Del Potro doesn't pat the dog. check out his girly WTA push strokes.

[rkelley]

We measured Delpo's forehand spin and it's still well over 2000rpm--higher than Sampras and Agassi though less than Fed or Djok. His forehand may be relatively flat in the modern game but it is far from flat.

There are a lot of ways to win points from the baseline. One is hit screaming forehand lasers through the court against best players in the world. Under at least some circumstances and combinations of opponent and court surface, Del Potro has shown he can do that.

John, as always thanks. Love the data and the comparisons with some the greats from just a few years ago.

 

[LeeD]

Doubt anyone here thinks DelPo hits a ball anywhere near WTA levels.
Not only does his shots go faster, but they have tons more topspin.
Just not as much topspin for ball speed, as the Spanish contingent's.

 

[sureshs]

JY: are your spin numbers top spin + side spin, or only top spin?

 

[LeeD]

Not John, of course.
I thought we already established that most players hit most of their topspin shots with some amount of sidespin component, either a little, or a lot.

 

[sureshs]

Not John, of course.
I thought we already established that most players hit most of their topspin shots with some amount of sidespin component, either a little, or a lot.

What is the meaning of this post? Who is not John and why is that obvious?

 

[LeeD]

I not John, or JY, of course, you know that.
We just spent a bunch of threads talking about the sidespin component of most topspin strokes, didn't we?
Wouldn't it be difficult to delineate sidespin from topspin, since most shots are a combination of both?

 

[JohnYandell]

Suresh, Lee,

Yeah we would need basically 3 dimensional filming to truly separate out the sidespin component.

The numbers are total revolutions, but the huge range of positions on the court from which the ball is struck plus angles of the shots combined with the angles of the cameras make it impossible to accurately see the ratios.

We were able to do this on the serve because of the stationary position of the players and the relatively identical contact points from serve to serve.

The highest topspin components we saw in the serves was 30%.

I suspect it's probably the reverse on the topspin groundstrokes--very roughly something like 70% or more topspin. Occasionally when things line up just right it seems like virtually pure topspin and probably something close to that is possible. But it would be fascinating to see the differences say comparing inside out versus inside in, hooking crosscourt versus directly down the line, etc.

And RK,

Thank you. I know I can't be the only one out there that wants to understand this stuff...

 

[sureshs]

I not John, or JY, of course, you know that.
We just spent a bunch of threads talking about the sidespin component of most topspin strokes, didn't we?
Wouldn't it be difficult to delineate sidespin from topspin, since most shots are a combination of both?

OK you are a couple of steps ahead of me. So you clarified that you were not John and referred to discussion in other threads.

 

[LeeD]

No biggee. At least you didn't call me a "65 year old". I'll prolly be in my grave by then.

 

[5263]

Isn't it stating the obvious that Del Potro's style generally works for him? He's ranked #8 in the world right now. That's not too bad in the grand scheme of things.

However, against Djokovic there is a guy who can apparently handle the pace the Del Potro dishes out and stay in a rally long enough that Del Potro's relatively higher risk, potentially higher reward ball falls to the side of risk - i.e. he misses.

This is seems like basic tennis to me. .

yep, well said.

 

[5263]

The highest topspin components we saw in the serves was 30%.

I suspect it's probably the reverse on the topspin groundstrokes--very roughly something like 70% or more topspin. .

So what does 30% or 70% refer to here? What type measurement is being
referenced?
% of what? Are we talking degrees in one direction?

 

[FrisbeeFool]

OP is an idiot.

Thank you.

 

[5263]

We measured Delpo's forehand spin and it's still well over 2000rpm--higher than Sampras and Agassi though less than Fed or Djok. His forehand may be relatively flat in the modern game but it is far from flat.

I think this discussion is mostly about trajectory, and not so much about spin revs.

 

[Jeff Salzenstein]

Look, Jeff is a good guy and we have talked a bit. He is a fine player and working
to build an instruction based career. He is smart to use certain names and
associations in the manner he does. Don't be confused though, as Jeff's instruction
is rooted in modern tennis and has studied it from Oscar. He has also referenced him
a few times on his site.

Many are impressed by certain names for
one reason or another. Lansdorp has had tremendous success related to him thru
the years, but that in NO WAY means that everything he does is correct.
His successes are based on many items and there is plenty of room for a mistake
here and there. His predictions about how the game would be played have been
180 out, so it seems to me his vision for the sport's technique was quite flawed.
I'm pretty familiar with RL and his work since he was one who I studied for the
very reasons you like him, and was a pretty good coach and player even then,
but my ball striking and coaching of technique really took a turn for the better
when I discovered better modern instruction and realized how far RL was off in
that aspect of the game. None of that is to say that RL is not at the top in
several other areas. There is a lot more to the game than swing technique.

I just jumped into TW today to see what has been written recently. I want to set the record straight on what was written by 5263. If we have spoken, maybe you can let me know who you are so we can chat again sometime.

I want to point out that me mentioning various coaches I have worked with has nothing to do with being smart and everything to do with giving credit to those great coaches who have come before me. I am forever grateful for them helping me understand the game of tennis better.

I want to be very clear that I have created my own systematic teaching system from ALL of the coaches and mentors that I have interacted with. I spent about 3 days in Florida with Oscar once and have also studied his material via videos and books. I have also studied with numerous other coaches for far longer periods of time.

To say I have studied the modern game from Oscar is an inaccurate statement. He is one of many coaches that has helped shape my philosophy and I've learned a lot from many other coaches as well (Landsdorp, Baskin, Macci, Jones, O'Shaugnessy, O'Dwyer, Yandell, etc etc) I have also developed my philosophies from my own experimentation and video analysis.

 

[sureshs]

........................

 

[5263]

I spent about 3 days in Florida with Oscar once and have also studied his material via videos and books.
----------
To say I have studied the modern game from Oscar is an inaccurate statement.

Really?
Some of this is just a matter of perspective Imo and of course you can see it
how you like. I've seen some of your instruction where you credited Oscar
directly along with your work with him as you mention again above. From my perspective
those other coaches don't represent modern instruction for the most part
as I use the term, but maybe your use of that term is more inline with "current"
rather than what is properly termed "modern".

My comments on your instruction being rooted in "modern Tennis" was more
of an observation of what I saw in much of your instruction, while I also clearly
saw some deviations as well. Maybe I should have been more clear on that, but
either way, nothing I stated was inaccurate and think the 2 quotes
above don't really jive that well. It seems you did study "modern Tennis" from
& with Oscar, along with a lot of other tennis study with other top coaches.
I never said you studied only or even mainly from Oscar. Personally I think it
is "Smart" to give credit to the coaches who came before you, but again, you
can see it differently.