Consequence of Modern Racquets: Emergence of the Armswinger Generation

[travlerajm]

If by 'Armswinger Swingpath' you meant groundstrokes with no use of the leg extension/thrust or torso rotation to help produce power then I'd agree that modern light powerful racquets make it easier for more people to just 'arm' the ball and still hit with depth and power that is effective at lower levels of play.

My point has nothing to do with how much torso rotation or leg thrust is applied. I'm just talking about the use of potential energy. Torso rotation and leg thrust both fall into the category of Method 2. If you use ONLY Method 2, then you are classified as an Armswinger by my definition. If someone can think of a better term, please suggest one, but I like the word "armswinger" because many "armswingers" are guilty of ugly form that lacks the torso rotation and leg thrust and weight transfer. If a pro is an "armswinger" it would imply that he is especially good at transferring his weight into the shot - otherwise his arm would tire quickly.

 

[ohplease]

OhPlease, I respectfully request that you... "Put up or shut up." Here we have math that hasn't been disputed factually-- if you'd like to dispute it, even I can knock it down, with my handy dandy copy of the Physics and Technology of tennis-- and your reply is 'Yeah, yeah, yeah, proof schmoof, physics doesn't apply.' But it does. The problem is mishitting, not form. If a player imitates a pro to the inch, imitating their strokes, their strategies, nothing original whatsoever, then the only thing holding them back is reaction time and accuracy. Both styles of player, 'arm swingers' and 'loopers' will mishit the ball, probably to the same degree. So the mathematics still applies, unless you can show a situation where it doesn't, that is up to snuff. If it's not, we'll disprove it fairly, as you tried to disprove the ACOR math. Until you form the resolve to make such an argument, cease your efforts to use logic to argue math. It doesn't work.

Let's try this again - and this time, try not to let your teenage hero worship get in the way: I never said that physics didn't apply. In fact, search my post - hey look! Those words don't appear.

My point is that even among pros, there are places in their ground strokes were they may or may not be maximizing the kinetic chain. Even if travelerajm is right in that a particular kind of backswing is somehow more efficient, the fact that there's THAT much disparity in grips, swingpaths, follow throughs, even among his cited examples means that there's WAY more involved (and WAY more allowed variability) in a world class forehand than the style of backswing involved. In fact, even the takebacks are all different!

Further, I never said anything about ACOR - and in fact, I don't have to. There's more than one way to rebut an argument - and you'd be wise to learn, from me, that real physicists often don't even bother with numberical examples - especially not when you're talking about factors or even orders of magnitude difference, as we are here. You guys are arguing about spare change, when the real difference is likely in 10s and 20s.

Regardless, there's already plenty of well-mannered disagreement in this thread - your paranoid fanboi response doesn't change that, at all.

AND, my critique doesn't even begin to get into the difference between idealized groundstrokes vs. the reality of real live tennis. You might, indeed, find and perfect the most devastating forehand technique ever created by man. Should that technique be particularly fragile, or time intensive, or require lots of setup time however, it simply won't be very effective over the long haul - and certainly not during a tennis match.

It's no different than rackets - there's what work in the lab, and works among all the other requirements and trade-offs on court. Even if travelerajm is right (which not just I, but many others, doubt) - so what?

 

[AAAA]

My point has nothing to do with how much torso rotation or leg thrust is applied. I'm just talking about the use of potential energy. Torso rotation and leg thrust both fall into the category of Method 2. If you use ONLY Method 2, then you are classified as an Armswinger by my definition. If someone can think of a better term, please suggest one, but I like the word "armswinger" because many "armswingers" are guilty of ugly form that lacks the torso rotation and leg thrust and weight transfer. If a pro is an "armswinger" it would imply that he is especially good at transferring his weight into the shot - otherwise his arm would tire quickly.

My comment about the lack of torso rotation and leg thrust was in reference to the recreational players you mentioned in

'But with today’s low swingweight racquets, a whole generation of recreational players has learned to swing a racquet with the brute force method.'

Indeed some that I have seen don't use torso rotation or leg thrust to assist their strokes, they just 'arm' the ball.

I'm not arguing with you but going off on a tangent. Thinking about it hasn't this stuff been accounted for already by open stance theory? Not that this topic is of much interest to me so carry on as you were with everyone else.

No worries.

 

[TalkingTennis91]

Okay, travelerajm, quick question. I like the concept of the pro-style high backswing, but what if you're playing against a hard-hitting opponent, and you don't have much time for a high backswing? Then what? Thanks!

 

[AAAA]

Okay, travelerajm, quick question. I like the concept of the pro-style high backswing, but what if you're playing against a hard-hitting opponent, and you don't have much time for a high backswing? Then what? Thanks!

The player will be rushed a la Sampras in USO final against Safin.

 

[AJK1]

What book is thread quoted from?

 

[Amone]

Let's try this again - and this time, try not to let your teenage hero worship get in the way: I never said that physics didn't apply. In fact, search my post - hey look! Those words don't appear.

My point is that even among pros, there are places in their ground strokes were they may or may not be maximizing the kinetic chain. Even if travelerajm is right in that a particular kind of backswing is somehow more efficient, the fact that there's THAT much disparity in grips, swingpaths, follow throughs, even among his cited examples means that there's WAY more involved (and WAY more allowed variability) in a world class forehand than the style of backswing involved. In fact, even the takebacks are all different!

Further, I never said anything about ACOR - and in fact, I don't have to. There's more than one way to rebut an argument - and you'd be wise to learn, from me, that real physicists often don't even bother with numberical examples - especially not when you're talking about factors or even orders of magnitude difference, as we are here. You guys are arguing about spare change, when the real difference is likely in 10s and 20s.

Regardless, there's already plenty of well-mannered disagreement in this thread - your paranoid fanboi response doesn't change that, at all.

AND, my critique doesn't even begin to get into the difference between idealized groundstrokes vs. the reality of real live tennis. You might, indeed, find and perfect the most devastating forehand technique ever created by man. Should that technique be particularly fragile, or time intensive, or require lots of setup time however, it simply won't be very effective over the long haul - and certainly not during a tennis match.

It's no different than rackets - there's what work in the lab, and works among all the other requirements and trade-offs on court. Even if travelerajm is right (which not just I, but many others, doubt) - so what?

Teenage, yes. Hero-worship, no. I consider this my argument as well, because I have done my own work as well, even for my youth, and you know what? Every single person who comments on what I done tells me it's wrong, but doesn't back up any of it. EDIT: I am a teenager, and as a brash youngin, I tend to take people arguing with me, without making an argument, personally. Therefor, if I get the sense someone's talking in generalities, when I know I'm fully capable of understanding specifics, and proof, and the other person in the argument professes to not only be capable, but actually understand, but won't make an actual argument... I tell them to give me their argument, or get away from my post. That's youth, that's selfishness, and it's emotional, for me. But one thing it isn't, is someone else's. It's quite personal to me. More personal than anything anyone else does around me. Including people who are my inferiors, as well as my equals, as well as my superiors.

I have a habit of 'leveling' arguments. What did you say? You said, 'I also don't think the style of backswing makes nearly that much difference.' However, we know exactly how much difference it makes because even the naysayers have demonstrated the point that there is a clear difference, if not a large one. Your argument is that it doesn't make X amount of difference. However, using the opposing argument and numbers, TravlerAjm has demonstrated exactly how much difference it made. Hence, my use of the phrase.

Your point on the variance of backswings is duly noted and here is my reply: When one thing remains steady, where every other thing changes, that does not tell me it's meaningless. If something stayed that steady throughout every example, that is most certainly the thing I would examine clearly. Why is that? Because it is obviously the most important thing! Here are some examples, with increasing obscurity:
- All people proficient in running move their legs. This is clearly an important distinction. Some people run on the ball of their foot, others heel-to-toe. Some run with a very high-lifted knee, some amputee runners run almost straight legged. However, the most important aspect, and the one most constant, is that without leg movement, there is no running.
- All people's hearts, in dying, stop beating. Some have lived their life with an irregular heartbeat. Some of those hearts are too small or large for their bodies. Some don't even belong to the person in whom they currently reside, but all of them cease their beating. Some are punctured, and some stop beating only because the brain ceases to tell it to beat. The fact that the heart ceases to beat is not unimportant, even though it is only factor that remains the same; it's the only factor that remains the same so we should study it the most closely.

I don't like the i on the end of 'fanboy.' I realise that it's a method of belittling me, and you can feel free to do that all you like. However, please choose another method. I don't like being called effeminate for something I'm not. Make fun of my long hair, or my nickname (Sally), or something that actually applies.

The difference between theory and reality is also duly noted and for that I have only one answer: playtesting. It's a simple method, but that's what we (the world, not the Royal we) generally do when we need to transfer between the lab and the court.

So What? Finally, my last segment. I've been getting kinda tense writing this, stressing a lot lately anyways. Anyways.. The point of racquet theory, is that there is a science to racquets. There is. I can explain every element of composite lay-up in passing, some elements in better detail. I can explain the how and why of specific fabrics' traits, specific weaves of fabric, and I can tell you what will do what. Granted, I can't convert that knowledge to tennis-- we use a very strange measurement system-- but there is a specific how and why to everything that is done in the making of a tennis racquet. There is a specific how and why in the tennis stroke and strings. The key to advancing the how, is leveling and sharpening the why until it's something you can't quite get any more, and then making a how out of it.

EDIT 2: I realised I missed one of your points. I wanted to finish:

Spare Change is the end-all be-all in most things. Consider, for instance, a pacey, but not over the top, first serve. 135 mph, for instance. Now, let's consider the world-record fastest serve in tennis: 156 mph. Now, let's see what kind of percentage we get:

156/135 = 115.6% the speed of the average serve.

16%, in my eyes, is pocket change. When the difference between good and the best is only 16%, I say we've reached ourselves what Armstrong was quoted as wording "a small step for man." Even worse, though, is that in theory, those numbers say that the difference could be lowered to 4% with an extra "pocket change" 15 miles per hour.

 

[Amone]

Finally, and seperately, I'd like to apologize if I say anything offensive tonight. I'm really edgy tonight, and I'm really trying not to get mean, but if I do, then my brain sincerely apologizes for my mouth being stupid.

 

[Koensayr]

v = incoming ball speed (let's assume it equals 40mph)
v' = rebound ball speed
V = racquet velocity (let's assume it equals 40mph in case A, and 55mph in case B)
e = ACOR (let's assume it equals 0.4)

v' = ev + (1 + e)V

For Case A: v' = 0.4*40 + (1 + 0.4)(40) = 72mph
For Case B: v' = 0.4*40 + (1 + 0.4)(55) = 93mph

Sorry, your equations for calculating the rebound ball speeds are wrong. When you calculate the result speed of an object after its collision with another object, you cannot simply multiply the speeds by coefficients and add. You have to apply the conservation of energy.

In an ideal elastic collision, it is easy to calculate because you can assume no energy is lost during the collision itself.

In that case:
m_1 = mass of ball
m_2 = mass of racquet
v_b_i = velocity of ball before collision with racquet
v_b_f = velocity of ball after collision with racquet
v_r_i = velocity of racquet before collision with ball
v_r_f = velocity of racquet after collision with ball

1/2 * m_1 * v_b_i^2 + 1/2 * m_2 * v_r_i^2 = 1/2 * m_1 * v_b_f^2 + 1/2 * m_2 * v_r_f^2

then plug in for v_b_i, v_r_i, and v_r_f to solve for v_b_f.

However, in the case we are talking about, it is very far from an elastic collision. You can see from some of those pictures how much the ball compresses when it hits the racquet. Granted, since the way the ball is made, some of that energy is stored, however, only way it will even get part of that energy back into kinetic energy is if the ball regains its shape while pushing back on the racquet instead of after it leaves the racquet surface.

And we are still ignoring the fact that the air friction is dissipating a lot of energy.

There is one way to test approximately how much potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, and everyone can do that. Just hold your racquet in your hand, and bring it back and up, as high as you can with your elbow locked and your arm completely straight. Now just let your arm drop and have your racquet swing down in a circle without putting any force into your arm. When the racquet is at the lowest point, that's where it's going to have the most kinetic energy. You can easily go out to the courts and see how hard you can hit the ball this way, might be tough to get the timing down first. Sure, your arm can't be resistance-free, but when you hit the ball, it's the same arm that's swinging anyways.

When you compare the 2 methods you talked about, there is a difference in how much energy your arm puts out at DIFFERENT TIMES. In your case A, your arm puts out some extra energy when lifting the racquet up high, then that energy comes back when you bring the racquet down. In your case B, the arm just puts out the energy through the entire swing.

Bottom line is that the actual physics involved in a swing is actually quite complicated. My simple formula in the first post is to show the highest case scenerio of how much energy can be put into the racquet in this conversion. In your post, the formula simply cannot describe the collision of 2 objects and their speeds afterwards. There is probably something in the higher back swing, but it's definately not just converting the potential energy into kinetic energy.

 

[Amone]

Sorry, your equations for calculating the rebound ball speeds are wrong. When you calculate the result speed of an object after its collision with another object, you cannot simply multiply the speeds by coefficients and add. You have to apply the conservation of energy.

In an ideal elastic collision, it is easy to calculate because you can assume no energy is lost during the collision itself.

In that case:
m_1 = mass of ball
m_2 = mass of racquet
v_b_i = velocity of ball before collision with racquet
v_b_f = velocity of ball after collision with racquet
v_r_i = velocity of racquet before collision with ball
v_r_f = velocity of racquet after collision with ball

1/2 * m_1 * v_b_i^2 + 1/2 * m_2 * v_r_i^2 = 1/2 * m_1 * v_b_f^2 + 1/2 * m_2 * v_r_f^2

then plug in for v_b_i, v_r_i, and v_r_f to solve for v_b_f.

However, in the case we are talking about, it is very far from an elastic collision. You can see from some of those pictures how much the ball compresses when it hits the racquet. Granted, since the way the ball is made, some of that energy is stored, however, only way it will even get part of that energy back into kinetic energy is if the ball regains its shape while pushing back on the racquet instead of after it leaves the racquet surface.

And we are still ignoring the fact that the air friction is dissipating a lot of energy.

There is one way to test approximately how much potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, and everyone can do that. Just hold your racquet in your hand, and bring it back and up, as high as you can with your elbow locked and your arm completely straight. Now just let your arm drop and have your racquet swing down in a circle without putting any force into your arm. When the racquet is at the lowest point, that's where it's going to have the most kinetic energy. You can easily go out to the courts and see how hard you can hit the ball this way, might be tough to get the timing down first. Sure, your arm can't be resistance-free, but when you hit the ball, it's the same arm that's swinging anyways.

When you compare the 2 methods you talked about, there is a difference in how much energy your arm puts out at DIFFERENT TIMES. In your case A, your arm puts out some extra energy when lifting the racquet up high, then that energy comes back when you bring the racquet down. In your case B, the arm just puts out the energy through the entire swing.

Bottom line is that the actual physics involved in a swing is actually quite complicated. My simple formula in the first post is to show the highest case scenerio of how much energy can be put into the racquet in this conversion. In your post, the formula simply cannot describe the collision of 2 objects and their speeds afterwards. There is probably something in the higher back swing, but it's definately not just converting the potential energy into kinetic energy.

This is going to sound rude, but that was very hard to read: too many underscores. I can sort-of tell that you're discussing a formula I'm not familiar with; that happens a lot. The only point I can make is this:

Power = Work / Time. Doing the same amount of work in more time requires less power from your arm. Doing it in less, requires more. Higher power is, obviously, harder to generate. That's my two bits. I'm sure there'll be an answer to this, but that's how I saw it.

 

[AJK1]

How much longer do we have to put up with these threads/posts that are always proven wrong?

 

[zapvor]

agassi used an OS racket.

 

[Amone]

agassi used an OS racket.

Wait, what did that even have to do with anything, Zapvor?

How much longer do we have to put up with these threads/posts that are always proven wrong?

Sorry, AJK1. I don't mean to bother you. It's just, I dunno about anyone else here, I just can't help it. I naturally and helplessly **** you off. You'll just have to come by and smash my PC. I'll probably get a new one in the long run... I really don't know what you can do to get rid of me right now. Them, who knows. I'll stay. It's nice to see you again.

 

[travlerajm]

Sorry, your equations for calculating the rebound ball speeds are wrong. When you calculate the result speed of an object after its collision with another object, you cannot simply multiply the speeds by coefficients and add. You have to apply the conservation of energy.

In an ideal elastic collision, it is easy to calculate because you can assume no energy is lost during the collision itself.

In that case:
m_1 = mass of ball
m_2 = mass of racquet
v_b_i = velocity of ball before collision with racquet
v_b_f = velocity of ball after collision with racquet
v_r_i = velocity of racquet before collision with ball
v_r_f = velocity of racquet after collision with ball

1/2 * m_1 * v_b_i^2 + 1/2 * m_2 * v_r_i^2 = 1/2 * m_1 * v_b_f^2 + 1/2 * m_2 * v_r_f^2

then plug in for v_b_i, v_r_i, and v_r_f to solve for v_b_f.

However, in the case we are talking about, it is very far from an elastic collision. You can see from some of those pictures how much the ball compresses when it hits the racquet. Granted, since the way the ball is made, some of that energy is stored, however, only way it will even get part of that energy back into kinetic energy is if the ball regains its shape while pushing back on the racquet instead of after it leaves the racquet surface.

And we are still ignoring the fact that the air friction is dissipating a lot of energy.

There is one way to test approximately how much potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, and everyone can do that. Just hold your racquet in your hand, and bring it back and up, as high as you can with your elbow locked and your arm completely straight. Now just let your arm drop and have your racquet swing down in a circle without putting any force into your arm. When the racquet is at the lowest point, that's where it's going to have the most kinetic energy. You can easily go out to the courts and see how hard you can hit the ball this way, might be tough to get the timing down first. Sure, your arm can't be resistance-free, but when you hit the ball, it's the same arm that's swinging anyways.

If you are arguing with the equation I used to calculate ball speed, you might want to quibble with Howard Brody instead. His 1997 paper on racket-ball impacts, which is the most detailed paper on the subject, is the source of the equation.

 

[AJK1]

It's not you Amone, i think it's trav, he just doesn't get it quite right. And close enough is not good enough for me.

 

[skuludo]

travlerajm am I in the arm swinger club? If your wonder why there was no loop takeback I think it is the racquet's weight. I probly have a loop tackback, but I never filmed myself using my 12 ounce racket.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JAhpgb1dIs

In that forehand I have can only hit the ball deep. And short at will from the baseline. I can't play mini-tennis with that type of forehand though.
I found it much easier to use a continental grip to hit forehands in mini-tennis sessions.

The racquet there is a Head I Radical that is 13.7 ounces with all the lead tape on the handle. 3 thin strips were placed on the 12'o clock postion.

 

[Koensayr]

If you are arguing with the equation I used to calculate ball speed, you might want to quibble with Howard Brody instead. His 1997 paper on racket-ball impacts, which is the most detailed paper on the subject, is the source of the equation.

Howard Brody obviously needs to take some more physics classes if he is using linear approximations on a non-linear function.

Amone, sorry about the underscores, that's all I can do. I hate it too when I need to use subscripts when it's not available (those underscores are for subscripts, v_b_i is velocity of ball, initial, so v sub b sub i, don't know if that helps though) As for power, it's probably easier on the arm if that's the only thing involved. However, the dominant forces involved in a full on fore-hand swing is most likely the force of the arm and the force of air resistance. The energy from the potential energy of the racquet in a high back swing is most likely negligible compared to the other 2 that's involved.

 

[Amone]

travlerajm am I in the arm swinger club? If your wonder why there was no loop takeback I think it is the racquet's weight. I probly have a loop tackback, but I never filmed myself using my 12 ounce racket.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JAhpgb1dIs

In that forehand I have can only hit the ball deep. And short at will from the baseline. I can't play mini-tennis with that type of forehand though.
I found it much easier to use a continental grip to hit forehands in mini-tennis sessions.

The racquet there is a Head I Radical that is 13.7 ounces with all the lead tape on the handle. 3 thin strips were placed on the 12'o clock postion.

Very interesting strokes. Semi-classical, but the takeback's too low. I'd say, yes. You don't use the racquet's weight to work for you in the swing, you mostly swing 'from the arm,' though that's something of a misnomer.

 

[skuludo]

The weights pushing my arm down. I did try a couple of loop takebacks with the racket high, but I hit those balls into the net because I couldn't get the racket under the ball on time.

The last shot will go into the 70smph range if I self feed the ball myself using that move.

When hitting a ball thats moving it goes into the 60-70 range.

 

[Amone]

The weights pushing my arm down. I did try a couple of loop takebacks with the racket high, but I hit those balls into the net because I couldn't get the racket under the ball on time.

Those shots will go into the 70smph range if I self feed the ball myself.

Well, here's what I'd do-- try it Connors or McEnroe style-- low takeback like you did, but just take it back higher up before you start letting it drop. If you're hitting late, then start the takeback sooner. I mean, you don't have to, but IMHO, work your stroke around good technique, not the other way around, you know?

 

[skuludo]

What you mean is hold the racquet and bringing the butt cap up high to chest height and then drop it down right?

 

[Midlife crisis]

One thing that hasn't been directly addressed is the biomechanics of the human arm.

The reason swings go from high to low is not primarily for potential energy. It is because having the forearm upright is the only way to allow body coiling to effectively transfer the body coiling into the arm, by allowing the elbow to lead the hand. This is the kinetic chain that JCo872 talks about. It is not possible to do so with the forearm below the elbow.

If you look at a baseball swing, where the bat is significantly heavier and head-heavy balanced when compared to a tennis racquet, and where the idea is to hit the ball as hard as possible by swinging the bat as fast as possible, they do not hold the bat as high as possible to gain benefit from the potential energy. It is held only high enough to allow the forearm to be above the elbow, so that the body's uncoiling allows the forearm to lead the hand.

The high takeback is for the same reason - to accommodate the structure of the arm and the musculature in using the greatest source of energy - the body's ability to coil and uncoil, and to transfer that to the hand.

 

[skuludo]

Hitting late I don't think is a problem. Well maybe it is a problem right now since I haven't played tennis with new balls on a dry court in a whole month.
The problem will probly fix itself after 10 minutes on a dry court using new balls.
I hit the ball early on shots that "I think gives me the greatest benefit". <-- This is a new concept and I have only practiced this fully for a month. I still need more time to implement it better, but I think I can comfortably use it now. More time playing tennis = I will be more comfortable making better use of this trick.

I have no idea what I do with a 12 ounce racket, but it is definitly more comfortable to have the racquet head up.

 

[Koensayr]

I think you have hit much closer to the actual benefit of a higher take back here.

One thing that hasn't been directly addressed is the biomechanics of the human arm.

The reason swings go from high to low is not primarily for potential energy. It is because having the forearm upright is the only way to allow body coiling to effectively transfer the body coiling into the arm, by allowing the elbow to lead the hand. This is the kinetic chain that JCo872 talks about. It is not possible to do so with the forearm below the elbow.

If you look at a baseball swing, where the bat is significantly heavier and head-heavy balanced when compared to a tennis racquet, and where the idea is to hit the ball as hard as possible by swinging the bat as fast as possible, they do not hold the bat as high as possible to gain benefit from the potential energy. It is held only high enough to allow the forearm to be above the elbow, so that the body's uncoiling allows the forearm to lead the hand.

The high takeback is for the same reason - to accommodate the structure of the arm and the musculature in using the greatest source of energy - the body's ability to coil and uncoil, and to transfer that to the hand.

 

[travlerajm]

One thing that hasn't been directly addressed is the biomechanics of the human arm.

The reason swings go from high to low is not primarily for potential energy. It is because having the forearm upright is the only way to allow body coiling to effectively transfer the body coiling into the arm, by allowing the elbow to lead the hand. This is the kinetic chain that JCo872 talks about. It is not possible to do so with the forearm below the elbow.

If you look at a baseball swing, where the bat is significantly heavier and head-heavy balanced when compared to a tennis racquet, and where the idea is to hit the ball as hard as possible by swinging the bat as fast as possible, they do not hold the bat as high as possible to gain benefit from the potential energy. It is held only high enough to allow the forearm to be above the elbow, so that the body's uncoiling allows the forearm to lead the hand.

The high takeback is for the same reason - to accommodate the structure of the arm and the musculature in using the greatest source of energy - the body's ability to coil and uncoil, and to transfer that to the hand.

You have a point that the biomechanics play a part. I think the reason for the increased power has more to do with potential energy. With your bat analogy, it would still be possible to uncoil into the swing with a low bat **** position. But most of you energy would need to go into lifting the bat up to the contact point. The reason players don't reach higher is because the bat tip is already well above the head, and to reach further upward would be awkward.

Also, I really don't see any reason why having the elbow below the forearm would matter. Sampras had a high elbow, with his forearm almost level at takeback. It didn't seem to hurt his forehand power. The key is that his racquet head was still high, regardless of the height of his elbow relative to his forearm.

 

[Koensayr]

The increase in power most likely comes from the fact that the higher take back results in a longer racquet/bat swing path from start of swing to contact with the ball, resulting in a longer time for the arm to accelerate the racquet/bat during the swing. This will most likely dominate over anything gained from the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy.

You have a point that the biomechanics play a part. I think the reason for the increased power has more to do with potential energy. With your bat analogy, it would still be possible to uncoil into the swing with a low bat **** position. But most of you energy would need to go into lifting the bat up to the contact point. The reason players don't reach higher is because the bat tip is already well above the head, and to reach further upward would be awkward.

Also, I really don't see any reason why having the elbow below the forearm would matter. Sampras had a high elbow, with his forearm almost level at takeback. It didn't seem to hurt his forehand power. The key is that his racquet head was still high, regardless of the height of his elbow relative to his forearm.

 

[lethalfang]

The increase in power most likely comes from the fact that the higher take back results in a longer racquet/bat swing path from start of swing to contact with the ball, resulting in a longer time for the arm to accelerate the racquet/bat during the swing. This will most likely dominate over anything gained from the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy.

I believe this is exactly right.
When you want a little extra power, you do not raise your hand straight back. You reach back.

 

[tennisplayer]

I have to respectfully disagree with TAJM. I believe that the racquet is taken back in a controlled manner, however big the arc of the backswing. It is not allowed to fall freely at any time, nor accelerated downwards. At a suitable point, depending on ball height, the forward motion starts, and the grip is held loose enough so that the raquet head is allowed to stretch the forearm and the wrist lays back as a consequence. The forward acceleration then begins, powered by the different links in the kinetic chain.

Each player probably has an optimum swingweight which feels "right". If the racquet were feather light, it probably wouldn't stretch or load your arm enough when the forward swing begins. On the other hand, if it weighs a pound, it would probably wrench your arm off.

 

[LuckyR]

I agree with trav that the "take back" prep for the optimal swing, is generally longer and smoother for Pros than for beginners who "arm" the ball. I also agree that the advent of new technology has made it easier to arm the ball and that it may lead to worse habits at this time, than in previous generations.

However IMO the benefit of the "Pro" swing has more to do with length and smoothness than height. Whatever component gravity supplies to the equation is essentially insignificant compared to the component supplied by arm muscles (in addition to uncoiling etc). If gravity was the major player then it would be difficult to lob (ie. a low to high swingpath) but in fact I have no problem hitting lobs over the fence on a court one over from the one I play on.

 

[JCo872]

One thing that hasn't been directly addressed is the biomechanics of the human arm.

The reason swings go from high to low is not primarily for potential energy. It is because having the forearm upright is the only way to allow body coiling to effectively transfer the body coiling into the arm, by allowing the elbow to lead the hand. This is the kinetic chain that JCo872 talks about. It is not possible to do so with the forearm below the elbow.

If you look at a baseball swing, where the bat is significantly heavier and head-heavy balanced when compared to a tennis racquet, and where the idea is to hit the ball as hard as possible by swinging the bat as fast as possible, they do not hold the bat as high as possible to gain benefit from the potential energy. It is held only high enough to allow the forearm to be above the elbow, so that the body's uncoiling allows the forearm to lead the hand.

The high takeback is for the same reason - to accommodate the structure of the arm and the musculature in using the greatest source of energy - the body's ability to coil and uncoil, and to transfer that to the hand.

Nice post! Great analogy to baseball.

I think you are right on about the body's ability to coil and uncoil and transfer that energy to the hand. Absolutely.

Take a look at what is arguably one of the top three biggest forehands in the world: http://www.hi-techtennis.com/forehand/videos/johannson_demo.php

I think you can see the exact dynamic you describe occuring here. His backswing is incredibly compact and low relative to other players.

Jeff

 

[Midlife crisis]

Also, I really don't see any reason why having the elbow below the forearm would matter. Sampras had a high elbow, with his forearm almost level at takeback. It didn't seem to hurt his forehand power. The key is that his racquet head was still high, regardless of the height of his elbow relative to his forearm.

Having the elbow below the forearm is necessary because this is the only way to get the elbow leading the hand while the body is in an upright position. If you hold your upper arm straight out from the body and hand the forearm downward so that your palm is facing backwards, you can't transfer momentum from the body's uncoiling into the your upper arm, and subsequently into your forearm, without bending over foreward and leading with your shoulder.

If you have your forearm above your elbow, your elbow can lead your forearm. When the momentum is transferred from the upper arm to the forearm, it can then whip through and pronate, generating much faster racquet head speed than if the upper and forearms worked as one unit piece.

I think it applies to a tennis forearm swing in this way: Most people with "modern" forehand swings take the racquet back with their palms facing somewhat towards the back of the court. When the body uncoils, the mass of the racquet, hand, and forearm cause it to lag behind the upper arm which rotates with the body. This causes the elbow to lead the forearm and the forearm to supinate, causing the palm and racquet face to begin to rotate into the proper position. When the body's uncoiling slows, the upper arm slows with it and at that time, the forearm can pronate to provide additional racquet head speed and also position the stringbed properly. This series of actions can't happen if the forearm starts out below the upper arm, nor can it happen if the upper arm and forearm act as one static unit. The only way it can happen is if the forearm starts out above the upper arm and if the forearm can both supinate and pronate throughout the stroke. The racquet head then starts up high as a consequence of the physical construction of the arm and the biomechanics of this sequence of action. That the potential energy is also greater in that starting position, in my opinion, happens to be a side benefit, but it is not the primary reason for that racquet position.

 

[Midlife crisis]

Nice post! Great analogy to baseball.

I think you are right on about the body's ability to coil and uncoil and transfer that energy to the hand. Absolutely.

Take a look at what is arguably one of the top three biggest forehands in the world: http://www.hi-techtennis.com/forehand/videos/johannson_demo.php

I think you can see the exact dynamic you describe occuring here. His backswing is incredibly compact and low relative to other players.

Jeff

Thanks. Please correct me though if I use any terms incorrectly (this applies to everyone). I think from reading your posts that the basic concept of transfer of momentum from one part to another is the "kinetic chain" that is often spoken about, so hopefully I'm using it in the right context.

My kid had a great baseball instructor (at $100/hour, he'd better have been!). Because his baseball techniques seem to have translated well in many areas to his tennis ability, I've tried to apply a lot of the biomechanics of baseball to tennis. Whether I'm doing that correctly or not is the big question!

 

[travlerajm]

Having the elbow below the forearm is necessary because this is the only way to get the elbow leading the hand while the body is in an upright position. If you hold your upper arm straight out from the body and hand the forearm downward so that your palm is facing backwards, you can't transfer momentum from the body's uncoiling into the your upper arm, and subsequently into your forearm, without bending over foreward and leading with your shoulder.

If you have your forearm above your elbow, your elbow can lead your forearm. When the momentum is transferred from the upper arm to the forearm, it can then whip through and pronate, generating much faster racquet head speed than if the upper and forearms worked as one unit piece.

I think it applies to a tennis forearm swing in this way: Most people with "modern" forehand swings take the racquet back with their palms facing somewhat towards the back of the court. When the body uncoils, the mass of the racquet, hand, and forearm cause it to lag behind the upper arm which rotates with the body. This causes the elbow to lead the forearm and the forearm to supinate, causing the palm and racquet face to begin to rotate into the proper position. When the body's uncoiling slows, the upper arm slows with it and at that time, the forearm can pronate to provide additional racquet head speed and also position the stringbed properly. This series of actions can't happen if the forearm starts out below the upper arm, nor can it happen if the upper arm and forearm act as one static unit. The only way it can happen is if the forearm starts out above the upper arm and if the forearm can both supinate and pronate throughout the stroke. The racquet head then starts up high as a consequence of the physical construction of the arm and the biomechanics of this sequence of action. That the potential energy is also greater in that starting position, in my opinion, happens to be a side benefit, but it is not the primary reason for that racquet position.

You do have a really good point. I agree with you. But I still would not discount the importance of potential energy. It's awful easy to hit a ball hard with almost no effort with an SW2 setup - that is, the racquet pretty much swings by itself. All I need to do is start the backswing in the right position, step forward toward the target, and let the racquet drop and, bam! Free power with minimal effort.

 

[JCo872]

Having the elbow below the forearm is necessary because this is the only way to get the elbow leading the hand while the body is in an upright position. If you hold your upper arm straight out from the body and hand the forearm downward so that your palm is facing backwards, you can't transfer momentum from the body's uncoiling into the your upper arm, and subsequently into your forearm, without bending over foreward and leading with your shoulder.

If you have your forearm above your elbow, your elbow can lead your forearm. When the momentum is transferred from the upper arm to the forearm, it can then whip through and pronate, generating much faster racquet head speed than if the upper and forearms worked as one unit piece.

I think it applies to a tennis forearm swing in this way: Most people with "modern" forehand swings take the racquet back with their palms facing somewhat towards the back of the court. When the body uncoils, the mass of the racquet, hand, and forearm cause it to lag behind the upper arm which rotates with the body. This causes the elbow to lead the forearm and the forearm to supinate, causing the palm and racquet face to begin to rotate into the proper position. When the body's uncoiling slows, the upper arm slows with it and at that time, the forearm can pronate to provide additional racquet head speed and also position the stringbed properly. This series of actions can't happen if the forearm starts out below the upper arm, nor can it happen if the upper arm and forearm act as one static unit. The only way it can happen is if the forearm starts out above the upper arm and if the forearm can both supinate and pronate throughout the stroke. The racquet head then starts up high as a consequence of the physical construction of the arm and the biomechanics of this sequence of action. That the potential energy is also greater in that starting position, in my opinion, happens to be a side benefit, but it is not the primary reason for that racquet position.

That's a wonderful description of the modern forehand.

 

[JCo872]

Thanks. Please correct me though if I use any terms incorrectly (this applies to everyone). I think from reading your posts that the basic concept of transfer of momentum from one part to another is the "kinetic chain" that is often spoken about, so hopefully I'm using it in the right context.

My kid had a great baseball instructor (at $100/hour, he'd better have been!). Because his baseball techniques seem to have translated well in many areas to his tennis ability, I've tried to apply a lot of the biomechanics of baseball to tennis. Whether I'm doing that correctly or not is the big question!

You are doing a great job! I have always thought that baseball and tennis would have technical commonalities, but I don't know enough about baseball to see them. The fact that your son can transition so well between the two sports, indicatest that there is.

Send me an email if you get a chance: jco872@gmail. I'd like to talk more about what you have discovered. It is quite fascinating.

 

[Midlife crisis]

You do have a really good point. I agree with you. But I still would not discount the importance of potential energy. It's awful easy to hit a ball hard with almost no effort with an SW2 setup - that is, the racquet pretty much swings by itself. All I need to do is start the backswing in the right position, step forward toward the target, and let the racquet drop and, bam! Free power with minimal effort.

I've been reading your posts about SW2 with a lot of interest. The main question I have with it is how much more difficult it then becomes to adjust to bad or unexpected bounces, or to differences of speed of court. If you remember when we were hitting, the court surface was really quite a bit slower than I was used to and my timing suffered a bit as a result. Also, in situations where your opponent may have hit a bit more or less spin or speed than anticipated, and consequently the timing or location/height of the stroke needs to be altered after the swing is initiated, having a heavier and/or higher swingweight racquet makes this much more difficult.

Maybe it's just that you're playing at a level where these aren't issues and you're seen it all and can visually recognize the speed and spin of any shot much more easily (obviously, it's better than I can do since my shots would bother me and none of my shots seemed to bother you). At my level, if I can get to the ball it's the timing and swing accuracy that is usually the problem, and it's one reason why I went from a racquet in the mid-370 gram range to the mid-350 gram range. If I had my druthers, I'd go back to using the 370+ gram racquet, but the loss of ability to make last moment corrections is the big downfall.

So, maybe SW2 is only an option once you're at a certain ability level for accurate visual recognition, at least that's how it seems to be for me. Otherwise, having the free power is meaningless if I can't get the racquet to the hitting zone at the right moment, or can't even recognize the shot and get to the ball as you blew about 10 down-the -line backhands by me without me even getting close to returning the ball.

 

[Midlife crisis]

You are doing a great job! I have always thought that baseball and tennis would have technical commonalities, but I don't know enough about baseball to see them. The fact that your son can transition so well between the two sports, indicatest that there is.

Send me an email if you get a chance: jco872@gmail. I'd like to talk more about what you have discovered. It is quite fascinating.

Thanks, I'll definitely send you an email, but that's way too much credit to say I've discovered anything. It's pretty much just a little bit of critical observation combined with a lot of stuff that I've learned from this forum and other sources like your web site. Like I said before, I just hope that I put the pieces together in the proper way, but I'm always willing to listen and learn if I'm not.

 

[LuckyR]

I've been reading your posts about SW2 with a lot of interest. The main question I have with it is how much more difficult it then becomes to adjust to bad or unexpected bounces, or to differences of speed of court. If you remember when we were hitting, the court surface was really quite a bit slower than I was used to and my timing suffered a bit as a result. Also, in situations where your opponent may have hit a bit more or less spin or speed than anticipated, and consequently the timing or location/height of the stroke needs to be altered after the swing is initiated, having a heavier and/or higher swingweight racquet makes this much more difficult.

Maybe it's just that you're playing at a level where these aren't issues and you're seen it all and can visually recognize the speed and spin of any shot much more easily (obviously, it's better than I can do since my shots would bother me and none of my shots seemed to bother you). At my level, if I can get to the ball it's the timing and swing accuracy that is usually the problem, and it's one reason why I went from a racquet in the mid-370 gram range to the mid-350 gram range. If I had my druthers, I'd go back to using the 370+ gram racquet, but the loss of ability to make last moment corrections is the big downfall.

So, maybe SW2 is only an option once you're at a certain ability level for accurate visual recognition, at least that's how it seems to be for me. Otherwise, having the free power is meaningless if I can't get the racquet to the hitting zone at the right moment, or can't even recognize the shot and get to the ball as you blew about 10 down-the -line backhands by me without me even getting close to returning the ball.

You post makes complete sense thinking about it, but frankly doesn't match up well to my practical experience. Perhaps the reason is a component of the SW2 stick that you are not addressing, namely that the extra lead in the hoop makes off center hits much less likely to create "flyers", thereby dramatically increasing control. So off timing issues are actually less of an issue, not more...

 

[Midlife crisis]

So, maybe SW2 is only an option once you're at a certain ability level for accurate visual recognition, at least that's how it seems to be for me.

Okay, it feels funny to quote myself. Anyhow, in re-reading, I thought this just wasn't clear.

It seems to me that a lot of what distinguishes a lower level player from a higher level player is the ability to quickly and accurately visually recognize the direction, speed, and spin of a shot immediately after it leaves the opponent's racquet, to then quickly determine the location where the contact needs to be made to return to the shot, how fast the ball is going to get there, and what type of swing we'll be able to make once we get there. Only then can our brains initiate the physical movements, coordination, and preparation to actually perform the shot.

Those players who seem to almost always be in good position, never that surprised by the speed or spin of shot, are those that I believe have great ability in these aspects. For instance, you rarely see Federer surprised by speed or spin of shot, and even though someone might rip a 100+ mph groundstroke at him, he seems to be able to react appropriately and time his return well. Consequently, Federer also returns serve well, because his visual recognition is so quick. A counterexample would be someone like Roddick, whom you'll occasionally see look really awkward as a ball has surprised him and he needs to swing unexpectedly. His visual recognition doesn't seem to work as quickly, and he has only an average return of serve. He still, though, finds a way to play at the highest levels of the game.

On the women's side, you see the same thing. Lindsay Davenport always seemed to hit the ball cleanly and with good timing, and despite her relatively poor mobility, was able to play at the highest levels despite that. JHH, for instance, doesn't seem to have the same visual recognition ability. Think of how often you've seen her hit a backhand shot, only to mis-time the stroke. She'll usually swing too early and when she does that, she tends to squat down and extend forward to try and keep the ball in play. Or Sharapova who seems to often been late on her forehand.

If you take this to lower levels like where we play, the situation gets more complicated. We don't have the physical coordination and physical skills to overcome these issues, and often age and the subsequent loss of visual acuity is not on our sides. But racquet and string technology means that many of us can get pretty darned close to making a pro-level stroke every so often, and more so as you go up in level. For instance, I play somewhere between a 4.5 and 5.0 level and even at that level, I can hit the ball hard enough to really bother most players I go against, and if you put me up against a ball machine feeding me a consistent shot time after time, I can sit there and bang winners nearly as hard and as well placed as any pro, and probably look pretty darned good doing it. Put me on a court against a live opponent and it goes to pieces.

My experience playing with Travlrajm reinforces this. At that time, I was playing with a racquet probably near SW2. We played on a court that I had no familiarity with and was different than I had played on, against a player as much as a full level above me. If I had the time, I could sure make pretty decent shots, but if rushed or if going up against shots I don't often see, the time goes off where that much inertia in a racquet is counterproductive rather than helpful.

In my mind, this ends up a lot like the racquet headsize debate. I think that if you play against people and in situations that don't challenge you, then by all means use a SW2 racquet, just like you can use a very small headed racquet. Get into situations where you are always being physically pressed and not used to visual recognition in the time that you have, and SW2 does not work as well as something lighter, like a smaller headed racquet won't work as well as something larger.

 

[Midlife crisis]

You post makes complete sense thinking about it, but frankly doesn't match up well to my practical experience. Perhaps the reason is a component of the SW2 stick that you are not addressing, namely that the extra lead in the hoop makes off center hits much less likely to create "flyers", thereby dramatically increasing control. So off timing issues are actually less of an issue, not more...

I was writing my follow-up post while you were writing yours. Would you mind reading what I subsequently wrote and see if that makes more sense?

Thanks.

 

[ollinger]

Travlerajm
In my field we speak frequently of "confabulation" which refers to people making things up as they go along. Examples would include referring to yourself as a physicist when your training is in engineering, or noting that you write books for a living and adding later that you had never published a book. I think you bandy about assumptions as if they were facts and might be developping a credibility gap as a result. I'd be interested in seeing if you do this in your academic publications as well (I imagine not as they must be in refereed publications). Can we have some references to what you have published (lawyers refer to this as determining whether the expert is in fact qualified).

 

[ATXtennisaddict]

Here's a guy (travelajm) trying to share his insights on things we normally don't think about, and some of you flame the hell out of him.

Lighten up ppl. don't write a thesis just to disprove what he said.

 

[LuckyR]

I was writing my follow-up post while you were writing yours. Would you mind reading what I subsequently wrote and see if that makes more sense?

Thanks.

I completely understand the situation you were in, having been there many times before. I also follow your logic (as stated) and agree that your proposed solution, switching away from the SW2 to a lighter, lower SW stick to maneuver at the last second, would do just that.

However, my point is to say that I have personally had better luck sticking with the SW2 and plowing through the ball, albeit perhaps off timing and a bit out of position because the weighted head makes up (partially) for this by not twisting much on off center hits.

 

[Midlife crisis]

I completely understand the situation you were in, having been there many times before. I also follow your logic (as stated) and agree that your proposed solution, switching away from the SW2 to a lighter, lower SW stick to maneuver at the last second, would do just that.

However, my point is to say that I have personally had better luck sticking with the SW2 and plowing through the ball, albeit perhaps off timing and a bit out of position because the weighted head makes up (partially) for this by not twisting much on off center hits.

I already use a 115 sq. in. headed racquet, currently with ~20 grams added at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions, and another four grams at the 4 and 8 o'clock positions. It's 28 inches long, static weight of 355 grams or so, swingweight in the low 380's. I'm probably already on the extreme high end on twistweight, nearly so on swingweight, and though the sweetspot is probably larger than the entire stringbed of a PS85, I still frame it every so often. If I were to just rally primarily from the baseline, I'd like it another 20 grams heavier, probably 15 grams of that added to the hoop for a total SW of 410 or so. That is probably my true SW2.

Even at that weight, I can still make slight compensations in wrist position or how hard I swing through the contact point to make up for slight timing or recognition errors, but it's the larger timing or recognition errors that really get me, and when I play up these larger errors can happen once a game. That's just way too much to give up, and because I swing hard and hit hard, high risk + bad timing/recognition always means a ball hit out or into the net.

So again, this may be another caveat to the SW2 thing - players with high risk games may be better suited to using less than SW2 to help compensate for visual recognition, swing timing, and swing accuracy errors.

 

[LuckyR]

I already use a 115 sq. in. headed racquet, currently with ~20 grams added at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions, and another four grams at the 4 and 8 o'clock positions. It's 28 inches long, static weight of 355 grams or so, swingweight in the low 380's. I'm probably already on the extreme high end on twistweight, nearly so on swingweight, and though the sweetspot is probably larger than the entire stringbed of a PS85, I still frame it every so often. If I were to just rally primarily from the baseline, I'd like it another 20 grams heavier, probably 15 grams of that added to the hoop for a total SW of 410 or so. That is probably my true SW2.

Wow, that is quite some stick! I assume that you have a lot of upper body strength to handle that racquet and that in the optimal circumstance your results are impressive. However, this brings up a slightly different facet of this discussion, namely that for someone with your strength, even though you can handle your stick well in optimal situations, by taking it to the bleeding edge, weight-wise, yes I completely agree that you are probably over the edge on mi55hits, and by abandoning your SW2(+) to either a more reasonable SW2 or even SW1 will give better results.

Again, for me, my SW2 is significantly below what you are playing with (I am very close to trav's stick, I just haven't done any surgery to the butt). So I don't have your problem.

 

[chess9]

I probably frame a ball once or twice a match. It's really not a big deal for me because about half of those go in. I use a 90 sq. in. racquet. I've tried the bigger headed racquets and THEY seem to cause me to miss more often. In other words, I have exactly the opposite experience, somewhat, from MLC.
My racquet is only 364 grams with some lead on the butt and at 12. I'm using the RDS001 90. I have classical strokes with some topspin off both wings, but nothing radical.
I couldn't serve well with the OS racquets either. Just too ugly I think. Probably all in my head, but it didn't look like tennis. Ok, call me a snob.

-Robert

 

[Midlife crisis]

Wow, that is quite some stick! I assume that you have a lot of upper body strength to handle that racquet and that in the optimal circumstance your results are impressive. However, this brings up a slightly different facet of this discussion, namely that for someone with your strength, even though you can handle your stick well in optimal situations, by taking it to the bleeding edge, weight-wise, yes I completely agree that you are probably over the edge on mi55hits, and by abandoning your SW2(+) to either a more reasonable SW2 or even SW1 will give better results.

Again, for me, my SW2 is significantly below what you are playing with (I am very close to trav's stick, I just haven't done any surgery to the butt). So I don't have your problem.

Well, that's the hard thing in my mind, and that is to determine my SW2. I'm a pretty big guy at 6' and 200 pounds, and I honestly don't find a lot of difference in my ability to generate ball speed with a wide variety of weights. I've swung my daughter's racquet, all of about 8.5 ounces, and have swung my David Professional woodie and Snauwaert Ergonom, both 14+ ounces, and just don't notice a clear SW1 and SW2. Maybe I'm just strange in that way.

 

[travlerajm]

The day I hit with Midlife, it was before I had discovered the SW2 concept. I was using an NXG OS modified to play much like Blake's racquet. It was about 13.0 oz, with a 12.4" balance, and SW of about 355. It freshly strung with Kevlar hybrid at a stiff, tight 70 lbs. Just like Blake's racquet, it was a great setup for unloading on flat groundstrokes. But it was still on the SW1 side of the max-power SW. And I was putting considerable effort into my shots when I wanted to hit the ball hard. I liked the setup, but it was not very spin friendly, and I didn't stick with it for more than a few days.

Now, my racquet is down to 12.6 oz., but my swingweight is in the high 360s. My balance point is about 12.9" now, and my strings are soft broken-in 67 lbs. I've had it this way for over 4 months now - and it will be tough for me to find another setup that tops it. With my current SW2 setup, I feel like the only thing I need to worry about is my footwork. If I get my feet into position, the racquet seems to operate in autopilot, as if my racquet is programmed to hit hard deep heavy groundstrokes at the perfect depth. And unless I want to crush the ball and add a little extra for a winner, my effort level on every shot is minimal.

Midlife commented that he cannot seem to find where SW2 is. I find that the opposite is the case. If I add 1g at 12 to my current setup, then my racquet is then programmed to hit every ball to the service line. If I add 2g, then I have to labor just to get it over the net. If I subtract 1g at 12, then my racquet feels programmed to send every ball 10 feet past the baseline. In other words, a well-tuned SW2 racquet is very sensitive to SW, assuming that you are allowing the potential energy of the racquet to perform a significant portion of the work.

Midlife asserts that recognizing where the shot is going is his biggest challenge. For me, I have never seemd to have a problem getting my strings to the ball. The challenge is getting the ball to leave my strings in the right trajectory. A SW2 setup helps me immensely with that, even when the ball hits the center of the strings. Tennis for me is now a much easier game.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Paul,

Who says Connors and Mac are armswingers?

I would put Mac and Conners in the arm swinger category as well. Clearly, if you see Conners swing his forehand - the arm is highly involved in his swing.

Plus, a person who uses mostly his arm to power through a shot also has a backswing.

I'm claiming that the wood era had no armswingers. If you can find me a vid clip of an ATP player (from any era) hitting a baseline forehand drive without a high backswing, I'd love to see it. I think you you'll have to do some searching.

I would just go to Conners videos - easy.

I don't like to throw my qualifications around on this forum anymore, because some folks tend to feel like I'm condescending. But you have questioned them. I earned my degree in Biomechanical Engineering from a fairly tough tennis school, and did some coaching of top juniors alongside some pretty good well-known coaches there.

Well I guess you must have failed the "arm swinging" class. lol

For me, I look at the "arm-swinger" not from a backswing perspective but how the elbow works with the arm (i.e. independent or locked with the forward movement of the arm).

And I also helped out the men's team with charting matches. The men's team won 2 NCAA Div-I team titles during my 4 years there, that was after losing players like Mac, Wheaton, Stark, and Palmer, and before the Bryan Bros. came long. I subsequentlly earned a Ph.D in the Bioengineering field.

Still it doesn't mean you have things right.

If you are characterizing a "arm swing" from a different perspective, you most likely will come out with a different position. Still it does not mean you are right.

Weight customization is only a small part of my involvement in racquet design. I have several racquet design patents currently in-process that have nothing to do with swingweight. And as far as weight customization of tennis racquets goes, I have only shared a small fraction of my knowledge here on the forum.

LOL, does this get any better?

If there is someone who thinks he knows more about the effects of racquet design parameters on match performance than I do, I'd love to meet him. I have read every paper written by the "experts" in the field (Brody, Cross, Miller, etc.), and I assure you that I could teach them a thing or two about the the biomechanics of a tennis stroke.

LOL! Let's see, uhhhhh, we have flex, we have static weight, swing weight, handle width, material, head size, head shape, and on and on and on and on...

And as a 5.0 player who's game was initially based more on athleticism than skills (because I picked up tennis much later in life than most 5.0 players at the ripe old age of 16), I have been able to make up much ground by applying scientific principles to both my strokes and my racquet.

Hilarious.

To accuse me of being "in complete speculation mode" without actually testing for yourself whether my statements have merit is hypocritical. I may have my critics on this forum, but they are far outnumbered by folks who have posted testimonials that confirm the accuracy of my "controversial" posts. I have posted speculative theories in the past, and I have qualified them as such. This thread is not one of those. Unlike some of my posts, this thread does not really have any controversial information in it as long as you take the time to read and understand it fully.

Cheers.

(sniff, sniff) this was the saddest story I have ever read.

How dare you guys accuse someone who knows more about racquets, tennis, swings, biomechanics, tennis, NASA, sex, and world peace (did I leave anything out?). Oh, and racquet technology.

All you TW people should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[Midlife crisis]

I probably frame a ball once or twice a match. It's really not a big deal for me because about half of those go in. I use a 90 sq. in. racquet. I've tried the bigger headed racquets and THEY seem to cause me to miss more often. In other words, I have exactly the opposite experience, somewhat, from MLC.
My racquet is only 364 grams with some lead on the butt and at 12. I'm using the RDS001 90. I have classical strokes with some topspin off both wings, but nothing radical.
I couldn't serve well with the OS racquets either. Just too ugly I think. Probably all in my head, but it didn't look like tennis. Ok, call me a snob.

-Robert

Even with my 115 sq. in. racquet, I'll probably frame one ball a game. The fortunate thing is that I've fiddled and fiddled with my racquet and have gotten it to the point where I have no downsides due to the size. It has almost become a crutch to be able to use something so large and I've found I'm uncomfortable playing with anything smaller. So, I've again taken to using my JKA woodie and notice that I don't frame it that much more often, at least rallying against my son, but that's because my swing path becomes more level. Because I normally hit more topspin off my backhand than my forehand, my backhand doesn't seem to lose a lot of depth because I'm now hitting it flatter, but my already-pretty-flat forehand lands really short or hits the net if I don't catch it fully cleanly. The adjustments I have to make hit consistently deep forehands really screw me up when I go back to my regular racquet, A Prince Thunder RIP.

I also have a 95 sq. in. Chang longbody that I can use, but I haven't gotten it to work that well for me yet. I bought it well used and it's pretty flexible, and it doesn't seem to take well to a lot of weighting in the hoop nor being used with poly strings.