Anyone think Roger could bulk up just a bit?

[wangs78]

Now, I'll start by saying that no one knows what Roger needs physically other than Roger himself, but I do think that he could benefit from bulking up just a tad. In my experience, most players, as they age, lose agility and quickness but make up for it with experience, tactics and often times, strength. Roger just seems to be getting slower and weaker. It just really bothers me that he is getting simply overpowered at times by some of his opponents. He himself admitted that he lost to Soderling because he didn't have the 5-10km extra that Sod did, granted that Sod is certainly one of the more hard hitting players on tour but let's not forget that in his heyday Roger had the most lethal forehand himself and he seems to have lost that. I know that he believes in just being "tennis fit", ie just playing a lot of tennis to stay fit (I'm sure he does some weights) but maybe he needs to do more intense strength training now as he gets older. It's just sad seeing him lose matches the way he has lately. And now he's even lost to Hewitt, who clearly is bulkier now than he was when he was younger. Roger on the other hand looks skinnier than when he was younger. His legs look like they might be thicker but his upper body just looks feeble.

 

[forthegame]

I think so too. BUT, as you said, nobody knows what he needs better than his team (it would appear that Federer might not know it all afterall!).

I think to make up for the presumed loss in speed, he could bulk up for more power.

However, it's hard to ask him to change the style that has brought him so much success. He should re-learn to fight hard! Hewitt is a fighter and beat him today with grit plus everything else.

My 2p...

 

[spacediver]

bulking up may make him more inefficient.

 

[kishnabe]

Bulking up has bad affect in tennis...it makes some one a lot a slower...see what happened to Jankovic....Federer movemenet is key and having a bulk body will get in way with his motion and movement. You have to be lean and fast to be good in tennis. There is documentation on having strength int he form of bulkness as detreimental. Plus Roger is physically stong..he can creat so many angles with his upper body and deflect huge serves.


He is getting old...but I guess he could still do damge...he should continue what he is doing!@

 

[Deleted member 22147]

Muscle mass does not equal strength nor power, so why would hypertrophy benefit him?

He's arguable the greatest ever, he has never had a big upper body, even at his peak which when you look back on, there have only been a few guys who have played such high quality tennis, so I don't see your point at all.

 

[decades]

his racquet is getting pushed around by the big bats.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

Schwarzenegger would then be the best tennis player.

Read up a bit on tennis biomechanics, because you're pushing the wrong buttons.

Pay $100 for a year membership to tennisplayer.net. You'll learn a lot.

 

[wangs78]

Schwarzenegger would then be the best tennis player.

Read up a bit on tennis biomechanics, because you're pushing the wrong buttons.

Pay $100 for a year membership to tennisplayer.net. You'll learn a lot.

People, I'm not saying he should pack on 15lbs of muscle. Just saying that perhaps some more weight training will help him keep up with the power hitters. If his serve was still a weapon I wouldn't have made this post but this year even his serving prowess is diminished versus previous years. Sampras never lost his serve, so it's hard to figure out why Fed's seems to come and go. I know bigger muscles isn't the solution, but part of Fed's problem this year is he seems to have lost some power. My question is can he gain some of it back through more weight training. Maybe yes, maybe no.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Muscle mass does not equal strength nor power, so why would hypertrophy benefit him?

He's arguable the greatest ever, he has never had a big upper body, even at his peak which when you look back on, there have only been a few guys who have played such high quality tennis, so I don't see your point at all.

The correct answer.

Pay $100 for a year membership to tennisplayer.net. You'll learn a lot.

I'm sure with a little help from Google the OP can save the $100. With all due respect to Mr. Yandell, it's not rocket science.

... but part of Fed's problem this year is he seems to have lost some power. My question is can he gain some of it back through more weight training.

He has plenty of power. Gets it from his legs and long strokes and incredible timing. Would be interested in knowing what stat you looked at to conclude he'd lost some power. His training methods have kept him healthy - minus one brief lower back issue at the end of '08. He keeps his actual regiment secret, but whatever he does is well respected by his peers and commentators.

 

[forthegame]

Good points here.

Wonder if it's a physical issue? He fades rapidly after the first set these days, can't seem to keep his level up.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Muscle mass does not equal strength nor power, so why would hypertrophy benefit him?

He's arguable the greatest ever, he has never had a big upper body, even at his peak which when you look back on, there have only been a few guys who have played such high quality tennis, so I don't see your point at all.

Wow really...so if I want to be strong or fast, I need as little muscle as possible? I'll keep that in mind!

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Wow really...so if I want to be strong or fast, I need as little muscle as possible? I'll keep that in mind!

I think he means it's not as simple as more muscle=more power/strength. There's more to it than that.

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

That's how he is built.

If you look, even in 2005 when he was with Lundgren, and he had a bit more muscle mass and did more bench pressing I assume etc...his arms were still skinny, even tho he had quite the chest. It's just how he is built, he has that kind of upper body.

Look at his lower body, there you can see that there's plenty of muscle on him.

Bulking up requires intensive training, which is not what Federer needs.

Tennis players need reflexes, strength, stamina etc...

While bulking up is simply a way to look "different", bigger. It does not necessarily bring out some kind of overwhelming power to your shots.

 

[frisco]

Actually I was thinking this exactly. A little more muscle could help him get a little back of that lethal FH, or at least match up a bit better against these power guys of today.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

See the references here:

Muscles Needed for Rackethead Speed?
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=328799&page=2

He has enough muscles. It's, in his case, IMO, an aging process related to the wrist/forearm tendons and ligaments, they might have become somewhat less flexible, plus an overuse of the same caused by his slinging/educated wrist release (this has happened, it seems, at an earlier age with Del Potro). Also, his proprioceptors and the nervous chain involved in explosiveness might be affected by time. I don't think such issues can be fixed and even 5% at his level counts.

Many tennis players (Clijsters, Delpotro) have had wrist problems and it's a wonder that Federer has survived this well. It means his timing has been perfect most of the time.

It's true, his FH isn't so punishing as it once was and not so deep either. He compensates by more lateral movement in order to generate more angles, and that works to some extent. Also, by general variety in his game.

He's a master at that, still, he should include more S-V where he is better than the rest of the field in order to destabilize his opponents.

It may be that he's sparing his FH for the GSs. Doesn't want to go to the limit eg in his returning all the time.

 

[Nadalfan89]

Muscle mass does not equal strength nor power, so why would hypertrophy benefit him?

He's arguable the greatest ever, he has never had a big upper body, even at his peak which when you look back on, there have only been a few guys who have played such high quality tennis, so I don't see your point at all.

This.

Being "bulky" doesn't give you functional strength. Federer looks weak, but he really is not. Also, muscle mass does not affect serve speed or groundstroke speed in the slightest. I've seen 14 year old girls outhit 30 year old, muscular men just because their forehand was more fluid and technically sound. Fed is fine; he did win 50% of the Grand Slams this year. Don't forget that.

 

[TennisandMusic]

I think he means it's not as simple as more muscle=more power/strength. There's more to it than that.

Of course, but muscle IS what makes you fast and powerful. Muscles are how you move.

Obviously "giant" muscle mass isn't going to help a tennis player, but to state muscle mass in general don't make you fast or strong is silly. That's all.

On the other hand, I am not sure any one of us on this board know what is best for Federer. The guy is about to turn 29. I'm 29 and I can tell you I don't feel like I'm 24 anymore. It's inevitable.

 

[BevelDevil]

Fed's groundstrokes are among the least reliant on upper body strength on tour. He's all whip action. He's always seemed to have non-existent bicepts, for a reason.

Seeing Fed trying to muscle the ball would just be sad, and I'd rather he retire than do that.

His decline is it probably due to a loss of lower-body explosiveness, as well as mental focus and aggression (which is also a function of age!). I'm not sure what can be done on this front, although I'm guessing that the mental aspect is likely to be overlooked.

Also, of course, he would probably want to increase his stamina, if possible, since he can't hit the magic winners as much anymore. Tactical changes may also be advisable.

 

[piece]

In general, increasing muscle strength decreases flexibility and flexibility is more important for racquet head speed than strength (at least once you reach a certain minimum strength-level). Bulking up would probably be a bad idea as it would, in all likelihood, make his forehand less powerful.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

He doesn't need to bulk up but he needs to change his diet, get rid of the doughnut breakfasts and go back to being a vegatarian. He is far too 'breasty 'looking for someone who has 5 hour practice sessions, which means his diet isn't optimal.

 

[120mphBodyServe]

He does need to bulk up a little.
It's sad that people here don't know the different in approach between training for size/strength vs training for power/endurance.

 

[ProCoach]

I did alot of weight training when I was playing because it really helped me stabilize the racquet better and I felt like I could keep my swing speed up and do so for a longer period of time. Even today, when i hit with the high level juniors and college players, I have to keep the weight training up or I feel terribly weak and unable to sustain a high level of hitting. Since I do it for a living, I have no choice but to stay in the best shape possible. That's what works for me. I think Federer would benefit from some weight lifting and a little more upper body mass. Just a little bit.

 

[frisco]

Bulk up just a bit Fed. You'll need it in your "old age".

 

[sureshs]

Now is the time for him to seek assistance from a bigger racquet.

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Of course, but muscle IS what makes you fast and powerful. Muscles are how you move.

Obviously "giant" muscle mass isn't going to help a tennis player, but to state muscle mass in general don't make you fast or strong is silly. That's all.

On the other hand, I am not sure any one of us on this board know what is best for Federer. The guy is about to turn 29. I'm 29 and I can tell you I don't feel like I'm 24 anymore. It's inevitable.

Of course. I agree w/ both points you've made. Besides, the guy has a fitness team.

 

[nereis]

Hypertrophy does not appear overnight, it's a lagged symptom of inducing microtears in your muscle fibers. For all we know he could be on an Agassi approved training regimen right now. No one would know for sure for at least a year.

But all this talk about "flexibility" or "tennis strength" is hogwash. Imagine if an NFL quality athlete picked up tennis in his childhood. You can not argue with Mofils-esque athleticism. Getting stronger improves your performance, period. While Roger has a naturally lanky frame and biomechanically advantageous proportions, a good 20lbs of muscle on him will have Nadal shying away from side by side photo ops.

 

[Deleted member 22147]

Wow really...so if I want to be strong or fast, I need as little muscle as possible? I'll keep that in mind!

Did I say that? If you want to become powerful, which Federer is then you don't need to gain muscle mass but you need to gain strength and you don't need muscle mass to become strong. Understood?

This is so basic but people like you, who work in some crappy job outside of sport will not understand.

 

[Deleted member 22147]

Of course, but muscle IS what makes you fast and powerful. Muscles are how you move.

Obviously "giant" muscle mass isn't going to help a tennis player, but to state muscle mass in general don't make you fast or strong is silly. That's all.

On the other hand, I am not sure any one of us on this board know what is best for Federer. The guy is about to turn 29. I'm 29 and I can tell you I don't feel like I'm 24 anymore. It's inevitable.

Muscle is what makes you move, but the the size of the muscle isn't what makes the difference in the speed or efficiency of your movement. What a silly thing to imply.

 

[nereis]

Its a popular, but false myth that significant muscular development is needed for strength gains. It is an equally popular, and just as false myth that you can get as strong as an ox without developing your muscles to some point. That is why all high school and college level athletes focus on getting stronger and faster by muscular gains. Federer has the frame of a champion with the development of a teenage athlete. He could stand to lose some fat and pack on muscle even if it's just to cast tennis in a more favourable light.

 

[Jennifer]

Remember, tennis is about finess and quickness. Bulking up would just make him slower.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

But all this talk about "flexibility" or "tennis strength" is hogwash. Imagine if an NFL quality athlete picked up tennis in his childhood. You can not argue with Mofils-esque athleticism. Getting stronger improves your performance, period. While Roger has a naturally lanky frame and biomechanically advantageous proportions, a good 20lbs of muscle on him will have Nadal shying away from side by side photo ops.

Totally wrong.
And I argue a lot with Monfils.
He's been taught the wrong way of playing tennis and of moving for tennis. He's just a good retriever -- stays 3 meters behind the baseline -- and here and there pumps a FH. With his body, he should have been more successful and less prone to injuries.
He doesn't have any GS wins.

Sharp muscular sharp definition has nothing to do with tennis, if the volume is too big. It usually shows a muscle-bound athlete.

The best shaped tennis person I remember is Paradorn -- a la Bruce Lee, perhaps even better looking in terms of muscles. Never a great player. But he got the girl. Good enough for many people, not for Federer.

Roddick was all too clever to shed 15 lbs. And you're advising Fed to put on 20lbs. Plain stupid. This is not steroid-induced NFL. None of those guys would do a thing in tennis.

Fed has the ideal tennis weight for this height, very close to Sampras'. These two greats have defined what is best for highly athletic tennis, not any NFL-inspired garbage.

Taylor Dent was all bulked up, 30lbs over the optimal weight for his height and he has paid in terms of performance and his spine injuries.

I mean, Federer should work for power and explosiveness, and perhaps for a lower body fat percentage, but those aren't related to bulk. Think Sergey Bubka.

He should stay lean and mean.

 

[wangs78]

I mean, Federer should work for power and explosiveness, and perhaps for a lower body fat percentage, but those aren't related to bulk. Think Sergey Bubka.

He should stay lean and mean.

I agree - as the OP I am happy to admit that I used the wrong words in the title. I didn't mean that Roger needs to "bulk up" as in put on 20lbs of muscle. I meant he needs to increase his strength and yes, I mean strength in terms of explosiveness and resilience. Let's put it this way, he's not going to get any more explosive by getting skinnier. Maybe he could by shedding some fat and gaining some muscle where his overall weight is about the same.

Anyway, like I said in my OP, Roger knows what he needs (except if he's stubborn and in denial) and we're all just speculators.

 

[nfor304]

Totally wrong.
And I argue a lot with Monfils.
He's been taught the wrong way of playing tennis and of moving for tennis. He's just a good retriever -- stays 3 meters behind the baseline -- and here and there pumps a FH. With his body, he should have been more successful and less prone to injuries.
He doesn't have any GS wins.

Sharp muscular sharp definition has nothing to do with tennis, if the volume is too big. It usually shows a muscle-bound athlete.

The best shaped tennis person I remember is Paradorn -- a la Bruce Lee, perhaps even better looking in terms of muscles. Never a great player. But he got the girl. Good enough for many people, not for Federer.

Roddick was all too clever to shed 15 lbs. And you're advising Fed to put on 20lbs. Plain stupid. This is not steroid-induced NFL. None of those guys would do a thing in tennis.

Fed has the ideal tennis weight for this height, very close to Sampras'. These two greats have defined what is best for highly athletic tennis, not any NFL-inspired garbage.

Taylor Dent was all bulked up, 30lbs over the optimal weight for his height and he has paid in terms of performance and his spine injuries.

I mean, Federer should work for power and explosiveness, and perhaps for a lower body fat percentage, but those aren't related to bulk. Think Sergey Bubka.

He should stay lean and mean.

Its funny you mentioned Bubka as an example. His son is a fairly mediocre pro who has been around for years, yet his father was one of the greatest athletes of all time. I doubt there would be many kids aspiring to get to the NFL who had a better athletic genetic makeup than Sergey junior.

Just goes to show how much tennis is about skills rather than athleticism. Sure it would help to be a naturally strong athletic guy, but you need much much more than that to get to the top.

 

[Chezbeeno]

bulking up may make him more inefficient.

I second this

 

[Wilander Fan]

He was hitting rocket forehands at times during Halle and his serve has been clocked recently higher than ever. In my opinion, its fitness that is the problem. In the FO and again in Halle, Fed seemed to slip into fourth gear after 10 or 11 games. He can get away with this against most but its holding him back against the better players who dont pack it in after the first set.

 

[nereis]

Monfils lives off of his talent. He was coached and developed wrong. In terms of pure power and speed he is the strongest player on tour. You do not argue with a 110mph forehand. If Roger can just begin to approach Monfils' level it will take a lot of pressure off him to come up with cute dropshots and let him dictate like he used to. Remember the days when he would leap up into the air to flash a forehand winner? With a little bit more power in his rear chain and overall muscular development that can come back. Just look at what doing chinups with 40lbs extra weight has done for Murray.

And as for how muscles "slow down" an athlete. I think you really do have no clue just how long and how many steroids even an above average person has to take to go beyond 220lbs in less than half a decade. The build of the best sprinters and *gasp* olympic weightlifters (who just happen to be just as explosive as sprinters in the first 20m) would indicate that yes, muscle helps you get moving.

What Roddick lost was not muscle mass. It was fat as anyone who could see Roddick's sunken cheeks could see. Even now Federer carries too much fat around his abdomen and could stand to lean down before starting his Agassi-esque transformation in earnest.

 

[jackson vile]

Schwarzenegger would then be the best tennis player.

Read up a bit on tennis biomechanics, because you're pushing the wrong buttons.

Pay $100 for a year membership to tennisplayer.net. You'll learn a lot.

Very good point, tennis is not a strength or edurance sport.

 

[ivan_the_terrible]

Very good point, tennis is not a strength or edurance sport.

Tell that to the players that can't play 3 full sets of tennis

 

[ivan_the_terrible]

Of course, but muscle IS what makes you fast and powerful. Muscles are how you move.

Obviously "giant" muscle mass isn't going to help a tennis player, but to state muscle mass in general don't make you fast or strong is silly. That's all.

On the other hand, I am not sure any one of us on this board know what is best for Federer. The guy is about to turn 29. I'm 29 and I can tell you I don't feel like I'm 24 anymore. It's inevitable.

quoted for truth

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Can some one explain why they think Federer is on decline?.
Is it such a big deal to lose a few matches after staying on top for so long?.