpath leading to contact, not a last instant brushing up.

Thats what I thought too. If that is true how does a smaller grip produce more spin??

LeeD · Nov 14, 2013

Could it be, the swingpath remains slightly upwards, mostly towards opponent, and at the last moment, pronation of the hand causes the rackethead to veer slighly more upwards to impart the final topspin?
If you watch the newest vids of forehands, the forearm does roll over, causing the racketface to lift up and roll over the ball somewhat, and mostly AFTER impact....at least the rollover part.
As for small grip imparting more spin, I know I roll my forearm on forehands, a pronation thing, and grip size makes almost no difference.
Now if I used flexion, it may be a positive thing to have small grips.
Serves, same thing.

Topspin Shot · Nov 14, 2013

Shroud said:
Thats what I thought too. If that is true how does a smaller grip produce more spin??

It's easier to whip the racket up, across, and through the contact zone with a smaller grip. You can get more racket speed, and with modern technique, more racket speed means more spin.

Cheetah · Nov 14, 2013

Topspin Shot said:
It's easier to whip the racket up, across, and through the contact zone with a smaller grip. You can get more racket speed, and with modern technique, more racket speed means more spin.

No that's not why.

hitting through the ball?

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Legend

Bionic Poster

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Legend

Professional

Bionic Poster

Banned

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Bionic Poster

Professional

Legend

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Legend

Banned

Semi-Pro

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Legend

Hall of Fame

Similar threads