Continental grip guy

[CMak]

Hey, so I've been recently playing with this guy that only uses the continental grip for everything, backhand, forehand, serve, volley and so on. I've never seen anyone with this style until now. Anyone else seen other people with this kind of style?

I didn't really have a strategy when I played with him, I should have kept hitting to his backhand but I really didn't think of it until later.

 

[Ztalin]

it's called a continental grip because it can be used for everything... or at least could be. Back in the day, it was the 'universal grip.'

The guy you played must be in his 60s or something though... because it doesn't suit today's style of play.

 

[CMak]

Well there is this other guy who is 60 that I know that uses it, but the guy I played recently is like 16. Sadly, I couldn't beat him with flying colours. It seems like hitting top spin only helped him because high balls seemed to work with him and when I hit slices, he'll just slice back.

 

[Ztalin]

well... just go up to the net. I doubt he has formidable passing shots with the continental grip... lol.

 

[NLBwell]

Yeah, guys like Rod Laver would never be able to hit passing shots.

I believe Continental refers to Europe (the continent) where the grip was popular (back whenever they started naming these things - 1900's?) - lots of grass and clay. Eastern was for the eastern US - grass, clay, and hardcourts, and Western was for the Western US, particularly California, where the high bounces of the cement courts there led to a lot of people using the Western grip.

Most clay courters used Continental grips until Borg and big topspin came along. The first modern big topspin player was Laver with his Continental grip, 2 Grand Slams, huge forearm, and strong wrist.

I am an old guy and use the Continental, but have never played anyone who made me think my grip was a liability, and I regularly practiced against guys with big topspin (of course not Nadal, but I've hit with and played against Challenger level guys).

 

[Ztalin]

Yeah, guys like Rod Laver would never be able to hit passing shots.

I believe Continental refers to Europe (the continent) where the grip was popular (back whenever they started naming these things - 1900's?) - lots of grass and clay. Eastern was for the eastern US - grass, clay, and hardcourts, and Western was for the Western US, particularly California, where the high bounces of the cement courts there led to a lot of people using the Western grip.

Most clay courters used Continental grips until Borg and big topspin came along. The first modern big topspin player was Laver with his Continental grip, 2 Grand Slams, huge forearm, and strong wrist.

I am an old guy and use the Continental, but have never played anyone who made me think my grip was a liability, and I regularly practiced against guys with big topspin (of course not Nadal, but I've hit with and played against Challenger level guys).

LOL. The game has changed, gramps. There is a reason that you don't see the continental grip for basic groundstrokes nowadays (except slice), and it's because it sucks with today's racquet and string technology.

Laver was what, 2 centuries ago?

In order to be effective with passing shots, you need to be able to impart a lot of topspin on the ball. Or at least that helps passing shots tremendously. The continental grip IS a liability in that respect. Being in a state of denial doesn't change the fact. Notice how you don't see many serve and volleyers nowadays? It's because topspin makes a passing shot much more formidable; not only because of the changes in surface.

 

[NLBwell]

I love playing the young guys with the big topspin Western forehands because they look good in warmup, but never see a ball they can take a good cut at in the whole match, while with my flatter shots and hitting on the rise I can overpower them.

What I don't have is their margin for error. It's all up to how well I play.

 

[Ztalin]

I hit with a western grip off the rise, and what do you mean "take a good cut at." If I'm in good position, I'll be able to hit the ball well; unless it's a really low biting slice.

 

[Ztalin]

Also, I don't see how you could overpower good western grippers. If you hit as hard as I do, you'd need quite a bit of topspin to keep the ball in.

If roddick hit a flat forehand, it would not stay in. He has one of the most powerful forehands on tour.

 

[krz]

John McEnroe I believe used continental on all his strokes.

Continental is the universal grip for most serves as well volleys.

All though off of the ground it has mostly dissapeared as its just not well suited for todays type of game afforded to us by racket technology and especially string technology.

 

[Frank Silbermann]

LOL. The game has changed, gramps. There is a reason that you don't see the continental grip for basic groundstrokes nowadays (except slice), and it's because it sucks with today's racquet and string technology.

Or more likely, because kids start nowadays when they're really little and _everything_ is bouncing head-high or higher. And because extreme physical training with arthroscopic surgery to repair injuries allows them when they grow up to squat down for the low shots hour after hour despite their incorrect grips. (Not that the continental grip is correct, either -- except for geniuses.)

Laver was what, 2 centuries ago?

No, he was just a little while ago. (I mean, we already had the Beatles and the Space Program while he was playing.)

In order to be effective with passing shots, you need to be able to impart a lot of topspin on the ball. Or at least that helps passing shots tremendously. The continental grip IS a liability in that respect. Being in a state of denial doesn't change the fact. Notice how you don't see many serve and volleyers nowadays? It's because topspin makes a passing shot much more formidable; not only because of the changes in surface.

Actually, all you need is the amount of topspin people get off their 2-handed backhands -- which is a little less than you get with an Eastern forehand.

Bjorn Borg said he reduced his topspin when hitting passing shots, because the ball has to _pass_ the opponent -- or at least get to where his feet are. It does not good if the topspin brings the ball down three feed in front of the net-rusher -- who can simply step back a foot or two and knock off a winning ground-stroke.

 

[Ztalin]

Or more likely, because kids start nowadays when they're really little and _everything_ is bouncing head-high or higher. And because extreme physical training with arthroscopic surgery to repair injuries allows them when they grow up to squat down for the low shots hour after hour despite their incorrect grips. (Not that the continental grip is correct, either -- except for geniuses.)

No, he was just a little while ago. (I mean, we already had the Beatles and the Space Program while he was playing.)


Actually, all you need is the amount of topspin people get off their 2-handed backhands -- which is a little less than you get with an Eastern forehand.

Bjorn Borg said he reduced his topspin when hitting passing shots, because the ball has to _pass_ the opponent -- or at least get to where his feet are. It does not good if the topspin brings the ball down three feed in front of the net-rusher -- who can simply step back a foot or two and knock off a winning ground-stroke.

Uh, no, it's because of racquet and string technology.

Obviously I was exaggerating about laver.

Nadal has the best passing shots in tennis, and he uses crazy topspin.

 

[NLBwell]

Ztalin - Yes, low biting slices moving you around the court as I chip and charge (Nadal can dig a ball off of his shoetops and do a lot with it, but few other people can, it is what makes him a genius) or if I get a ball I can step into I'll just whack it into the corner. Even at the pro level, they flatten out their shots when going for a winner, because it travels faster and gets by the opponent quicker. Flatter = more velocity, less margin for error. This does not mean that I can't hit good topspin with a continental, just that I can't hit it as hard as possible 10ft over the net and have it come into the court. Sampras and Davenport hit classical forehands (Eastern, but it is the same stroke with continental) and were the hardest hitters on tour.

Frank S. is right, and makes the point that is the basis of this argument, that you don't need big topspin to hit passing shots (or any other effective shot).

 

[NLBwell]

Incidentally, I taught my son to use a forehand grip between Eastern and Semi-Westen, (still very Lansdorp looking) so I recognize the benefits of a grip like that. There are a lot of drawbacks in terms of what you can do with a full western grip forehand. He uses Continental on the BH and other shots.

 

[Ztalin]

Yeah, but you can't create the same angles with flat shots as with big topspin, nor can you dip the ball into an uncomfortable level. Nevermind the fact that topspin balls are harder to volley because of the RPM's.

Hitting an ordinary winner is a lot different situation than hitting a passing shot winner. Passing shots require you to vary the height of the ball, trajectory, and often make sharp angles. For instance, you can rip a passing shot that dips over the net at a sharp angle, hit an aggressive topspin lob, or hit a higher groundstroke with large spin down the sideline, which is an uncomfortable place to volley from. It's much harder to have variety and effectiveness with flatter shots. Which is why nadal is so good. He can hit any type of shot, with any angle, to any part of the court, with any height, etc. and still have it land in.

Are you teaching your son a 1hbh? Seems odd to have him learn with a continental. The wrist is put in an awkward position to hit good topspin on that wing, which is fundamental for today's game.

 

[Hardserve]

A good flat player can hit both loopy and flat with topspin, can open up the court just as well and keep this up all day. What's more is that they won't be as tired as the western guy who has to not only strain himself everytime to try to use all his strength to spin the ball over the net because of the grip, but that combined with all the running he will have to do against a good flat hitter will soon tire him out more quickly. A good flat hitter is bad news for a western player..

 

[Ztalin]

I've never even played on a clay court. Only carpet, decoturf (the norm), and regular outdoor hardcourt.

Lots of players do fine with western grips on hardcourt. Hell, Roddick does fine at wimbledon with it. Calling it a "clay court grip" is stupid.

 

[Frank Silbermann]

Yeah, but you can't create the same angles with flat shots as with big topspin, nor can you dip the ball into an uncomfortable level. Nevermind the fact that topspin balls are harder to volley because of the RPM's.

Hitting an ordinary winner is a lot different situation than hitting a passing shot winner. Passing shots require you to vary the height of the ball, trajectory, and often make sharp angles. For instance, you can rip a passing shot that dips over the net at a sharp angle, hit an aggressive topspin lob, or hit a higher groundstroke with large spin down the sideline, which is an uncomfortable place to volley from. It's much harder to have variety and effectiveness with flatter shots. Which is why nadal is so good. He can hit any type of shot, with any angle, to any part of the court, with any height, etc. and still have it land in.

Are you teaching your son a 1hbh? Seems odd to have him learn with a continental. The wrist is put in an awkward position to hit good topspin on that wing, which is fundamental for today's game.

Actually, heavy topspin makes it harder to be precise as to the height at which the ball crosses the net. The RPMs of heavy topspin will confuse mediocre net-players, but the good ones will be able to take the ball when it's at its peak well above the net and hit down. It may not be as difficult on clay, as the approach shot tends to set up and lets the defender measure it; perhaps that's why Nadal's magic seems to work only on clay. (I know Nadal has an extreme western forehand grip; does his backhand carry that much more topspin than everyone else's? It's the backhand that people tend to attack from the net.)

Topspin is the least important on the down-the-line passes, where you have the whole court for the ball to drop into. The main thing is to get the ball _past_ the net-man before he can get to it.

Laver hit great topspin lobs with his continental grip. Though it's easier to spin the ball with the western, it's harder to get under it and lift it up high -- which is what you need to do on _any_ lob.

As for the one-handed backhand, whether or not you use a strong eastern for topspin you still need the continental for slice, so you can learn either first. The argument for learning the topspin first is to make sure you do learn it (a soft slice is so much easier to learn). But there are going to be many retrievals that simply cannot be topspun from a one-hander, and there will be many retrievals which simply cannot be returned at all using an extreme eastern (western) backhand grip. So there's definitely a point of view that says begin with the shot that you can hit off of any ball, and later add the shot you'll only be able to hit off of some balls.

 

[Silent]

I've never even played on a clay court. Only carpet, decoturf (the norm), and regular outdoor hardcourt.

Lots of players do fine with western grips on hardcourt. Hell, Roddick does fine at wimbledon with it. Calling it a "clay court grip" is stupid.

Could you be more condescendent ?

 

[AJK1]

Laver, McEnroe, continental on everything

 

[Hardserve]

Well then you're well on your way to tennis elbow.
Hardcourts place more strain on Western players
because the ball is coming through alot faster
off that surface than it does on clay.

 

[Ztalin]

Oh give me a break. Touring pros can play for 20+ years(including pre-professional), hitting incredibly hard groundstrokes, without getting tennis elbow, and they play how many hours each day? I don't play enough to get injuries like that.

Could you be more condescendent ?

He edited his post before you read them. He was basically implying that I'm an idiot for using a western grip on hardcourts. Yeah, ofcourse I'm going to respond to ignorance like that with a condescending tone.

 

[Hardserve]

Excuse me, this is not a personal issue, please focus on the main general issue, all I was saying is that using The western, or extreme western grips is not wise, puts greater stress on the wrist, so I've been told, that's why I don't recommend using it.

 

[Slazenger]

Hey, so I've been recently playing with this guy that only uses the continental grip for everything, backhand, forehand, serve, volley and so on. I've never seen anyone with this style until now. Anyone else seen other people with this kind of style?

I didn't really have a strategy when I played with him, I should have kept hitting to his backhand but I really didn't think of it until later.

If the all continental grip player is a serve and volleyer, that is another story. But if this person is all continental and a baseliner, heavy topspin does the trick. Especially to the forehand. In my experience continental forehands are more likely to produce errors than continental backhands.


The grip is a disadvantage, at least on the forehand side, if you are a baseliner.

 

[Frank Silbermann]

If you go to the net against a continental player, try hitting your approach down the middle. Despite the lack of heavy topspin, continental players can hit some wicked angles due to greater leverage on the racket for cross-courts. But it is difficult for them to hit inside-out with any sort of power.

They said that continental hero Fred Perry was more dangerous when running wide than when you hit the ball right to him.

 

[The Gorilla]

that's interesting, sampras used an eastern and the same could definitly be said about him.

 

[35ft6]

Last time I saw a "regular" guy with this grip was a teaching pro in Los Angeles. He was pretty good. You could tell he played seriously at some point.

Gianlucca Pozzi was the last ATP pro I saw with a continental grip on everything. He didn't have ridiculous power but he could put surprising stick on this shots, and he looked smooth.

It's weird when I see guys with continental forehands hitting the ball with some heat. It just doesn't seem possible.

 

[batakdepores]

When someone makes a bold statement about something cannot be done, the next thing that happens is he/she is proven wrong.

Personally I cannot hit with a western grip, yet I don't know what my true grip is (I know it's not western). Once a coach change my backswing to incorporate more spin, but she did not quite care what grip I was using. I saw a Tiger Wood's interview a few months back and heard how Tiger changed his swing twice after his debut at the Master, to be better at golf. So I guess both Continental and Western grips can learn to incorporate a effective topspin (for net clearance/less margin of error) and a consistent flat shot, respectively.

Because to pick an extreme example like Nadal and how he can hit all the shots, it's all too easy to say that how many of us are ambidextrous, have your dominant biceps as big as his less dominant biceps (at nineteen I might add), a talented athlete, and Michael-Chang-but-much-taller-built-legs? The same goes for McEnroe and the list goes on.

So, just use your preferred grip and perfected to the max. Use the "you can't this and you can't that" as a motivational challenge for your next practice.

 

[LuckyR]

Quoting what Laver, McEnroe, Nadal and Roddick can do with their grips is a smoke screen of an argument on this Forum. At the Club level there are numerous Eastern grip folks who can beat Western grip folks and vice versa. Very few of us who are not Pros have maximized what a particular grip has to offer. Stepping onto a court, observing that someone has a Continental grip then assuming that you can easily win if you just hit to their backhand is a huge error of judgement.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

I play with some older people who exclusively use Continental for Everything in my club. For most part they hit flat or slice and volleys.
My game matches up pretty well with them. I like people charging to the net as they always give me a target spot to hit to and ..presto. point in the bag.

The only thing that i find working for them seems to be that , i hit a great shot and made a mistake few times assuming that it wont come back. Because they use continental (or some other reason) they were able to block that shot back and put the ball in play forcing me to hit another shot.

However i agree that it is play level that matters. I would say that if two similar level players are playing and one of them uses Continental exclusively, i would give the other guy an edge all other factors being equal.

 

[Jonny S&V]

The continental grip is a good grip that can be used on everything no matter the racquet or the player you are playing. NLBwell uses a continental grip because he was taught like that. The only reason he still uses the continental is that he probably has a very strong wrist, and in that way he can use it to stand up to players with the big western grips. Players who use a western grip succeed in spite of the grip, not because of it. Almost every dominant force in tennis has not used a western (the only one that I can think of is Nadal, Borg used more of a semi-western than a western). Federer (SWish), Sampras (Eastern), Agassi (SW), Becker (Strong Eastern), Wilander (SW), etc... Very few players have done well with a western grip, not on clay that is. Now that I think about it, Henri Leconte used a continental, and he is about the most varied player around (and if he was on, could beat anyone on any given day).

 

[dennis10is]

It is not the grip, it is the player.

It is not the racket, it is the player.

It is not how many arms you use, it is the player.

So, are you a player? Or, are you re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titantic?

 

[CMak]

If the all continental grip player is a serve and volleyer, that is another story. But if this person is all continental and a baseliner, heavy topspin does the trick. Especially to the forehand. In my experience continental forehands are more likely to produce errors than continental backhands.


The grip is a disadvantage, at least on the forehand side, if you are a baseliner.

That's what I thought at first. My forehand does have quite a bit of top spin but it seems like he favours the high balls. I know he isn't a serve and volleyer for sure. I've just decided to try and move him around more because he's kind of lazy especially towards his body.

 

[35ft6]

What amazes me about using the continental grip for every stroke is how long the method lasted. Granted, when it was first developed, in the time of wooden rackets and grass courts, it wasn't as bad an idea as it seems now. I could just see the "experts" talking about how many things could go wrong with switching grips all the time. My first teaching pro tried to teach me a continental forehand and it just felt wrong, and I was only 11 or so. I went to a western forehand on my own pretty much, the stroke felt more natural with the palm behind the ball. But it's interesting how dogma exists in sports, how methods that are inferior (sorry, the only advantage of a continental forehand is you don't have to switch grips, and I just don't see that as a very significant advantage if at all...) keep getting perpetuated by teaching pros who resists every innovation. Like the western forehand, swinging volley, and open stance forehand.

But I haven't seen a guy with a continental grip forehand under the age of 35 in a long time. In 60 years, I wonder if anybody will be using it at all unless Mac is still playing.

 

[The Gorilla]

actually the first grip was the full western forehand, pioneered by little bill johnston, the next was the eastern grip, pioneered by big bill tilden, who wrote in various instructional books that the continental grip was conducive to weak forehands, then the age of serve and volleying came about and people couldn't be bothered to learn proper groundstrokes, bill tilden wrote about this state of affairs frequently, despairing of the future of tennis.

 

[35ft6]

actually the first grip was the full western forehand, pioneered by little bill johnston, the next was the eastern grip, pioneered by big bill tilden, who wrote in various instructional books that the continental grip was conducive to weak forehands, then the age of serve and volleying came about and people couldn't be bothered to learn proper groundstrokes, bill tilden wrote about this state of affairs frequently, despairing of the future of tennis.

Wow. That's very interesting. Especially since the consensus here seems to be that volleying is the highest expression of tennis skill, and guys with great dependable groundstrokes are often under-appreciated (I'm talking about you, Davydenko).

The part about conducive to weak forehands I knew within a few seconds. Not even sure what grip I was using when I first started hitting with my friend using a racket we found in his garage. All I knew was that the continental grip just felt biomechanically "wrong."

 

[dennis10is]

What amazes me about using the continental grip for every stroke is how long the method lasted. Granted, when it was first developed, in the time of wooden rackets and grass courts, it wasn't as bad an idea as it seems now. I could just see the "experts" talking about how many things could go wrong with switching grips all the time. My first teaching pro tried to teach me a continental forehand and it just felt wrong, and I was only 11 or so. I went to a western forehand on my own pretty much, the stroke felt more natural with the palm behind the ball. But it's interesting how dogma exists in sports, how methods that are inferior (sorry, the only advantage of a continental forehand is you don't have to switch grips, and I just don't see that as a very significant advantage if at all...) keep getting perpetuated by teaching pros who resists every innovation. Like the western forehand, swinging volley, and open stance forehand.

But I haven't seen a guy with a continental grip forehand under the age of 35 in a long time. In 60 years, I wonder if anybody will be using it at all unless Mac is still playing.

My..my, aren't you being dogmatic yourself? Saying that the style that you play with is clearly the more advanced style? Dogma exist everywhere, so why should you be surprise that it existed, but you should also not be surprised if it exist in you also. Dogma is pervasive. That coach who tried to force you to use a different grip than the one that you are comfortable with is dogmatic and I don't agree with his/her decision. I used to coach and in all of my discussion with other coaches or in my coaching classes. We did not obsess over grip like the people here. Whatever grip the student feels comfortable with, we work with it. The grip you use, typically determine the style of player you will likely become but that isn't set in stone either, and neither is your grip permanent, you may change. I think that players here and in parks and clubs everywhere are focusing on things that don't matter. It is not the gear and it is not a simple grip that determines how well you play. There is no shortcut to becomig a good and complete player.

Broad statements, such as it is obvious that this is better than that, that only stupid people or people who are deceiving themselves refuse to see the obvious. Well, if you look at anything, anything deeply enough, it isn't that obvious. The argument that everyone else believes in the same thing, therefore it must be true is so wrong that I won't even start except to give some examples of clearly obvious things that people believe it in the past, and if you or I were living back then, we would 99.99% believe it too.

Washing yourselves is bad for your health.
There is so such thing as germs because you can see it.
The earth is flat. The earth is the center of the universe.
People of my color (pick your color) was created special by the creator (pick a creator) and the other people are inferior.

If you live long enough, or read enough of history, you will find that things aren't that clear cut. Right now, so many people believe in the current style of tennis, calling it modern tennis, which is so funny because when I was a kid, they called that modern tennis too. I guess every period is the latest and greatest and clearly superior.


History has shown that Hall of Famers have been using all types of grips, styles, one hand, two hand. Success, great success can not be reduce to something that trivial. If it was, I would wake up and go to the park and see all these people with western forehand hitting heavy topspin but I don't.

 

[35ft6]

My..my, aren't you being dogmatic yourself?

Dogma is when something is adhered to out of tradition, with no evidence to back it up. If I believe in evolution, that's not dogma. If I believe in creationism, dogma.

If the pro tour is the ultimate test of survival of the fittest in terms of techniques and methods that are actually proven to work, as opposed to theory where you can say "this is the best style, I just know it, and the only reason this style doesn't work is nobody implements it correctly" than the results speak for themselves -- no continental grip forehand in the top 100, perhaps top 200, maybe even top 500. That speaks for itself. I can cite that, I don't have to resort to dogma. Likewise, continental grip is superior for serves, better than semi-western grip, and I'm not being dogmatic when I say that.

I don't think you understand what dogma means.

 

[NLBwell]

Gee, now we've gotten into a history lesson and a philosophical discussion of evolution and creationism.

 

[swisser]

im only 13 i have a continiel grip and i can creat topspin pretty well on fore hand and 2hbh. passes are ease for cont because they are best for reverse forehands which are low.

 

[travlerajm]

Years from now, a great serve-and-volleyer will rise up and become unbeatable on all surfaces. He will chip and charge at every opportunity - and people won't care that he never uses Nadal-like spins. Contrary to the once-popular belief, he will be able to hit passing shots!
His continental grip will be the envy of juniors around the globe. And the continental grip will reign again!

 

[NamRanger]

Continental baseliners can only keep up with semi-western to western grip players for so long. Once you get up to about the 4.5-5.0 level then the heavy spinning balls take their toll on you. A continental forehand will collapse against a heavy forehand hit to it, there's just not enough leverage behind the racquet to push back against the heavy spin.

 

[travlerajm]

Continental baseliners can only keep up with semi-western to western grip players for so long. Once you get up to about the 4.5-5.0 level then the heavy spinning balls take their toll on you. A continental forehand will collapse against a heavy forehand hit to it, there's just not enough leverage behind the racquet to push back against the heavy spin.

That's what lead tape is for!

 

[NamRanger]

That's what lead tape is for!

Lead tape doesn't mean anything when your hand and wrist aren't behind to push the racquet into the ball. Because the wrist is actually above the racquet, you don't have that much stability, and you don't get enough body weight transferred itno the shot. But I'm pretty sure you're joking

 

[dennis10is]

Dogma is when something is adhered to out of tradition, with no evidence to back it up. If I believe in evolution, that's not dogma. If I believe in creationism, dogma.

If the pro tour is the ultimate test of survival of the fittest in terms of techniques and methods that are actually proven to work, as opposed to theory where you can say "this is the best style, I just know it, and the only reason this style doesn't work is nobody implements it correctly" than the results speak for themselves -- no continental grip forehand in the top 100, perhaps top 200, maybe even top 500. That speaks for itself. I can cite that, I don't have to resort to dogma. Likewise, continental grip is superior for serves, better than semi-western grip, and I'm not being dogmatic when I say that.

I don't think you understand what dogma means.

I meant that you are being dogmatic when you believe that the current lack of continental grip in the top 500 means that forever and ever it will not come back, no matter what happens. That is dogmatic. I did not state that the Continental grip is best, what I'm saying is that the short history of tennis, say 100 years, isn't enough to conclude that a particular grip is deficient in comparison to the other grips. The logical structure of what you are saying would be something like this.

I see no women or people of color have ever been President of the United States. Hence, it does no good to think that a women or a person of Color would be President in the future. After all, the Presidency of the United States is the ultimate survival of the fittest test of true leadership and women and people of color have not been President hence you will conclude that women and people of color are deficient compare to white males in regards to their ability to be President.

Or, with your logic, you may conclude that the lack of blacks or asian in the top echelon of tennis means that blacks and asian are not able to play tennis as well as whites or hispanics (now that the Spanish armada is in full steam).

If you are familiar with the term "The Null Hypothesis" in science, my statement is the Null Hypothesis, a very conservative statement, not conservative in the political or religious sense. Furthermore, it is very common for people to assume a difference where none exist. The overwhelming evidence suggest that most things are NOT different from each other. However, we like to feel that we know things, and the easiest why to delude ourselves that we know something is to make a statement of difference. Democrats are different than Republicans, 1bh is better than 2bh, north is better than south, men are better than women, illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crime tha legal immigrants, that we are somehow better than our neighbors, strange they feel the same way

The reality is that most distinctions are false.

 

[NLBwell]

Continental baseliners can only keep up with semi-western to western grip players for so long. Once you get up to about the 4.5-5.0 level then the heavy spinning balls take their toll on you. A continental forehand will collapse against a heavy forehand hit to it, there's just not enough leverage behind the racquet to push back against the heavy spin.

Oh yeah - didn't McEnroe just beat Courier a couple of weeks ago? - and didn't he just win an ATP doubles tournament last year? Of course he could never beat a 4.5 with a western grip.

I've beatern plenty of 5.0 and 4.5 guys with western grips and big topspin.

In fact, the best I played in recent years was when I regularly used to practice with a guy who played at Univ. of Kansas who had a western grip and very big topspin. It improved my timing by attempting to hit every ball on the rise.

 

[AlpineCadet]

Continental baseliners can only keep up with semi-western to western grip players for so long. Once you get up to about the 4.5-5.0 level then the heavy spinning balls take their toll on you. A continental forehand will collapse against a heavy forehand hit to it, there's just not enough leverage behind the racquet to push back against the heavy spin.

I agree 100% here. Just watch Nadal when he plays against the lower ranked players.

 

[NLBwell]

AlpineCadet - I thought you were smarter than that. I just proved it wrong by beating 5.0 western grip players. McEnroe proves it wrong by beating western-grip players who are at least 5.0. I wouldn't call Nadal a 5.0, either.

As I said in my previous posts, I taught my son a Semi-western grip, so I realize the modern game is not Continental-friendly, but to say one grip-type can not beat another is silly.

Saying Nadal proves the point is like saying that since Borg won the French and Wimbledon in the 70's no one with a one-hand backhand could ever beat anyone with a two handed backhand. That would be dogmatic.

OMG, now I'm getting sucked into the dogma philosophy black hole!

 

[travlerajm]

Lead tape doesn't mean anything when your hand and wrist aren't behind to push the racquet into the ball. Because the wrist is actually above the racquet, you don't have that much stability, and you don't get enough body weight transferred itno the shot. But I'm pretty sure you're joking

Actually, I'm not joking. With a stock racquet, the tightness of your grip has a significant effect on your shot. But if you lead your racquet up to 365 SW, and counterweight enough in the butt so that the balance point is 12.5" or so, it doesn't matter much what grip you have, because the racquet behaves more like a wall when the ball hits it. The racquet has enough of its own momentum that you can relax the grip before contact and it will still give you the same amount of power.

 

[NLBwell]

travlerajm - I never really thought about it before in terms of playing guys with big spin, but my rackets weigh between 13.5 and 14.2 ounces.