height over the net?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 23235
  • Start date

ChaelAZ

Legend
... the good rally ball is probably an arc ball, vs. a hit-as-hard-as-you-can-laser-beam-1ft-above-the-net
Seriously! I have one guy I hit with that simply cannot grasp the concept and cannot rally more that 5 or 6 shots, but more 2 and 3 shot rallies. Also a BOATLOAD of shots in the net. Even his feeds hit the net often. And then he gets frustrated and keeps saying “Gah, why is everything in the net?”. I mean, even when we try mini tennis he might get a few with arc but then immediately starts hitting hard flat shots.

I use practice with him for different things than consistently, but i gets frustrating how one dimensional the practices are.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
Coaches Corner had a nice analysis of height/trajectory of Fed, Nadal, Zverev FH.

3:26 in video shows apex of their FH.

good vid thx.
note those balls in the vid seem to land just beyond the service line, vs say 2ft from the baseline.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
Seriously! I have one guy I hit with that simply cannot grasp the concept and cannot rally more that 5 or 6 shots, but more 2 and 3 shot rallies. Also a BOATLOAD of shots in the net. Even his feeds hit the net often. And then he gets frustrated and keeps saying “Gah, why is everything in the net?”. I mean, even when we try mini tennis he might get a few with arc but the. Immediately starts hitting hard flat shots.

I use practice with him for different things than consistently, but i gets frustrating how one dimensional the practices are.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
so true.

ironically sometimes i often intentionally hit short in the warmup/practice because my opponent has a hard time with the deep ball, or refuses to step back to handle a long ball.

my normal training partners we will stand 3-4ft behind baseline and intentionally to hit at or just beyond the baseline.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
so true.

ironically sometimes i often intentionally hit short in the warmup/practice because my opponent has a hard time with the deep ball, or refuses to step back to handle a long ball.

my normal training partners we will stand 3-4ft behind baseline and intentionally to hit at or just beyond the baseline.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was actually going to start a topic this last weekend about ‘breaking-up with hitting partners’ because I find I cannot practice as hard as I want because I have a narrow range of balls I can send to his side that will come back. If I hit at pace or too far off center he can’t keep up and I see a lot of slice and drop shot bailout balls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

FiReFTW

Legend
since us rec folks spend most of our time practicing the rally ball (ie. from the baseline, 1ft either side of the center hash), figure it would be useful knowledge that the good rally ball is probably an arc ball, vs. a hit-as-hard-as-you-can-laser-beam-1ft-above-the-net
Yeah, alltho pro players alot of times still hit a ton of spin on aggressive shots, depending where they aim and the court position of opposing player, I think most people are quite wrong when they think that pro players hit flat like a bullet and fast, tho sometimes they do, but alot of times they still spin it alot tho with not a lot of clearance, but sometimes they do hit more clearance when they want to hit an aggressive corner shot with ton of bounce that bounces high and away and is hard to deal with.
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
I was actually going to start a topic this last weekend about ‘breaking-up with hitting partners’ because I find I cannot practice as hard as I want because I have a narrow range of balls I can send to his side that will come back. If I hit at pace or too far off center he can’t keep up and I see a lot of slice and drop shot bailout balls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
i never break up, but just know that certain partners are good for specific things.

similarly higher level folks use me to for specific characteristics of my game.

alternatively just do drills specific to whatever you want to work on.
*you can only hit to his fh, he gets entire court.
*work in depth vs pace
*play inside the baseline to play everything on the rise
*over recover to one side to force yourself to hit on the run/move
*alternate spins and arcs (drive, slice, high arc, etc,...)
etc,...

as long as they can get a ball back you should be able to come up with a training modifyer to improve your game. but if you’re just planting yourself near the center hash and bashing balls at him, thats just not creative enough.

finding a variety of hitting partners is best, but if you can’t,... keep the partners you got

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Pete Player

Hall of Fame
Do not have the book, but look at Laver’s hanging racket between the shots!

Anyway, Borg had more net clearance than many others.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 

Pete Player

Hall of Fame
There were dozens throughout the match. I’m disputing your claim that a ball that clears the net by more than 6 feet is a “moonball” by showing you it’s a shot all pros use in nearly every point.

In other words, you don’t know wtf you’re talking about.
For hacks six feet, or even maybe four, clearance would spell moonballing due to the ridigulous low amount of spin, that they can produce.

On a good day my forehand clears the net quite straight at 4 feet still rising towards the baseline untill the spin takes over. A screaming fast high rev ball will all of a sudden drop allmost like a back spinning golf ball as the negative lift of a top spinner takes over the ball speed.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
I think the problem is that a lot of these guys believe they are hitting “good” shots because they look fast and don’t clear the net by much. When in reality, a low fast ball will usually land short and still get eaten up by any decent player. If it even clears the net to begin with.
Flat hard shots usually don't land short, nor are they easy for even very good players. However, the problem is it's fool's gold. If someone can replicate that shot consistently, they'd be a top 5 pro, since even top pros cannot do that on demand.

That video of Stan is beautiful to watch. A lot of clearance; decent but not great depth, yet when folks thing of pros, they think of shots consistently painting the lines or having low clearance.
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
For hacks six feet, or even maybe four, clearance would spell moonballing due to the ridigulous low amount of spin, that they can produce.

On a good day my forehand clears the net quite straight at 4 feet still rising towards the baseline untill the spin takes over. A screaming fast high rev ball will all of a sudden drop allmost like a back spinning golf ball as the negative lift of a top spinner takes over the ball speed.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
lol, nadal and borg must be a hack.
if you're hitting base2base @ 4ft, i bet you hit eastern'ish grip
 

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
lol, nadal and borg must be a hack.
if you're hitting base2base @ 4ft, i bet you hit eastern'ish grip
I think Pete is correct. I'm assuming he's talking about the vast majority of the adult rec crowd (which wouldn't include a higher level player like you since players like you are the minority), and not pros or high level rec players or high level juniors.

The problem with the vast majority of low level players like me is that we don't generate massive amount of spin. As Pete says those are good consistent shots but not many winners or even shots that really trouble a good opponent. So then we try to bring the clearance down which then leads to other errors and causes inconsistencies.

Reading this thread and watching the pros clearances is inspiring. I'll start counting how many times during a match I hit into the net and try to take that out of the equation. If the ball goes long so be it. If the opponent can take advantage of a ball that has clearance but not massive spin, so be it.
 

aminadream

Rookie
Reading this thread and watching the pros clearances is inspiring. I'll start counting how many times during a match I hit into the net and try to take that out of the equation. If the ball goes long so be it. If the opponent can take advantage of a ball that has clearance but not massive spin, so be it.
Can you also resolve to increase your spin potential? It is January after all! ;)
 

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
Can you also resolve to increase your spin potential? It is January after all! ;)
Haha... I don't have the energy to consistently have rhs to generate topspin that can kick the ball up and trouble anyone. I do hit with topspin, but those are shots that any good player can crush, and playing with better players than me, those balls come back with interest. Which is why I then try to take lower percentage shots. I think the lesson here is even if you can't increase your topspin, increase your depth. At least that makes it more difficult for your opponent to hit it back.
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
I think Pete is correct. I'm assuming he's talking about the vast majority of the adult rec crowd (which wouldn't include a higher level player like you since players like you are the minority), and not pros or high level rec players or high level juniors.

The problem with the vast majority of low level players like me is that we don't generate massive amount of spin. As Pete says those are good consistent shots but not many winners or even shots that really trouble a good opponent. So then we try to bring the clearance down which then leads to other errors and causes inconsistencies.

Reading this thread and watching the pros clearances is inspiring. I'll start counting how many times during a match I hit into the net and try to take that out of the equation. If the ball goes long so be it. If the opponent can take advantage of a ball that has clearance but not massive spin, so be it.
IMO, the reason low level folks can't hit with high net clearance, it's because they don't know how to consistently hit top...
you don't need to generate nadal like spin.
problem is that folks still want to crush the ball though, vs. focusing on shapping with the ball with 3/4 pace.
for some reason (i suffered from this disease), it's sexier to hit hard fast and low over the net.
probably because folks like PetePlayer would ridicule them for being moonballers (despite losing to them).
 

aminadream

Rookie
Haha... I don't have the energy to consistently have rhs to generate topspin
Can you increase your energy? ;)

J/K... well, sort of. If you're on this forum, it likely means you really love tennis and are the kind of person to keep pushing forward.

I'm a big fan of the Pareto Principle. Find the low hanging fruit... the smallest amount of work that'll make the biggest amount of difference. For me, it's doing 70 mason twists 2-3 times per week to increase my core rotation strength. It takes me two minutes to do in the living room and it does miracles for my rotation on the court!

Increasing depth is a good start too!
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
Haha... I don't have the energy to consistently have rhs to generate topspin that can kick the ball up and trouble anyone. I do hit with topspin, but those are shots that any good player can crush, and playing with better players than me, those balls come back with interest. Which is why I then try to take lower percentage shots. I think the lesson here is even if you can't increase your topspin, increase your depth. At least that makes it more difficult for your opponent to hit it back.
that's fair.. and honest assessment.
hitting heavy topspin consistently requires a min level of conditioning.

it's like 10x easier to hit slice, or just bunt the ball back
 

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
that's fair.. and honest assessment.
hitting heavy topspin consistently requires a min level of conditioning.

it's like 10x easier to hit slice, or just bunt the ball back
Yep...I'm short, 130 lb, and 48 years old. No issues with stamina or running, but knees and back are shot due to years of racquetball . At this age and with my build, I'm gravitating more towards a Brent Abel type of old man tennis where consistency and not hurting myself is more important. However, I can still get better with the consistency and quality of my strokes, and can always learn something new and useful every day. Hope to keep playing for a long time to come.
 

Hmgraphite1

Hall of Fame
Hitting heavier topspin fh is akin to hitting heavy spin 2nd serve, you can have more rhs and drive through the ball less. Seems easier to apply to higher bouncing balls, around shoulder height
 

MisterP

Hall of Fame
Coaches Corner had a nice analysis of height/trajectory of Fed, Nadal, Zverev FH.

3:26 in video shows apex of their FH.

I’m confused by that graphic. By apex do they mean that’s the height of the ball at contact? Or are they saying that’s how high it bounces on the other side? I don’t think it’s net clearance. The whole video is about swing paths and how Zverev’s crappy footwork means he hits the ball at the wrong height most of the time.
 

StringSnapper

Hall of Fame
I’d like to see that stat for current players. Stan hits a really high ball over the net. In this court level vid here you can see he hits a bunch that are around 5-6 feet over the height of the net. And some that are way higher.

WOW looks like stans hitting it with more spin than the topspin king himself!
 

StringSnapper

Hall of Fame
But a groundstroke hit 2 feet behind the baseline isn't going to be your average shot. By comparison, they calculated the average net clearances at the 2013 World Tour Finals and got:

Nadal 1.31 meters
Gasguet 0.91 meters
Wawrinka 0.79 meters
Djokovic 0.74 meters
Federer 0.61 meters
Berdych 0.59 meters

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/average-net-clearance-of-top-players.482457/

1.31 meters is between 4 and 4.5 feet and 0.59 meters is just under 2 feet. So given these numbers, I don't think Braden's were right.
Yeah and the net itself is about 1m high, so on avg they're hitting less than a net height above the net

That matches what I saw at the hopman cup.
 

StringSnapper

Hall of Fame
Hitting heavier topspin fh is akin to hitting heavy spin 2nd serve, you can have more rhs and drive through the ball less. Seems easier to apply to higher bouncing balls, around shoulder height
I'm actually contemplating going back to a strong eastern fh grip because of this. While I've had my groin injury and been unable to run, I've had a few sessions just walking around the court hitting up the middle. Eastern fh gives easy plow and handles on the rise balls really well. Just look at federer's forehand how much pop it gets. It's also easy to bunt with if needed

Obviously fitness effects eastern fh as well as sw fh too, but not as much imo
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
I’m confused by that graphic. By apex do they mean that’s the height of the ball at contact? Or are they saying that’s how high it bounces on the other side? I don’t think it’s net clearance. The whole video is about swing paths and how Zverev’s crappy footwork means he hits the ball at the wrong height most of the time.
Higest point of the trajectory of the shot. (not at contact)

They drew those little circles around the apex, which was somewhere around the net but not exactly...
 

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
i'm amazed he kept it in play.
seems like the face of his 2hbh is slightly open an contact
Yeah, he hit the tape a lot. As you prolly know, Ashe exposed his lack of top spin in their Wimby final.
I spent some time last year trying to hit flatter, I like how a flatter ball drives through the court.
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
Yeah, he hit the tape a lot. As you prolly know, Ashe exposed his lack of top spin in their Wimby final.
I spent some time last year trying to hit flatter, I like how a flatter ball drives through the court.
i don't have the talent to hit a flat ball consistently.
i need a huge margin of error to make up for my lack of talent :p
 

StringSnapper

Hall of Fame
i don't have the talent to hit a flat ball consistently.
i need a huge margin of error to make up for my lack of talent :p
The thing with spin though is you need earlier prep and contact further in front. For flat hitting you can just plow through on the rise shots and block it back almost. Also seems to be better when hitting into the wind

Is more talent required? I think it depends on what kind of ball you face. If facing a loopy ball, spin is easier. If facing a hard hit laser beam, hitting it back flat is easier imo. Easier to just focus on racquet face and good contact in the center, rather than lots of brushing and earlier contact point
 

Steady Eddy

Hall of Fame
Braden mentioned that he would put a tarp over the net, so the students couldn't see through it. This had the effect of making them hit balls that cleared the net higher. That it gave them the concept that tennis is a lifting game, and they'd also start bending their knees more.

Then he'd take away the tarp, they'd say "that's better" and go back to hitting into the net all the time.

When I started playing I had the misconception that if I hit with a lot of net clearance, that my balls would go way over the baseline. A pro showed me that I could aim well over the net, hit it firmly, and it would still land in. Nobody's perfect, so I think a good way to see if you're hitting too low is to see if your ratio of net balls and over the baseline balls is about even. The people I hit with seem to hit about 4 into the net, for every 1that goes over the baseline. That's too imbalanced

Only skim the net on some serves and when you're going for a short angled winner. The net shouldn't be much of an obstacle in baseline rallies.
 

Steady Eddy

Hall of Fame
i don't have the talent to hit a flat ball consistently.
i need a huge margin of error to make up for my lack of talent :p
Most of us don't, but Connors did. In his book, The Outsider, he mentions Rene Lacoste telling him that he hit the balls so close to the net, that it almost gave Lacoste a heart attack. If being consistent with such a low margin for error seemed amazing to Lacoste, I'm sure it's not a good technique for 99.99999% of us.
 
Last edited:

Curiosity

Professional
3, 4, 6
in the book in gives avg ranges (3-4, 4-6, 6-10)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Those ranges aren't the least surprising. Connors pounded the ball, and hit flat. He couldn't afford much height above net. They'd all go out. McEnroe played with varying spin, but much more than Connors, and loved angles, so a bit of safety was possible and necessary. Borg's game with a Western grip and very low-to-high swing provided great topspin, but he also hit the ball hard. He did not land everything at the service line. I'm old enough to have seen all of them. In fact, I saw Borg play doubles with his son as partner only (?)five years ago at Puente Romano. Note: Though he was a "big image" in-demand pro, I never found Braden's shot descriptions and explanations very convincing. I realize I'm the exception. I'd have wanted Braden's lesson on "head games to torment your opponent."
 

Steady Eddy

Hall of Fame
Those ranges aren't the least surprising. Connors pounded the ball, and hit flat. He couldn't afford much height above net. They'd all go out. McEnroe played with varying spin, but much more than Connors, and loved angles, so a bit of safety was possible and necessary. Borg's game with a Western grip and very low-to-high swing provided great topspin, but he also hit the ball hard. He did not land everything at the service line. I'm old enough to have seen all of them. In fact, I saw Borg play doubles with his son as partner only (?)five years ago at Puente Romano. Note: Though he was a "big image" in-demand pro, I never found Braden's shot descriptions and explanations very convincing. I realize I'm the exception. I'd have wanted Braden's lesson on "head games to torment your opponent."
When I took up tennis in the late 70's, Braden was 'the man'. I still agree with most of what he said. But I have one thing I very much disagree with. It said, "Go for form, not for touch". Drop shots and lobs are touch shots and are important to be able to execute. If your opponent comes to the net a lot, he or she will have to be a great athlete to be able to consistently smash away deep lobs. If they can do that without tiring they also must be very fit.

When you get a short ball that you can drop over then net that's a good choice. Not only will you win many points but you'll tire out your opponent as well. Drop shots and lobs force your opponent to run more than hitting sideline to sideline. Touch is very important. Power gets a lot of hype, but touring pros all have great touch. They can use it to destroy us hackers without even hitting the ball hard. Big mistake for Braden to say it's all about form and power, IMHO.
 

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
IMO, the reason low level folks can't hit with high net clearance, it's because they don't know how to consistently hit top...
you don't need to generate nadal like spin.
problem is that folks still want to crush the ball though, vs. focusing on shapping with the ball with 3/4 pace.
for some reason (i suffered from this disease), it's sexier to hit hard fast and low over the net.
probably because folks like PetePlayer would ridicule them for being moonballers (despite losing to them).
Nice to have both to varying degrees. Wind shield wiper finish for rally and landsdorp finish for kill shot. Something to shoot for in 2019
 

Pete Player

Hall of Fame
I am using semi-western grip mostly. Have got more pace and more spin with way less effort than before. Trying to move more towards a straight arm shot, but since spacing varies so much, have had only occational success on that.

Along with the quest for SA FH I have also learned to hit more consistent moonballs with a lot topspin on them.

From my practice on these two subjects, I have found one major, yet very basic causality.

Base culprit for not being able to hit lofty net clearance with authority and heavy topspin is the impact position and ability to hit thru the ball, not at it. Too far back, and or leaning back, and you will spray it to the curtains.

If leaning back, you should add RHS to produce more topspin, but it is more easily said than done out of balance.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Pete Player

Hall of Fame
IMO, the reason low level folks can't hit with high net clearance, it's because they don't know how to consistently hit top...
you don't need to generate nadal like spin.
problem is that folks still want to crush the ball though, vs. focusing on shapping with the ball with 3/4 pace.
for some reason (i suffered from this disease), it's sexier to hit hard fast and low over the net.
probably because folks like PetePlayer would ridicule them for being moonballers (despite losing to them).
Well, not my intention. The ridiguling was only corresponding to the amount of spin relative to their ball speed. Not the people doing it.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 
Last edited:

Pete Player

Hall of Fame
When I took up tennis in the late 70's, Braden was 'the man'. I still agree with most of what he said. But I have one thing I very much disagree with. It said, "Go for form, not for touch". Drop shots and lobs are touch shots and are important to be able to execute. If your opponent comes to the net a lot, he or she will have to be a great athlete to be able to consistently smash away deep lobs. If they can do that without tiring they also must be very fit.

When you get a short ball that you can drop over then net that's a good choice. Not only will you win many points but you'll tire out your opponent as well. Drop shots and lobs force your opponent to run more than hitting sideline to sideline. Touch is very important. Power gets a lot of hype, but touring pros all have great touch. They can use it to destroy us hackers without even hitting the ball hard. Big mistake for Braden to say it's all about form and power, IMHO.
Depends on the context. If you look at people at ATP, who cannot constantly hit hard in a rally, they will lose. Taking pace off will finally result an easy ball to be put away with authority even, if it is decently placed. Immaculately placed balls will win them a point though.

If the opponent is strong and fast, he’ll be able to get there in time to put it away.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
 

Steady Eddy

Hall of Fame
Depends on the context. If you look at people at ATP, who cannot constantly hit hard in a rally, they will lose. Taking pace off will finally result an easy ball to be put away with authority even, if it is decently placed. Immaculately placed balls will win them a point though.

If the opponent is strong and fast, he’ll be able to get there in time to put it away.


——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
Well, yeah for ATP. Braden's book came out during the 70's tennis boom. 90% of the players were beginners. Touch shots will probably help their game as they improve over their whole lifetime.

Where I DO agree with Braden is how he downplayed 'strategy'. He said that to beat most people you could do that by hitting down the middle and deep. Again, ATP players have to do more, but getting deep into strategy is inappropriate for most recreational players, IMO.
 

FiReFTW

Legend
Where I DO agree with Braden is how he downplayed 'strategy'. He said that to beat most people you could do that by hitting down the middle and deep. Again, ATP players have to do more, but getting deep into strategy is inappropriate for most recreational players, IMO.
Any decent player will start attacking those balls out of the air with swinging volleys.
And also u cant keep hitting deep conatantly ul hit a bit short at times and get punished.

Hitting down the middle has no sense, unless in certain circumstances where ita the best shot to hit.
 

Dartagnan64

Legend
since us rec folks spend most of our time practicing the rally ball (ie. from the baseline, 1ft either side of the center hash), figure it would be useful knowledge that the good rally ball is probably an arc ball, vs. a hit-as-hard-as-you-can-laser-beam-1ft-above-the-net
The problem is that none of us get 4000 RPM on the ball causing the arc ball to explode off the court. Our arc balls just bounce up and into the opponents wheelhouse. Hitting flatter at lower levels allows you to maintain enough pace to put pressure on your opponent.

But hey, if you can put 4000 RPM on a FH, hit it 6 feet over the net. You've given yourself a safety net and the opponent is still going to be facing a ball roaring right at him.

Comparing ourselves to pros is never a good idea. Watch rec basketball. You are going to see a lot of short range jumpers and layups more than you'll ever see dunks and 3 pointers. We aren't hitting like the pros.
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
The problem is that none of us get 4000 RPM on the ball causing the arc ball to explode off the court. Our arc balls just bounce up and into the opponents wheelhouse. Hitting flatter at lower levels allows you to maintain enough pace to put pressure on your opponent.

But hey, if you can put 4000 RPM on a FH, hit it 6 feet over the net. You've given yourself a safety net and the opponent is still going to be facing a ball roaring right at him.

Comparing ourselves to pros is never a good idea. Watch rec basketball. You are going to see a lot of short range jumpers and layups more than you'll ever see dunks and 3 pointers. We aren't hitting like the pros.
but even say 2k rpm at say 50mph really lets you hit high over the net, and the ball drops down like a ton of bricks.
it's about the ratios... so yeah, i'm not hitting 4k rpm, but i'm also not hitting 75mph+ fh's

main reason folks can't hit topspin, is they can't get under the ball and brush up... the contact window is smaller, because when swinging flatter i'm not arriving at contact square with the ball.

just watch folks practice mini... many folks even some at 4.5 can't get that feel/timing of getting under and brushing up...
 

Dartagnan64

Legend
but even say 2k rpm at say 50mph really lets you hit high over the net, and the ball drops down like a ton of bricks.
it's about the ratios... so yeah, i'm not hitting 4k rpm, but i'm also not hitting 75mph+ fh's

main reason folks can't hit topspin, is they can't get under the ball and brush up... the contact window is smaller, because when swinging flatter i'm not arriving at contact square with the ball.

just watch folks practice mini... many folks even some at 4.5 can't get that feel/timing of getting under and brushing up...
Well i think that many people can't hit topspin because they've been able to win with flat slappy groundstrokes and giving opponents difficult balls to deal with. If they win they won't change their strokes to more conventional point manufacturing styles.

I also think that rackets and strings have a great deal to do with ball trajectory. My rally balls with a Phantom 93P are far lower than with a PD despite a pretty similar stroke. Some rackets just have an innately higher launch angle due to grommet systems and open string beds. So it's hard to be dogmatic about optimum ball height over the net.

From my standpoint, anything at least an inch over is golden.
 

FiReFTW

Legend
The problem is that none of us get 4000 RPM on the ball causing the arc ball to explode off the court. Our arc balls just bounce up and into the opponents wheelhouse. Hitting flatter at lower levels allows you to maintain enough pace to put pressure on your opponent.

But hey, if you can put 4000 RPM on a FH, hit it 6 feet over the net. You've given yourself a safety net and the opponent is still going to be facing a ball roaring right at him.

Comparing ourselves to pros is never a good idea. Watch rec basketball. You are going to see a lot of short range jumpers and layups more than you'll ever see dunks and 3 pointers. We aren't hitting like the pros.
Why do you assume you need to hit a high arc to get heavy spin, you can get heavy spin with a pretty "flat" trajectory also, where the ball ends up bouncing almost twice as high as it arced over the net.
 
D

Deleted member 23235

Guest
Well i think that many people can't hit topspin because they've been able to win with flat slappy groundstrokes and giving opponents difficult balls to deal with. If they win they won't change their strokes to more conventional point manufacturing styles.

I also think that rackets and strings have a great deal to do with ball trajectory. My rally balls with a Phantom 93P are far lower than with a PD despite a pretty similar stroke. Some rackets just have an innately higher launch angle due to grommet systems and open string beds. So it's hard to be dogmatic about optimum ball height over the net.

From my standpoint, anything at least an inch over is golden.
well, i can't argue with that.
if you're talented enough to hit consistently flat, then yeah, i think that is a more effective shot.

but in general, if you play poker with the same odds you do tennis (1in margin!), i'll take a seat your table any day :)
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
well, i can't argue with that.
if you're talented enough to hit consistently flat, then yeah, i think that is a more effective shot.

but in general, if you play poker with the same odds you do tennis (1in margin!), i'll take a seat your table any day :)
I did that video of trying to go from normal neutral shots to more flat shots and for me I hit 20-40% of balls in the net when I try to flatten out too often. Just not a normal sot I have consistency with yet. 4 foot and up is my comfort zone and I can maintain depth.
 

user92626

Legend
Seriously! I have one guy I hit with that simply cannot grasp the concept and cannot rally more that 5 or 6 shots, but more 2 and 3 shot rallies. Also a BOATLOAD of shots in the net. Even his feeds hit the net often. And then he gets frustrated and keeps saying “Gah, why is everything in the net?”. I mean, even when we try mini tennis he might get a few with arc but then immediately starts hitting hard flat shots.

I use practice with him for different things than consistently, but i gets frustrating how one dimensional the practices are.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Regular players like ourselves all know at least one person like that! I know at least 4.

One of my regular player friends is a man in his late 50s. For the life of me I just cannot understand how he cannot grasp the fact that he cannot/must not do the whole loopy swing in ONE fast motion. He understands racket head speed as power from seeing me and he tries to accelerate the whole swing in one swoop! The harder he tries the less consistent he gets!

We have played so many "prize" matches against each other. Lately he started to question why he never won any match.

Last week I rallied with him for the first time and he couldn't sustain a 10 shot session. I don't know if he questioned why. He probably only thinks that tennis is difficult and accept it.
 

Kevo

Legend
Last week I rallied with him for the first time and he couldn't sustain a 10 shot session. I don't know if he questioned why. He probably only thinks that tennis is difficult and accept it.
A lot of people are simply trained to work, play, eat, or do whatever the way they do it now. Doing it differently requires them to actually train something new. It requires concentrated effort. That's not easy for many adults. It's hard to break out of the deep ruts we build for ourselves over years and years. I think for most people they either learn when they are younger and can easily devote a lot of time and energy to it, or they learn when they're older and dedicate a span of time to the learning and at some point they switch to playing mode and find a group or league to play in and switch off learning mode so they can use it on some other hobby or pursuit.
 
Last edited:

user92626

Legend
A lot of people are simply trained to work, play, eat, or do whatever they way they do it now. Doing it differently requires them to actually train something new. It requires concentrated effort. That's not easy for many adults. It's hard to break of the deep ruts we build for ourselves over years and years. I think for most people they either learn when they are younger and can easily devote a lot of time and energy to it, or they learn when they're older and dedicate a span of time to the learning and at some point they switch to playing mode and find a group or league to play in and switch off learning mode so they can use it on some other hobby or pursuit.
Well, that's one way to explain it.

The man I was talking about isn't alone. There's a woman friend, 48-ish, who's surprisingly "tennis incompetent"! Forget about point construction -- that would be too advanced for these people -- for them tennis seemingly all about doing their best to hit the ball over the net successfully. After 10 years that's still their playing mode.

Actually I'm fully aware that there are all kinds of people out there. You have people that make a few dollars a day and people that make hundreds or thousands. People aren't equal.

I tend to get amazed and surprised, not frustrated or shunning, by the diversity of the people I come in contact, and by things that fall way outside of my expectation.

I hit and play with a lot of different people. It is a bit interesting to me that we all show up at the same place, play the same activities, know a bit about each other's backgrounds and a lot about each other's tennis, then disappear for a week! :)
 

Kevo

Legend
I hit and play with a lot of different people. It is a bit interesting to me that we all show up at the same place, play the same activities, know a bit about each other's backgrounds and a lot about each other's tennis, then disappear for a week! :)
That is fun to think about it isn't it. Maybe if I needed to look into a new career I might go into data science and specialize in network effects or graph theory. I bet there are some fascinating things to learn from the way different people connect at different times. It's also amazing to think about how easily people can form themselves into a group no matter how varied their backgrounds if they are given a common interest or goal to form around.
 
Top