Chris Evert Instructional Video Describing Forehand, Backhand and Serve (1990)

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Pretty consistent player. Watching her play Navratilova was always fun because the two couldn’t have been more different.

in fact I miss the days of baseline grinder vs serve and volleyer. The game has evolved to everyone being a baseline grinder.
 

RajS

Semi-Pro
I am always struck with wonder when I see Chris Evert play. With such graceful movement and strokes, she would have dominated with any style!
 

SystemicAnomaly

Talk Tennis Guru
This was part of a film-to-brain sports training series from SyberVision Systems. Steve DeVore founded SyberVision Systems in 1981. SyberVision developed & marketed over 60 multi-media educational programs based on positive modeling/expert learning technology developed at Stanford University through research there. In addition to tennis, SyberVision released products for golf, skiing, track & field events, baseball & more.

This was a muscle memory training system that was marketed as Neuro-Muscular Training. It featured tennis strokes filmed from various angles at regular speed and in slow motion. It also included a stick figure rendering to aid in developing the desired muscle memory. The accompanying music was supposed to further aid in the learning process.

I had thought that the 3-set package featuring Chris Evert came out earlier -- sometime in the 1980s. But I could be wrong about that. There was a SyberVision tennis product featuring Stan Smith as the model/expert in the mid 1980s. The VHS version (with 4 audio tapes and a booklet) was released in 1985, I believe. On €bay, I saw a Betamax version from 1983. A DVD version of the Stan Smith training system was released in the late 90s or early 00s. Don't know if a DVD version of the Chris Evert product was ever released.
 
Last edited:

pencilcheck

Professional
The music, the style, it feels so unreal. Good vid for 60+ year old who likes the "good ol day" with wooden racquets. However not for modern strokes and young people. However awesome thanks for sharing.
 

Bagumbawalla

Hall of Fame
It is interesting (at least to me) that we look to these great players for some secret
that will suddenly make sense of everything and open the way to tennis success.
But, basically, every instructional video I have ever seen- every pro who has visited
our town has concentrated on the "basics". What does that kung fu panda say?- There is
no secret sauce. Oh, well.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
The music, the style, it feels so unreal. Good vid for 60+ year old who likes the "good ol day" with wooden racquets. However not for modern strokes and young people. However awesome thanks for sharing.
People say that but 90% of rec players could become proficient players with those strokes. The fact is most people can't even achieve classic linear strokes let alone the more angular strokes of modern pro tennis. I'd say anyone learning over 30 could do well to swing like that.

You could watch a Bobby Jones golf video and say that it's out of touch with the modern game, but 90% of golfers can't even hope to swing as smoothly and consistently as Bobby Jones did.

A young Chris Evert with the same strokes would still be a high level tennis player. We have some 65 year old former pros at our club and they still beat almost all the members except the top college scholarship juniors.
 

Chas Tennis

G.O.A.T.
It is interesting (at least to me) that we look to these great players for some secret
that will suddenly make sense of everything and open the way to tennis success.
But, basically, every instructional video I have ever seen- every pro who has visited
our town has concentrated on the "basics". What does that kung fu panda say?- There is
no secret sauce. Oh, well.
Could your quote one of the "we" that you are referring to that looks to great players from 30 years ago for some secret? Any quotes?

Are you familiar with the story of internal shoulder rotation and the part that that joint motion played on the serve? That was the flagship of all tennis technique secrets, the researchers finally confirmed it in 1995. It still is secret to most active tennis players.

Here is an instructional video that mentions joint motions. You can Google any term if you don't understand them.

I was particularly interested in Chris Evert for the strong points of her techniques as representative 1990 and earlier ladies techniques. Especially interesting is the weight shift linear technique vs the circular technique for forehands. These technique issues are discussed by Dan Brown. It seems like two different techniques using some of the same basics (such as 'look at the ball', 'use the stretch shorten cycle', or 'turn your shoulders', etc.). Brown is discussing a secret from earlier tennis, the more circular forehand technique. Does the later technique have a 'secret', that the earlier technique does not? In videos, it does. Is that 'secret', a new 'basic'?

Is 'step forward shift your weight' a basic in 2021? Out of date?
 
Last edited:

Dragy

Legend
People say that but 90% of rec players could become proficient players with those strokes. The fact is most people can't even achieve classic linear strokes let alone the more angular strokes of modern pro tennis. I'd say anyone learning over 30 could do well to swing like that.

You could watch a Bobby Jones golf video and say that it's out of touch with the modern game, but 90% of golfers can't even hope to swing as smoothly and consistently as Bobby Jones did.

A young Chris Evert with the same strokes would still be a high level tennis player. We have some 65 year old former pros at our club and they still beat almost all the members except the top college scholarship juniors.
The premise that linear strokes are anyhow “easier” to master to any level of proficiency is arguable at best. Could anyone do well swinging like that at rec level? Absolutely. Swinging in a more modern manner? No doubt. Much more difference would come from talent, level of athleticism and volume of practice.

So if anyone prefers to choose to copy Evert strokes based on stylistic preferences - welcome. Supposedly no advantages in efficiency department.
 
Top