Defending your contact point.

kiteboard

Banned
The contact point for your groundies and volleys is the same distance in front of you, regardless of height, pace, spin or speed of the incoming ball. The next time you go out and practice, focus on maintaining a relaxed upper body, tensed lower body, relaxed arms and chest, and breathing, and wait for the ball to arrive at that exact point, within millimeters. Then as you succeed, your control will go through the roof, and your confidence will rise, as if you can place the ball anywhere with any type of pace/spin/depth. Those hitting with you will feel the power and control increase in your shots as well.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Of course, depends on grip.
One of my worst problems is switching shots from defensive slice backhands (conti with eForehand flavor), to offensive topspin backhands (strong eBackhand) grips. Strikespoint gots to be easy 12" difference in front of my leading shoulder.
 

kiteboard

Banned
Exactly. Depends on the grip, but all shots off that grip should be at the same point in front of you, regardless of incoming shot.
 

kiteboard

Banned
The ht. does not matter. It's the distance that has to be the same regardless of ht. That's the point. Puts you into a focus/trance state.
 
Last edited:
This is why anticipation, footwork and spacing is so important.

After the initial run to the ball, the small adjusting steps to get to exactly the right spacing is crucial.

It's also why it takes so much practice to get good at getting the exact right spacing for balls coming from crosscourt and down the line and with different pace and spin.

Until your footwork and spacing skills are "automatic", it's hard to really start constructing points.
 

jester911

Rookie
Agree to a point. For a down the line shot I take the ball a fraction later or closer than a cross court shot. The contact point needs to be consistent just as the swing does though, yes.
 

tennytive

Hall of Fame
Not arguing your point, but wouldn't the better players be able to do more with balls *not* in their contact zone?
Yes, the best players have the footwork to get there more than we do, but I wonder about the benefit of being able to do more with the ball when not in the ideal contact point.
This is more related to doubles or net play for singles.
 

kiteboard

Banned
The whole point of the post was, to make contact at the same place in front regardless of ideal/incoming shots. Just go out and try it, and you will focus like never before.
 
C

chico9166

Guest
The whole point of the post was, to make contact at the same place in front regardless of ideal/incoming shots. Just go out and try it, and you will focus like never before.

Basically agree with this opinion. This is the essence of timing, that is, good players hit the ball at a certain point in space, a vast majority of time, regardless of situation. This requires a player to play from different stances, use different footwork patterns, and backswing lengths.

Contact point, though, is pretty much the constant in the equation.
 

yellowoctopus

Professional
hm - I thought this maybe dependent on the grip.
Of course, depends on grip.
Exactly. Depends on the grip, but all shots off that grip should be at the same point in front of you, regardless of incoming shot.

Edgerton+-+1.jpg


Hmm...but according to claims above, which I agree, and the logic below, which I don't fully, there might also be a relationship between contact point to player's height and 'energy'??

[From another thread on Grips] http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5311022
Of couse, depends...
Tall person, little energy, eastern.
Short person, tons of excess energy, semi western.
Short person, no energy, eastern.
Tall person, bouncing off the walls, semi western.
Medium height person, no energy, eastern.
Medium height person, tons of energy, either.
What is "short", "medium", and "tall" ?
 
Last edited:

DavaiMarat

Professional
The title of your thread reminded me of this...

http://www.tennis-in-the-zone.com/

....though I agree with some parts of fixed focal vs variable focus depth theories I have to conclude, recreational players who apply this theory usually end up with punchy and abbreviated strokes. You still need to take a full cut at the ball...and defend your invisible wall (contact point).
 

dozu

Banned
if ball height is the only variable, then the contact point is dependent on the grip and the stance.

in a rotational type of swing, the body clears way ahead of the arm coming thru, and therefore kiteboard's point makes sense - regardless of ball height, the contact can be defended at this much distance in front of the hitting shoulder.

however, in a closed stance, more classic action with Eastern and Conti, since the core doesn't clear as much, then anatomically speaking a later contact is required for a higher ball, in order for the hitting arm not to crash into the chest. The action feels somewhat similar to a hook shot in basketball.

I think many classic style players may have such experience of awkwardness hitting a high FH with closed stance, and the above is the explanation.
 

dozu

Banned
to avoid the arm crashing into the chest, you either have a later contact, or you let the arm fly over your head... which you see many pros do when they run to their right.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
to avoid the arm crashing into the chest, you either have a later contact, or you let the arm fly over your head... which you see many pros do when they run to their right.

Yes, the reverse FH. So I don't see how the contact point is defended here versus the case of ball closer to you.
 
Top