For players who are not total tennis beginners, the comprehension of biomechanics related tennis stroke is as important as everyday practices. Practice repeatedly for certain elements of stroke without achieving higher comprehension of related biomechanics, the benefits won't speed up to a higher playing level. On the other hand, some awakening of understanding of biomechanics can speed up training and the skill improvement.

In my case, I realized the importance of hitting the forehand with an open wrist. Then applied it to my open tennis serve before the summer last year. That was time I wrote the article "Open Tennis Serve Techniques" - An Introduction to Wrist Extension Tennis Serve (WETS) -

Open Tennis Serve Techniques (WETS)

Here, I won't repeat what were said in that paper; instead, I like to explore this topic from a different angle.

The kinetic chain of every tennis stroke involves muscle groups from big toes to little fingers of our body. So the division of labor and delegation of tasks make sense. I'm not a boi-mechanical major graduate, nor an expert to explain how each muscle group works. I'm just use a layman's experiences to say what I understand.

An often used term "hitting" comes to my mind. In hitting the tennis, almost every muscle groups of body are involved, even the eyes, to say the obvious. But not everything is created equal. For example, which muscle group does the hitting most, or should do the hitting most? A beginner may just use the arm as his/her main hitting tool, with no or very little involvement of lower body muscle groups (beside using the legs to support the whole body). On the other hand, advanced players let the arm just holding the racket in a right grip and right position for meeting the ball with an evolving racket face. Federer's forehand is the best example. If one watches his ideal forehand in a slow motion, the arm looks pretty much stationary relative to the main body after the Pat the Dog point. His wrist is kept at extension state throughout before and immediately after the contact point. Put this into the context of a beginner forehand, the arm is not the one that does the hitting. Understanding of this is crucial to comprehend and to know how the division of labor and delegation of tasks work for modern forehand.

Instead using the term hitting, I'd like to use the term "absorbing the ball" in the context of division of labor and delegation of tasks for the hitting arm. In short, the hitting arm should not do the hitting. Its main task is to absorbing the ball so it can stay longer on the string bed. The best way to do this is keeping the wrist at extension state, letting the whole arm loose, letting the whole arm passive, not active. This is the model of Federer's forehand.

In this model or style, there is almost no isolated forward and cross body swing by the arm before the contact point. The perceived swings are all done by the lower body muscle groups, ie, they are the ones that does the hitting, not the arm. A video of Federer's forehand can clearly show this -

Roger Federer - Forehands in Slow Motion

So delegating and maximizing the body to hit the ball, and delegating and maximizing the arm to absorb the ball (minimizing the arm to hit the ball) are the utmost things to comprehend mentally and practicing physically to achieve high level forehand performance. Doing otherwise will cut short the ball stay and wasting big muscle groups' hitting potential. These are the fundamental reasonings behind my published articles "Forehand Serve" and "Open Tennis Serve Techniques".
 
The arm is not passive, although it is helped by the 'main body' as you call it. It's a big big misconception to think that the legs and trunk do **all** the work on groundstrokes.

The arms active roles are in internal shoulder rotation, internal forearm rotation, and bicep contraction all occurring around the moment of contact.

While it's true that most of the power comes from using your body to lift and rotate, maximally effective strokes utilize the entire body *including the arm* in synchronization. That's really what the kinetic chain is all about. That's what Federer is actually demonstrating in the video you linked.

"The best way to do this is keeping the wrist at extension state, letting the whole arm loose, letting the whole arm passive, not active. This is the model of Federer's forehand."

What you're suggesting with the above quote is to 'shut off' part of the chain-- literally antithetical to the entire concept of 'kinetic chain' and also completely opposite of what Federer is doing. It's very obvious that Federer is relaxed and using his body to assist his arm, sure, but it's also obvious that he is actively pulling and rotating the racquet at contact with his arm. The key part here is that the pull and rotation with the arm is synchronized with the lift and rotation from the trunk and legs. Understanding that synchronization is essentially synonymous with understanding the kinetic chain.
 
Last edited:
Just wrote a short article -
Division of Labor and Delegation of Task In Tennis Strokes (a Forehand Example)

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/divi...nnis-forehand-example-gary-e-lou/?published=t

Your critiques are welcome.

You list "pat the dog" and "absorbing the ball" in your piece and though I find those to be useful analogies I don't find them to be terms of biomechanics which is the study of the mechanical laws relating to the movement or structure of living organisms.

I disagree with your premise: the comprehension of biomechanics related tennis stroke is as important as everyday practices BUT you may be misusing the term biomechanics.

If you mean verbal cues and analogies such as the ones made famous by Rick Macci are extremely useful then I agree 100% but a deep understanding of biomechanics is not evident in this piece nor is it helpful to students learning tennis.

Could you explain more by what you mean by a division of labor on the forehand?

I assume English is your second language so I suggest having someone on fiverr translate your piece for you into English.
Good luck with it!

 
Have you ever read the inner game of tennis? They go over how the mind and body are seperate, the mind the gives the order and the body does what was requested. 2 seperate entities.

I like to correlate it to the road warrior movie. The midget sat on the giants shoulders, giving orders, delegating.
 
Have you ever read the inner game of tennis? They go over how the mind and body are seperate, the mind the gives the order and the body does what was requested. 2 seperate entities.

I like to correlate it to the road warrior movie. The midget sat on the giants shoulders, giving orders, delegating.

That's not what the Inner Game was about, I've read it several times.

Inner Game is all about how you will perform better when the 'midget giving orders' quietly trusts the 'giant'. The book is about how the whole 'giving orders' process is actually ineffective and inhibits good play.


There is the illusion of there being a midget giving orders, but in reality the midget is along for the ride and the giant doesn't have any clue what the midget is talking about
 
The arm is not passive, although it is helped by the 'main body' as you call it. It's a big big misconception to think that the legs and trunk do **all** the work on groundstrokes.

The arms active roles are in internal shoulder rotation, internal forearm rotation, and bicep contraction all occurring around the moment of contact.

While it's true that most of the power comes from using your body to lift and rotate, maximally effective strokes utilize the entire body *including the arm* in synchronization. That's really what the kinetic chain is all about. That's what Federer is actually demonstrating in the video you linked.

"The best way to do this is keeping the wrist at extension state, letting the whole arm loose, letting the whole arm passive, not active. This is the model of Federer's forehand."

What you're suggesting with the above quote is to 'shut off' part of the chain-- literally antithetical to the entire concept of 'kinetic chain' and also completely opposite of what Federer is doing. It's very obvious that Federer is relaxed and using his body to assist his arm, sure, but it's also obvious that he is actively pulling and rotating the racquet at contact with his arm. The key part here is that the pull and rotation with the arm is synchronized with the lift and rotation from the trunk and legs. Understanding that synchronization is essentially synonymous with understanding the kinetic chain.

"It's very obvious that Federer is relaxed and using his body to assist his arm, sure, but it's also obvious that he is actively pulling and rotating the racquet at contact with his arm. "

Should it be the other way around. Instead of "using his body to assist his arm", we should using the hitting arm to assist our body", if you also agree that the body is the is the one which does the bulk of hitting.

"it's also obvious that he is actively pulling and rotating the racquet at contact with his arm. ", I totally agree with you on this. The arm is not doing nothing, nor completely be shut off in the kinetic chain. It is the link between the body and the racket, and I also wrote that "... advanced players let the arm just holding the racket in a right grip and right position for meeting the ball with an evolving racket face. ". In order "for meeting the ball with an evolving racket face", the arm and shoulder need to rotate, not completely passive. When I say "passive arm", I mean to let the arm not doing the active forward swing, and to soften the impact of ball contact, absorbing the counter force of the ball when it gets hit. To say another way, the arm should do everything possible to let the body to do the hitting, minimize arm's contribution in generating forward momentum. If we increase the percentage of arm in generating forward momentum, we must decrease body's percentage. Both cannot be increased at the same time, right? So, if the arm does more hitting, it will deprive body's contribution somewhat. This will be a 'gain little' and 'lose big' game.
 
If we increase the percentage of arm in generating forward momentum, we must decrease body's percentage. Both cannot be increased at the same time, right?So, if the arm does more hitting, it will deprive body's contribution somewhat. This will be a 'gain little' and 'lose big' game.

No. It's additive-assuming proper synchronization.
 
Could you explain more by what you mean by a division of labor on the forehand?
To make the discussion simpler, let's focus on the momentum generation (both forward and cross body), disregard arm's role in changing racket face and landing the ball in the sweet spot and so on. A short answer to this question is to keep the arm's role minimal to maximum body's role. Otherwise, as I said in the previous reply, the result will likely to be a 'gain little' (by the arm) and 'lose big' (for the body).

If we minimize the momentum generation role for the arm, we maximize its absorbing role so the ball can stay on the string bed longer, so the body can have more time to drive the ball.
 
That's not what the Inner Game was about, I've read it several times.

Inner Game is all about how you will perform better when the 'midget giving orders' quietly trusts the 'giant'. The book is about how the whole 'giving orders' process is actually ineffective and inhibits good play.


There is the illusion of there being a midget giving orders, but in reality the midget is along for the ride and the giant doesn't have any clue what the midget is talking about

My first post does not imply that during the playing time, players need to think about division of labor and delegation of task literally. The mental processes mostly should be an after play exercise.

Sorry if I didn't make this clear.
 
Last edited:
No. It's additive-assuming proper synchronization.
Think about this - in order for arm to contribute more in the hitting role, a player need to grip the racket harder, making the wrist and arm more rigid (arm can not absorb the ball well). The rigid arm will cut short of the ball stay, wasting body's hitting potential. So arm's 'little gain' will cause a 'big potential loss' for the body. Looking back in our progresses in the past, we were doing more and more 'little gain', 'big loss" games from present to the first time playing tennis.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Start at :25


Back when I used to play high school tennis, my coach always had to remind me that there aren't any style points since I looked fresh af on the court but could never win a match. I did some 360 half volleys because they were necessary but I never thought to 360 on every shot.

This is the SINGLE greatest tennis video that I have ever seen! So much SWAG.
 
oserver, I briefly glanced through the page and also the "Forehand serve" page, and frankly the analogies are atrocious. Comparing open stance with Linux, and comparing serve to old-fashioned forehand - WHY? Are you writing just for the sake of writing?
 
oserver, I briefly glanced through the page and also the "Forehand serve" page, and frankly the analogies are atrocious. Comparing open stance with Linux, and comparing serve to old-fashioned forehand - WHY? Are you writing just for the sake of writing?
name one genius that ain't crazy!
 
oserver, I briefly glanced through the page and also the "Forehand serve" page, and frankly the analogies are atrocious. Comparing open stance with Linux, and comparing serve to old-fashioned forehand - WHY? Are you writing just for the sake of writing?

The Linux thing is some kind of stretch; I admit. It is removed already.

Anyway, do you agree that old-fashioned forehand (using continental grip and closed stance) and modern serve are the same in forms and techniques? I used the term 3C (C - closeness) forehand to describe the phenomenon in contrast to current 3O (O - openness) modern forehand?
 
The Linux thing is some kind of stretch; I admit. It is removed already.

Anyway, do you agree that old-fashioned forehand (using continental grip and closed stance) and modern serve are the same in forms and techniques? I used the term 3C (C - closeness) forehand to describe the phenomenon in contrast to current 3O (O - openness) modern forehand?

I can see the similarities wrt being sideways and continental, but the forehand and the serve are so different that I don't see the PURPOSE of the analogy. How is it going to help a modern student to know that the serve and the old forehand that he/she is never going to use have some similarities?
 
No because the forehand exists mostly on a horizontal plane where a serve does not. While not completely one to one, the mechanics of a serve are pretty analogous to that of a ball throw. Do you see NFL quarterbacks or pitchers throwing the ball open stance? The modern forehand compensates for new technology and the reduced time in which the player has to prepare and swing. Range of motion is rather inhibited for the average human if they choose to serve open stance.
 
I can see the similarities wrt being sideways and continental, but the forehand and the serve are so different that I don't see the PURPOSE of the analogy. How is it going to help a modern student to know that the serve and the old forehand that he/she is never going to use have some similarities?
"being sideways and continental" means more linear momentum generation, less angular momentum generation. Being ore open (in stance) and open in grip (non-continental) are the exactly the opposite. The modern forehand proved that the later is superior.

A student doesn't need to know the tennis history in detail. But since tennis forms and techniques evolve very slowly, when we discuss them, the involvement of historic background is unavoidable.

Here are some of my old papers about open stance tennis serve -

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140903061426-139904838-open-tennis-serves/

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140417213812-139904838-open-stance-tennis-serve-advantages/
 
Last edited:
"being sideways and continental" means more linear momentum generation, less angular momentum generation. Being ore open (in stance) and open in grip (non-continental) are the exactly the opposite. The modern forehand proved that the later is superior.

A student doesn't need to know the tennis history in detail. But since tennis forms and techniques evolve very slowly, involvement of historic background is unavoidable.
But they're fundamentally different movements. Sharing one or two traits along the chain of manifestation hardly gives any credence to the assumption that changes in one chain is a beneficial change in the other. Is an open stance backhand superior to a closed stance backhand?
 
No because the forehand exists mostly on a horizontal plane where a serve does not. While not completely one to one, the mechanics of a serve are pretty analogous to that of a ball throw. Do you see NFL quarterbacks or pitchers throwing the ball open stance? The modern forehand compensates for new technology and the reduced time in which the player has to prepare and swing. Range of motion is rather inhibited for the average human if they choose to serve open stance.

"forehand exists mostly on a horizontal plane where a serve does not." Very true. Serve is an overhead shot and the forehand is not. We need another thread to discuss whether the differences can prevent the application of modern form hand forms and techniques to serve.

My answer is positive, since our wrist, elbow and shoulder joints are pretty flexible. Whatever (or almost whatever) we can do with the forehand, can be done with the serve.
 
in order for arm to contribute more in the hitting role, a player need to grip the racket harder, making the wrist and arm more rigid (arm can not absorb the ball well). The rigid arm will cut short of the ball stay, wasting body's hitting potential. So arm's 'little gain' will cause a 'big potential loss' for the body.

No again. It's very possible to accelerate the arm without making the wrist too rigid and limiting acceleration. This doesn't cut short the body's power, it adds to it. This whole 'arm vs main body' thing is something you just made up. Doesn't happen in reality. Unicorns aren't real.

Seriously, read a book. You're wrong in almost every way. The fact that you're posting and commenting as a self proclaimed authority is quite disturbing considering your lack of understanding.
 
I missed it. What did you say about Linux?

There are many parallels between Open Source Software and Open Serve technique.

He had written that "open" in both cases refers to others being able to see you fully. In open source, everyone can see the code, and in open stance, your opponent can see more of your body compared to closed stance.

Now that may be good if you are playing Julia Goerges, but not Kevin Anderson.
 
That's not what the Inner Game was about, I've read it several times.

Inner Game is all about how you will perform better when the 'midget giving orders' quietly trusts the 'giant'. The book is about how the whole 'giving orders' process is actually ineffective and inhibits good play.


There is the illusion of there being a midget giving orders, but in reality the midget is along for the ride and the giant doesn't have any clue what the midget is talking about

LOL, wb TTPS.
 
He had written that "open" in both cases refers to others being able to see you fully. In open source, everyone can see the code, and in open stance, your opponent can see more of your body compared to closed stance.

That is an absolutely brilliant analogy.

@oserver Put that back in the article!
 
He had written that "open" in both cases refers to others being able to see you fully. In open source, everyone can see the code, and in open stance, your opponent can see more of your body compared to closed stance.

Now that may be good if you are playing Julia Goerges, but not Kevin Anderson.

Open means open minded, not be confined within a status quo. It also means to treat the new concepts and practices with curiosity. That's all.
 
That is an absolutely brilliant analogy.

@oserver Put that back in the article!

Wrong. If that is an absolutely brilliant analogy, then the closed stance serve and closed grip (continental serve grip) is only good for letting your opponent to see less of your body compared to an open stance, or letting your opponent to see less of your grip compared to an open grip. That's laughable, isn't it?
 
No again. It's very possible to accelerate the arm without making the wrist too rigid and limiting acceleration. This doesn't cut short the body's power, it adds to it. This whole 'arm vs main body' thing is something you just made up. Doesn't happen in reality. Unicorns aren't real.

Seriously, read a book. You're wrong in almost every way. The fact that you're posting and commenting as a self proclaimed authority is quite disturbing considering your lack of understanding.
The more you let the arm to accelerate, the more you need to grip the handle harder. There is no other ways around. Ask any biomechanics expert to see which assessment is right.

I did comparison between Federer's forehand and Agassi's. Who's wrist and arm are more loose? Federer's for sure since his wrist was kept at full extension state without noticeable flexing (before and immediately after the contact point). That makes it possible for Federer to use his wrist and arm more passively than that of Agassi's. That is a bigger factor in making the generation gap.
 
Question: Why do you copy Federer's forehand but not his serve?

Somehow I didn't catch you question, a nice one.

Federer's serves are very good, but they are not standout like his forehand. Forehand is his signature stroke that has the mark of modern forehand. His forehand is innovative, very different than players of old generations. This is the reason I like his forehand more than his serve.

Many players and coaches believe that forehand is forehand, serve is serve. The forms and techniques that can apply to forehand cannot be applied to the serve, just because one is not overhead and another is. I don't buy this school of teaching or reasoning. My experiences tell me that the forehand forms and techniques can unify these two stroke. Particularly, letting the wrist at extension state (not at neutral state) to contact the ball is attractive method, not only for forehand, but also for serve.

It's a pity that Federer didn't apply his innovative forehand techniques to his serve.
 
Somehow I didn't catch you question, a nice one.

Federer's serves are very good, but they are not standout like his forehand. Forehand is his signature stroke that has the mark of modern forehand. His forehand is innovative, very different than players of old generations. This is the reason I like his forehand more than his serve.

Many players and coaches believe that forehand is forehand, serve is serve. The forms and techniques that can apply to forehand cannot be applied to the serve, just because one is not overhead and another is. I don't buy this school of teaching or reasoning. My experiences tell me that the forehand forms and techniques can unify these two stroke. Particularly, letting the wrist at extension state (not at neutral state) to contact the ball is attractive method, not only for forehand, but also for serve.

It's a pity that Federer didn't apply his innovative forehand techniques to his serve.

Dude. Please. Get real with yourself. You made up this whole 'open serve' thing to get around the fact that YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO SERVE. I see this type of stuff all the time with my students. Mental gymnastics to avoid the harsh reality: *you don't know what you're doing yet*.

This 'innovative technique' is not 'innovative'. It's ineffective. THERE IS A REASON why you have never seen this serve technique at the grand slam level. HOW MANY generations of professional tennis have we been through?? How many 'open servers' have you seen?? None.

Stop lying to yourself. Stop deceiving yourself. Stop feeding this ignorance. It's physically painful to see you commit yourself so heavily to a position despite all contradictory evidence. There is a reason why coaches refer to your type of serve as a 'beginners serve'.

How narcissistic do you have to be to watch ROGER FEDERER and think 'yeah he totally needs to be rebuild his serve and learn from me'


". My experiences tell me that the forehand forms and techniques can unify these two stroke. "

You're wrong. According to literally every expert serve instructor, every grand slam winner, every technical analyst.

Please face the facts.

I live like 2 hours from you. I will come teach you how to serve properly for free, we can record it.
 
Dude. Please. Get real with yourself. You made up this whole 'open serve' thing to get around the fact that YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO SERVE. I see this type of stuff all the time with my students. Mental gymnastics to avoid the harsh reality: *you don't know what you're doing yet*.

This 'innovative technique' is not 'innovative'. It's ineffective. THERE IS A REASON why you have never seen this serve technique at the grand slam level. HOW MANY generations of professional tennis have we been through?? How many 'open servers' have you seen?? None.

Stop lying to yourself. Stop deceiving yourself. Stop feeding this ignorance. It's physically painful to see you commit yourself so heavily to a position despite all contradictory evidence. There is a reason why coaches refer to your type of serve as a 'beginners serve'.

How narcissistic do you have to be to watch ROGER FEDERER and think 'yeah he totally needs to be rebuild his serve and learn from me'


". My experiences tell me that the forehand forms and techniques can unify these two stroke. "

You're wrong. According to literally every expert serve instructor, every grand slam winner, every technical analyst.

Please face the facts.

I live like 2 hours from you. I will come teach you how to serve properly for free, we can record it.

I know all those things you would like to teach your student already. I can serve the conventional ways using pin-point stance, platform stance with continental grip, and serve using rapid flexing of the wrist and elbow with pronation. You don't get a USPTA coach certificate using a pan cake serve, do you. I got that certificate back in 2010 with a USTA 4.0 ranking, three years after playing USTA league as a 2.5 beginner. If you watched my serve videos, there are footages of my conventional serves. I'm not saying that I'm a great player or a great coach. All I wrote or posted is just a plain fact that the 3O serves are alternatives to conventional serves. In my case, they are better serves if you watch my older serve video. If I can do this, you or other players can do.

Please don't try to hush me up. I've seen plenty of negative posts since 2014 since I first posted open stance serve stuff. Please don't kill your curiosity too. You cannot hear or see these 3O stuff anywhere else, can you. I did my home work for four years. To prove thinks out, just hit a few balls using the 3O serve style to get some sense of what I've been talking. You have all the tools in your bag already, so it should be easy for you.

Good to know we are only two hours apart. Maybe we an find time to hit some balls face to face. You won't get bored hitting and talking with me even through I'm any a 4.0 guy. I played single with two 5.0 guys in USTA 4.5+ league and didn't get all bagels. I kept some of my serve games each time. My partner (4.0 player also) and I beat a 4.5 pair in another 4.5+ league match also, surprisingly.

https://www.ustanorcal.com/playermatches.asp?id=128609&a=L&l=1480&seasonid=0
 
Can I also suggest you google "division of labor", "delegating" and "open wrist"? I do not think it means what you think it means. :(

"division of labor" - let the body do the hitting and let the arm do the absorbing the ball.
"delegation of task" - let the body to lead the stroke and let the arm to just follow the lead (passive arm, not proactive arm or active arm in conventional serve or old style forehand).

I may have plenty of grammar errors, but do you still think I should not use those words?
 
I know all those things you would like to teach your student already. I can serve the conventional ways using pin-point stance, platform stance with continental grip, and serve using rapid flexing of the wrist and elbow with pronation. You don't get a USPTA coach certificate using a pan cake serve, do you. I got that certificate back in 2010 with a USTA 4.0 ranking, three years after playing USTA league as a 2.5 beginner. If you watched my serve videos, there are footages of my conventional serves. I'm not saying that I'm a great player or a great coach. All I wrote or posted is just a plain fact that the 3O serves are alternatives to conventional serves. In my case, they are better serves if you watch my older serve video. If I can do this, you or other players can do.

Please don't try to hush me up. I've seen plenty of negative posts since 2014 since I first posted open stance serve stuff. Please don't kill your curiosity too. You cannot hear or see these 3O stuff anywhere else, can you. I did my home work for four years. To prove thinks out, just hit a few balls using the 3O serve style to get some sense of what I've been talking. You have all the tools in your bag already, so it should be easy for you.

Good to know we are only two hours apart. Maybe we an find time to hit some balls face to face. You won't get bored hitting and talking with me even through I'm any a 4.0 guy. I played single with two 5.0 guys in USTA 4.5+ league and didn't get all bagels. I kept some of my serve games each time. My partner (4.0 player also) and I beat a 4.5 pair in another 4.5+ league match also, surprisingly.

https://www.ustanorcal.com/playermatches.asp?id=128609&a=L&l=1480&seasonid=0
I hate to break it to you, but USTA 4.0 and USPTA certified aren't impressive credentials. There are tons of 4.0 rec players, and any of them could get certified. They just don't bother because it isn't worth their time.
 
I hate to break it to you, but USTA 4.0 and USPTA certified aren't impressive credentials. There are tons of 4.0 rec players, and any of them could get certified. They just don't bother because it isn't worth their time.

You should complain with USPTA board to raise the bar, or petition USPAT to void certificate of any coach who is not 4.5 or above.

I took the USPTA coaching exam and passed it on the first try. From reading your posts, I don't think you can pass it the first time. Show me if you can.

USPTA certification is at the same level as PTR. ITF certification may be more strict, but in US, not many people care about ITF certification.
 
Last edited:
"division of labor" - let the body do the hitting and let the arm do the absorbing the ball.
"delegation of task" - let the body to lead the stroke and let the arm to just follow the lead (passive arm, not proactive arm or active arm in conventional serve or old style forehand).

I may have plenty of grammar errors, but do you still think I should not use those words?

No Gary, you should not use those words. Labor is paid employment. Delegation is giving people tasks. Open wrist is a disease. Do any of these terms have anything to do with serving?
 
Why are the posters who are really bad at tennis always the ones developing the next big thing in tennis technique?

If you are too good at doing something, will you give it all up to follow others? Will you think about alternatives? Rarely if it is totally impossible.

Many innovations come from outsiders, from nothing to lose people!

Beside, I'm not really bad as you said as a 4.0 player. Look at the records of me playing single with 5.0 and 4.5 players.
 
Why are the posters who are really bad at tennis always the ones developing the next big thing in tennis technique?

They are afraid to learn proper techniques, so they give themselves a fabricated sense of competence by redefining what 'proper' means.

Most tennis players are not capable of accepting that they don't have a clue about technique.

Thankfully for me I got trashed so hard in college ball that I had no option but to either quit or rebuild from the ground up. I rebuilt.
 
Back
Top