Hitting below the sweetspot - Optimum Contact Point for groundstroke

[sureshs]

Just look which strings are most frayed/have the most fuzz in the racquets of advanced players. Will tell you the truth.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Wow! There is no substitute for hearing from the author himself. Thank you, Mr. Wegner, for responding.

I'm still not clear on one thing. When you talk about hitting below the sweetspot, are you noting an effect of the topspin modern players are putting on the ball, or are you suggesting that players try to make contact with the ball there?

I am so glad you asked this question. It is where I am gettting at with the links I provided above but I want Oscar to answer yours and my questions. I will wait for Oscars response and then we can debate and provide examples for our case.

I could understand where observation might lead you to the conclusion that the ball is hitting below the sweetspot or at least appears to, given the limitations of human sight. Actually attempting to hit the ball in that area of the raquet face, and to do so consistently, would seem to require superhuman effort.

Again, awesome question. My bet is unless the pro is trying to do something special with the ball, they just attempt to hit it. Some pros hit with a square face while others slightly closed. Even the same pro can hit either way.

Some club players who attempt to hit with a closed face drive the ball into the net. Hitting below the center would complicate that even further. Many club players do not use their legs for lift nor possess the swing speed of pros to over compensate for this. Therefore, this is going to vary and should.

Or are you saying that this is a desireable effect that derives from using a particular technique in striking the ball; that you don't necessarily try to hit the ball below the sweetspot, but following a given technique will render that result?

I'd have a hard time getting my mind around trying to use a particular area of the stringbed, especially when it's not the center, to consistently hit the ball. If there's an easy way to do that, assuming it is worthwhile, I would like to hear about it. Seems that ability might have some useful application in areas outside of tennis as well.

I don't think it is as gracious as it seems. I think he is doing this because his cards were called. I hope I am wrong. However, you are abosolutely right which is why I don't even go here with players. This is the type of stuff you mention when there is a real problem and almost as a last resort. I am trying to understand how someone who claims that conventional tennis is complicated and full of "data" promotes this.

I appreciate your response and you made it in the right light. I am just glad you asked these questions as a person that is truly trying to understand.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

I am going to go out on the limb and say that Oscar's information is false. There is no conclusive evidence that pros are trying to do what he said and that this is the best place to hit the ball on the strings. There is also no conclusive evidence that this eliminates or is the answer to hitting long or whatever. There is also no "secret" and therefore it is only Oscar's unfounded opinion from a few select videos or other sources that he is deriving his conclusion.

The videos below proves that pros do not always hit lower than the center as he is describing and it is not the secret. It is also something Oscar can't claim as the "secret". Can he say that pros sometimes hit in the lower portion of the center? Absolutely. Can he say that pros do this for different effects on the ball? Absolutely. However, there is no conclusive evidence to make his claim a hidden secret or that pros purposely try to hit the lower part of the strings for their shot.

When you close the racquet face and hit in the lower portion of the racquet, you are also increasing your chance to top the ball and send it into the net - especially if you do not have good technique in your motion and use of the legs. Players at the club level are better off just simply trying to hit the ball in the center of the strings (or even slightly above it) do to the natural opening of the racquet face at the time of collision. The ball is on the strings for such a short time that as long as you have a reasonably square to slightly closed racquet face and are swinging or hitting the ball with topspin low to high, depending if you used good tecnique and didn't over hit, you should be able to keep the ball in play without considering other variables.

The following video needs to be paused at the 18 second timeframe. Which shows Fernando Gonzales actually making contact with the ball near center. I don't know about any of you but Fernando has one of the most amazing forehands in the world.

Pause at :18 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFibX-inICg&feature=related

Pause at :06 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVTmGJ7pFzU&feature=related

Pause at :04 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvZ7prb43Lk&feature=response_watch

Pros do not consciously hit below center unless they are finessing the ball or doing something with it. Otherwise, they technically can hit anywhere (usually around center) to hit the ball in general.

Here is Novak to end this once and for all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq09yHPmKh0&feature=related pause at :15 seconds. If Novak is really thinking of hitting in the lower portion of the string bed at this time, he missed.

I will even be fair about this. Here is Rodger Federer perhaps thinking to hit in the lower portion of the racquet (I doubt it though). But I want to be fair. My position is there is no secret and pros attempt to square with the ball as much as possible.

But to be fair: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVZVQMsb1AY&feature=related

 

[5263]

The following video needs to be paused at the 18 second timeframe. Which shows Fernando Gonzales actually making contact with the ball near center. I don't know about any of you but Fernando has one of the most amazing forehands in the world.

Pause at :18 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFibX-inICg&feature=related

Pause at :06 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVTmGJ7pFzU&feature=related

Pause at :04 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvZ7prb43Lk&feature=response_watch

Pros do not consciously hit below center unless they are finessing the ball or doing something with it. Otherwise, they technically can hit anywhere (usually center) to hit the ball in general.

Here is Novak to end this once and for all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq09yHPmKh0&feature=related pause at :15 seconds. If Novak is really thinking of hitting in the lower portion of the string bed at this time, he missed.

Have to applaud bb for a couple of more objective posts.
Interesting that in the first and last of the 3 vids, I was able to stop each, showing how there was more stringbed above the ball than below.
In the middle vid of the 3, the ball did hit above the center, but also did open as Oscar predicts.

The vid of DJ was amazing in showing how much bed deflection takes place. Wonder if that ball cleared the net as it appeared to be headed slightly down off the face?

 

[drakulie]

1st- Drak does not have and has not studied, anywhere near a reasonable sample size to draw any reasonable conclusion, and has picked a few pics to try and support a conventional conclusion.

This is what we all like about you. Your attention to detail. :roll:

First off, I didn't post photos. I posted several high speed *VIDEOS*.

Oscar has studied an incredible # of strokes over decades, and under a variety of conditions and racket sizes, with eyes of a touring pro and National/International coach.

So what you are saying is all the pros I mentioned, which I took high speed video of, decided for this one particualar tournament, to hit the ball in mostly the middle of the string bed.

However, all the other tournaments these same pros played at, when Oscar was observing them, they hit the ball on the very last main, like shown in the photo of Oscar's book. LMAO!!!

2ond- Drak seems to have no understanding of what a sweetspot is, even using conventional terms.

Well, going by Oscar's definition of where a sweet spot is>>> no I don't. I wasn't aware he was able to change the definition to make the sweet spot the last main on a string bed.

3rd- His last point of saying Oscar's sweetspot is the entire stringbed is the most obvious and clear mis-info, as all can see the area outside the circle, while appearing small, would measure well over 100sq in I expect.

So, now you are "authoring" the book for Oscar, and re-defining what he means? LOL This is absolutely hysterical.

 

[drakulie]

Suresh, I think is either playing at the park or sufing with BB in Hawaii. Take over!:shock:

15th Request.

Please provide the "revolutionay/modern" way in which you (MTM) teaches a volley.

Thanks.

Correct, Suresh, and let me thank you first for bringing this fact to the surface. If you look at those videos, you'll see that they sometimes hit anywhere, including above the sweet spot. But if you look at percentages, it's mostly below the center, as you spotted. In the Federer video, which is the last one I posted on that tip, Roger hits a couple above the center and the racquet opens up slightly. But most of the hits are below. And you are right, it is not a conscious decision, it's instinctive, something they learned that feels better, and has better results (they'll know it consciously as well if they are coached by me, Ha Ha).

Do you have data to back this up? But I'll play along anyways:

Contrary to your grossly inncaurate definition of a sweet spot, the sweet spot of any frame is for the most part in the center of the string bed. Not the entire string bed, as you point out.

Now, hitting the very center of the string bed (where part or most of the sweet spot is located) every time is impossible even for pros. So, the fact they are swinging up to generate top spin, would naturally mean they would mostly (when they miss the sweet spot) be hitting the lower part of this particualr area, so you really aren't saying much. This does not have to be taught, rather, any player would do this without having to "consciously" make an effort to do so.

Once again, you are talking rubbish.

 

[5263]

This is what we all like about you. Your attention to detail. :roll:

First off, I didn't post photos. I posted several high speed *VIDEOS*.

Yep, you got me there. I typed pics where it should have been vids. Guess that changes everything. Back to the ole drawing board, lol.

 

[Cindysphinx]

OK, here is my take:

This book is called something like "Play Better Tennis in Two Hours." Presumably this is intended for beginner/intermediate players.

I have actually been a beginner player in the recent past, and most impartial observers would classify me as an intermediate player.

My reaction to all of this sweet spot talk is: What the heck.

I have a bazillion things to get right to hit a good shot. Gotta get there, set up, do correct backswing, correct arm and wrist position, correct ball height, watch the flippin ball . . . There's a lot going on and a lot that can go wrong.

And now you want me to pay attention to the part of my string bed that hits the ball, specifically aiming to make the ball come off the lower part of the strings?

My own pro has a somewhat simpler take on things. Move your butt, get the ball into your stroke zone, maintain good balance and watch the ball. If you do those things, the ball will do what you want most of the time.

Thank goodness he doesn't also want me to contact the ball with a particular part of the stringbed. If he did, I might have to lay down my rackets and take up knitting.

Cindy -- who knows when the ball has hit the sweet spot because of the almost irresistable urge to shourt "Boo-yow!"

 

[gzhpcu]

I like Wegner's idea that you try to hit from the lower half of the racket for topspin. It is a brushing movement. Whether or not it is actually done is another question, but the image helps I find.

 

[5263]

I like Wegner's idea that you try to hit from the lower half of the racket for topspin. It is a brushing movement. Whether or not it is actually done is another question, but the image helps I find.

Excellent point. Most of MTM instruction is based on simple images that generally work for players. If one does not work for you, don't get hung up on it.

 

[MichaelChang]

First of all, I'd like to thank everybody for your inputs. But, to avoid this thread going down south, I'd also like to remind everyone to focus on the tennis technique only please. So, No finger pointing, and no promotion please.

Let me summarize what has been discovered so far:
1. Pros may not be hitting below sweetspot intentionally. They are most likely hitting all over the stringbed.
2. Some pro may like hitting below, or with the "most feel" hitting like that. But we don't know, unless we ask that pro.
3. Whether hitting below(keeping racket closed) provides real impact after the ball left the string, is still somewhat up to debate.
4. I probably missed something.

 

[drakulie]

Yep, you got me there. I typed pics where it should have been vids. Guess that changes everything.

Yup, I sure did. Just in the one vid I provide of fed (shot at 600 FPS), he hits several forehands, and contrary to your and Oscar's findings he is not hitting on the lower portion of the string bed. He is hitting many shots dead center, some higher, some lower, etc.

This is true for all the vids I took, of many pros.

Back to the ole drawing board, lol.

Don't bother. For two weeks you have been unable to provide even one simple teaching instruction for the volley that is either "modern/ or revolutionary".

All you and your leader do is make excuses and dodge a question you obviously can't answer, because it is clear there is absolutely nothing modern or revolutionary in Oscar's teachings.

 

[drakulie]

Let me summarize what has been discovered so far:
1. Pros may not be hitting below sweetspot intentionally. They are most likely hitting all over the stringbed.
2. Some pro may like hitting below, or with the "most feel" hitting like that. But we don't know, unless we ask that pro.
3. Whether hitting below(keeping racket closed) provides real impact after the ball left the string, is still somewhat up to debate.
4. I probably missed something.

In regards to # 3, there is abo****ely zero a racquet will do to have any type of impact on a ball that is already in flight. So, there is no debate. This isn't Wii, where moving the remote around will make the ball follow your lead. Perhaps this is where Oscar got his inspiration and "findings">>> playing the Wii Tennis game.

 

[drakulie]

OK, here is my take:

This book is called something like "Play Better Tennis in Two Hours." Presumably this is intended for beginner/intermediate players.

I have actually been a beginner player in the recent past, and most impartial observers would classify me as an intermediate player.

My reaction to all of this sweet spot talk is: What the heck.

I have a bazillion things to get right to hit a good shot. Gotta get there, set up, do correct backswing, correct arm and wrist position, correct ball height, watch the flippin ball . . . There's a lot going on and a lot that can go wrong.

And now you want me to pay attention to the part of my string bed that hits the ball, specifically aiming to make the ball come off the lower part of the strings?

My own pro has a somewhat simpler take on things. Move your butt, get the ball into your stroke zone, maintain good balance and watch the ball. If you do those things, the ball will do what you want most of the time.

Thank goodness he doesn't also want me to contact the ball with a particular part of the stringbed. If he did, I might have to lay down my rackets and take up knitting.

Cindy -- who knows when the ball has hit the sweet spot because of the almost irresistable urge to shourt "Boo-yow!"

Nicely put, and what a good instructor teaches their students.

1. Move into position (keep on your toes/footwork)
2. Keep your eye on the ball (steady head)
3. Correct and early back swing.

etc.

 

[MichaelChang]

Edit:
Sorry I have to rephrase my question, it is not after the ball left the string, it is rather whether the following is true:
As long as the racket angle is fixed, eg, if the racket face is closed (or square) when hitting the ball, does not matter whether it strikes the ball at center, or above, or below, the ball will fly the same trajectory/length, and with same spin?

 

[drakulie]

So you are saying as long as the racket angle is fixed, eg, if the racket face is closed (or square) when hitting the ball, does not matter whether it strikes the ball at center, or above, or below, the ball will fly the same trajectory/length, and with same spin?

No, I'm not saying this at all. Please go back and read what you wrote, and then my response.

You state, "*after* the ball has left the string".

I countered by stating, nothing a racquet does after the ball leaves the strings will effect it's flight.

 

[MichaelChang]

Sorry just edited my post I agree nothing can be done after the ball left string. I was wondering actually when striking the ball, the above/center/below has any impact or not.

But I guess this whole thing is not making any difference. As even pro can not hit dead center all the time, what can we average Joe do. I'd be glad to hit the ball with pace with consistency, be it above or below the center.

 

[drakulie]

I was wondering actually when striking the ball, the above/center/below has any impact or not.

Of course it does. For one example, If you hit too close to the frame, you have a loss in power. The frame is also more likely to twist, and as a result, you lose "plow' (pace), spin, which leads to lack of depth, etc, etc, etc.

Even sillier is the diagram in Oscar's book, where it leads you to believe hitting the one or two strings on the lower part of the string bed is "optimum".

Imagine stringing your racquet with two strings, and trying to actually hit the ball and do something with it. What do you think will be the effect? Now consider stringing the racquet with the same two strings, but only in the locatoin where the last two mains go. Again, what do you think the effect will be?

But I guess this whole thing is not making any difference. As even pro can not hit dead center all the time, what can we average Joe do. I'd be glad to hit the ball with pace with consistency, be it above or below the center.

Exactly.

 

[sureshs]

OK, here is my take:

This book is called something like "Play Better Tennis in Two Hours." Presumably this is intended for beginner/intermediate players.

I have actually been a beginner player in the recent past, and most impartial observers would classify me as an intermediate player.

My reaction to all of this sweet spot talk is: What the heck.

I have a bazillion things to get right to hit a good shot. Gotta get there, set up, do correct backswing, correct arm and wrist position, correct ball height, watch the flippin ball . . . There's a lot going on and a lot that can go wrong.

And now you want me to pay attention to the part of my string bed that hits the ball, specifically aiming to make the ball come off the lower part of the strings?

My own pro has a somewhat simpler take on things. Move your butt, get the ball into your stroke zone, maintain good balance and watch the ball. If you do those things, the ball will do what you want most of the time.

Thank goodness he doesn't also want me to contact the ball with a particular part of the stringbed. If he did, I might have to lay down my rackets and take up knitting.

Cindy -- who knows when the ball has hit the sweet spot because of the almost irresistable urge to shourt "Boo-yow!"

The book is divided into 3 sections if I remember right, beginning, intermediate, and advanced, and this tip is in the advanced player area.

 

[sureshs]

As I said, way to prove it is to look at fuzz/fray areas.

Other way to understand this is by sound. The first thing that one notices when watching high level players from up close is the "thud" sound on impact. I believe this is because of contact at the sweetspot or close to it, and the lack of this sweet sound in low level players is their inability to do so.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Correct, Suresh, and let me thank you first for bringing this fact to the surface. If you look at those videos, you'll see that they sometimes hit anywhere, including above the sweet spot. But if you look at percentages, it's mostly below the center, as you spotted. In the Federer video, which is the last one I posted on that tip, Roger hits a couple above the center and the racquet opens up slightly. But most of the hits are below. And you are right, it is not a conscious decision, it's instinctive, something they learned that feels better, and has better results (they'll know it consciously as well if they are coached by me, Ha Ha).

Oscar, I don't think this is anything to base instruction around for players learning the sport or for intermediates. I also don't think you are right about your findings concerning the percentage of pros hitting that way. In a way, I believe you are stretching.

Further, if you really are into noticing the majority of pro players doing something, then you would have agreed that pros prepare early and before the ball bounces. However, in the past, you have refused to acknowledge this even with video evidence.

I think your percentage will probably rise on low balls or balls being finnessed. However, for day in and day out shots, no way.

I also don't think that this is really as big of a deal as you are making it. There are other more critical areas in players games concerning reasons they hit long.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

First of all, I'd like to thank everybody for your inputs. But, to avoid this thread going down south, I'd also like to remind everyone to focus on the tennis technique only please. So, No finger pointing, and no promotion please.

Let me summarize what has been discovered so far:
1. Pros may not be hitting below sweetspot intentionally. They are most likely hitting all over the stringbed.

Correct.

2. Some pro may like hitting below, or with the "most feel" hitting like that. But we don't know, unless we ask that pro.

Correct, however, it isn't limited to pro with the most feel. It can also depend on what they are doing with the ball, maybe they took their eye off the ball, etc...

3. Whether hitting below(keeping racket closed) provides real impact after the ball left the string, is still somewhat up to debate.

There is no real debate here. A player can slightly close the racquet at contact. However, what isn't valid is Oscar linking players hitting long because they don't close the racquet face or hit below-center of the racquet. Just use your common sense. If it was this easy, we would have solved this a long time ago. The truth is, there are more variables to this than just this.

To contrast Oscar statements, some players start playing with their wrist and focus on the racquet angle at contact which is something I strongly suggest players don't do. The swing is too fast and you should be concentrating on other things. Second, this goes against Oscars attempt to "CLEAR THE MIND". I have never had an issue with players just knowing to maintain a square face at contact. A square racquet face at contact witrh the strings going up the back of the ball is all a player needs to worry about.

4. I probably missed something.

No, you haven't missed anything. That was a good summary. Just remeber that you should not make your contact with the ball this precise. one of the biggest benefits of today's racquet is its more forgiving contact area. The larger head sizes allow us to swing for topspin with less risk of framing and off center shots. However, to think about where on the racquet face you are hitting every single ball? Please, don't.

 

[drakulie]

However, to think about where on the racquet face you are hitting every single ball? Please, don't.

It's apparent you aren't an MTM Certified instructor.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Isn't this "Conventional" Teaching or Advice?

And that is the secret. Even though players may not know it consciously, they most likely feel it and learn it from experience. The result of low center hits is to keep the racquet closed, and therefore the ball safely in the court. Mind that top players assure net clearance by taking quite a margin above it. Sit at court level and you'll see this aspect of the game. Plenty of net clearance.

Oscar, the bold part of this is very correct. This is why I have my drill with telescoping poles raising a rop that is across the net. Players get used to the swing speed necessary to put topspin and a certain amount of pace to keep the ball deep and less attackable. They also learn to move the ball around better.

The saying that you provided has long time been said. In Vic Braden's Tennis 2000 book on Page 16, he wrote, "Players who continue to visualize a low net simply reinforce one of the most prevalent myths destroying good tennis everywhere: the concept that tennis balls should be hit on a horizontal plane, with hard, line-drive shots the ideal. Interestingly, the pros have an entirely different approach. They know that tennis is not just a driving game, but a lifting game; that to hit the ball hard and still make it come fdown inside their opponent's court, they must develop an ability to hit topspin while elevating the ball four to six feet over the net (my drill with the telescoping poles I learned from Braden) when both players are at the baseline. The pros also know that balls hit on a horizontal plane begin to drop sooner than balls hit at the same speed by elevated with topspin.

Thus I'm always amused at the paradox illustrated by the average player who says, "I can't wait to play like a pro and hit shotse nice low net-skimmers," and the pro goes into the locker room after a match and moans, "Jeez, I'm playing so crummy. My ball's going so close to the net it's a joke."

This is what I mean that the stuff you bring up is not new or "modern". In fact, much of the information you provide is conventional (common understanding).

 

[gzhpcu]

In Vic Braden's Tennis 2000 book on Page 16, he wrote, "Players who continue to visualize a low net simply reinforce one of the most prevalent myths destroying good tennis everywhere: the concept that tennis balls should be hit on a horizontal plane, with hard, line-drive shots the ideal. Interestingly, the pros have an entirely different approach. They know that tennis is not just a driving game, but a lifting game; that to hit the ball hard and still make it come fdown inside their opponent's court, they must develop an ability to hit topspin while elevating the ball four to six feet over the net (my drill with the telescoping poles I learned from Braden) when both players are at the baseline. The pros also know that balls hit on a horizontal plane begin to drop sooner than balls hit at the same speed by elevated with topspin.

Thus I'm always amused at the paradox illustrated by the average player who says, "I can't wait to play like a pro and hit shotse nice low net-skimmers," and the pro goes into the locker room after a match and moans, "Jeez, I'm playing so crummy. My ball's going so close to the net it's a joke."

This is what I mean that the stuff you bring up is not new or "modern". In fact, much of the information you provide is conventional (common understanding).

Right. Watch this: Murray training with Corretja... note how high the ball goes over the net..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsXIM_12dIE

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Right. Watch this: Murray training with Corretja... note how high the ball goes over the net..

tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsXIM_12dIE

Thanks. I also would like to know how this hitting on the bottom center of the racquet has to do with hitting ACROSS the ball. By the looks of the video Oscar provided I don't see the "hitting across the ball stuff."

I understand what it means but need to read the connection.

 

[gzhpcu]

Thanks. I also would like to know how this hitting on the bottom center of the racquet has to do with hitting ACROSS the ball. By the looks of the video Oscar provided I don't see the "hitting across the ball stuff."

I understand what it means but need to read the connection.

IMHO: the racket is well below the hand level and begins to lift and, at the same time, the forearm begins to pronate rapidly. This combination gives a hitting up (the racket comes up) and across (the forearm pronates) effect. The racket being well below the hand means that the target is the lower half of the racket.

 

[Sublime]

If you aim to hit below the center line, in order to help keep the racket face closed, keep in mind:

* The ball is off the strings, well before your racket turns off axis (opens or closes).

* If the racket closes (or opens) that means energy from the collision of hitting the ball went into spinning the racket in your hand and less energy went into putting velocity and spin on the tennis ball.

* Because of the direction the racket is moving when hitting a topspin shot, you are more likely to miss below the sweetspot than above. For this reason, you should aim to hit above the sweetspot, giving you more margin for error.

 

[Power Player]

From seeing the ink residue from the tennis balls rub on my strings (I use the dunlop player elite with the Red ink) I tend to hit in the middle or a little below it. I also hit across the ball more. This really helps with my 2 handed backhand. It is tough to describe, but the action of doing that draws the ball back into the lines when I go down then lines for a tight shot.

I read aboutt his concept on here, and I also ntocied my friend who used to also be a ranked Junior did the same thing and has a wicked backhand. It really helps me to just feel this, and not think too much. My issue I have is closing the stick too much on forehands sometimes or attacking the ball wrong. I think this comes into play when I am tired late in a match and dont move my feet enough.

 

[sureshs]

From seeing the ink residue from the tennis balls rub on my strings (I use the dunlop player elite with the Red ink) I tend to hit in the middle or a little below it.

That is what I have noticed with most people. I think hitting around the sweetspot is the most common area for most advanced players.

 

[Power Player]

It works for me. When I go for heavy spin, I do hit below the sweetspot, but it's because I close the racquet a little more. It's a risky move..sometimes I frame the shot if I don't get my feet right.

 

[papa]

My post on this apparently got scrubbed for some reason. However, I've tried to follow this discussion which, like many, has not been exactly easy.

My question is based on the fact that I did retrieve a copy of Oscar's original book which was published in the early 90's. In the twenty pictures in this book there is not one where the ball is being shown hit on the lower portion of the stringbed - all twenty show the ball being hit almost in the exact middle of the racquet. Have the pictures changed in later editions of this book?

The sweet spot of racquets is not something that Oscar invented but is used by all racquet manufactures in marketing their products. Why are we attributing this work to just his observations - his opinion on this matter is very similar to all major racquet manufacturers. Are you guys saying that racquet manufacturers are all wrong also?

 

[MichaelChang]

It works for me. When I go for heavy spin, I do hit below the sweetspot, but it's because I close the racquet a little more. It's a risky move..sometimes I frame the shot if I don't get my feet right.

Could you please tell us a little more about your background, and were you taught to hit like that? or it is something you read along the way.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

It works for me. When I go for heavy spin, I do hit below the sweetspot, but it's because I close the racquet a little more. It's a risky move..sometimes I frame the shot if I don't get my feet right.

Your post is very honest. I like that you pointed out for the many readers here and said it is a risky move.

It certainly is a riskly move and the reason why is because if you are swinging and using the WW motion, you have two vectors mainly that are contributing to that. First you generally have your upward swing. Then you have your motion of the WW.. When you attempt to raise the racquet and raise the head in a violent very fast swing, you risk mishitting, or just missing the ball and sending into the net. Sometimes you just hit a lot of short balls because you skimmed the ball.

To complicate this more, if a player has grown accustomed to overhitting, overrotating, or has other technical flaws in their stroke, you magnify the risk of erroring.

Players need to go for consistency. Maybe more advanced players like you can manage this on a more consistent basis. However, if hitting the ball sqaure were such a problem, we would have ditched this a long time ago. The truth is (and I provided evidence for this) is pros do not think about hitting below the center of the racquet, they just simply hit the ball.

 

[canuckfan]

I have noticed in the past that when i swing all out on the forehand and the incoming shot is sitting up, I do hit slightly below the sweetspot -- it helps keep the ball in by decreasing power and keeping the face slightly more closed.

BUT on a neutral/aggressive incoming ball, I hit much better when I focus on aiming the higher half of the stringbed (when looking at racquet sideways) at the ball. Then, when you throw in my tendency to hit a bit low, I end up hitting at or slightly above center. This results in a deeper, more solid feeling shot for me.

 

[MichaelChang]

I have noticed in the past that when i swing all out on the forehand and the incoming shot is sitting up, I do hit slightly below the sweetspot -- it helps keep the ball in by decreasing power and keeping the face slightly more closed.

BUT on a neutral/aggressive incoming ball, I hit much better when I focus on aiming the higher half of the stringbed (when looking at racquet sideways) at the ball. Then, when you throw in my tendency to hit a bit low, I end up hitting at or slightly above center. This results in a deeper, more solid feeling shot for me.

What is your level if I may ask? I honestly find my skill impossible to aim at a particular part of the string bed, but rather try to be as close to center as I could. I do change the racket face angle a little bit, depends on where/how I want to hit.

 

[canuckfan]

I'm a 4.0. I'd like to emphasize, I hit a bit low in the stringbed not because I try to -- it's what happens when I try to hit on center. It's essentially a quirk of my game. Consciously trying to hit in the upper half helps correct this inherent tendency of mine. I noticed it about 2 years ago, and decided to visualize hitting in the upper half to 'correct' it. It honestly wasn't very difficult, I started seeing a difference inside a week. Only later did I find out that aiming half the stringbed at the ball is something that has been taught by some tennis pros.

 

[gzhpcu]

I have the feeling it is just a mental image to get topspin on groundstrokes. Similar to saying "hit up on the ball" for the serve. If we were really hitting up, the ball would go out of the court.

I know it helps me to get topspin (both forehand and backhand), so don't care where the actual impact is.

 

[ms87]

I'm a 5.0/5.5 player and I think it's ridiculous for anyone to be hitting off center on this axis. Hitting high on the stringbed, sure that is sometimes understandable; hitting below or above is just silly.

 

[gzhpcu]

I'm a 5.0/5.5 player and I think it's ridiculous for anyone to be hitting off center on this axis. Hitting high on the stringbed, sure that is sometimes understandable; hitting below or above is just silly.

For some of us the image works, for others it doesn't. It is just an image, where impact actually occurs is irrelevant IMHO.

 

[chess9]

I always aim for the "D" on the Dunlop ball as I swing, which is why I don't play with Wilson. Of course, I do like the D to be upright and the full "Dunlop" name to be readable left to right, so, I adjust backwards 2 mm if necessary. I never hit the ball out of the center of the racquet because I'm obsessive compulsive and always overthink everything.

Gotta' run, I see one of my sweaters is lopsided in my closet and Adrian Monk is at the door to help out.

-Robert

 

[MichaelChang]

I'd like to emphasize, I hit a bit low in the stringbed not because I try to -- it's what happens when I try to hit on center.

Thanks and I can imagine that happen to some of my shots as well when I go for more topspin.

 

[drakulie]

My question is based on the fact that I did retrieve a copy of Oscar's original book which was published in the early 90's. In the twenty pictures in this book there is not one where the ball is being shown hit on the lower portion of the stringbed - all twenty show the ball being hit almost in the exact middle of the racquet. Have the pictures changed in later editions of this book?

Thanks for your input, and I agree, it is not easy following the discussion at hand>>>> primarily because Oscar and his followers are "all over the place", and refuse to provide answers to direct questions. All they do is throw smoke-screens.

As is the case with your book, we are all finding out that Oscar's teachings are all over the place, and quite frankly, contradict one another. One day he will say one thing, and the next day he is contradicting what he said the day prior.

The sweet spot of racquets is not something that Oscar invented but is used by all racquet manufactures in marketing their products.

Everyone knows this. What we are pointing out, and arguing is his definitiion of a sweet spot. In the book he provides a photo of a volkl frame, and he outlines the ENTIRE STRING BED as the "Modern Sweet Spot".

Of course, we all know he is dead wrong, as there is no such racquet that the entire string bed is a sweet spot.

It's just another one of Oscar's completely innacurate conclusions. He and his followers choose to call this thinking, "Revolutionary or Modern", the rest of us choose to call it for what it is... DEAD WRONG.

 

[papa]

Thanks for your input, and I agree, it is not easy following the discussion at hand>>>> primarily because Oscar and his followers are "all over the place", and refuse to provide answers to direct questions. All they do is throw smoke-screens.

As is the case with your book, we are all finding out that Oscar's teachings are all over the place, and quite frankly, contradict one another. One day he will say one thing, and the next day he is contradicting what he said the day prior.

OK, that might explain a few things if things keep changing - I guess that I didn't realize that. Are you saying that NOW he is advocating hitting off the center axis or hitting below the center of the string bed? Have the new editions of his book changed these photos? If this is in fact the case, I don't know what level of player he is addressing because for the high percentage of players that would be inappropriate to say the least. "Maybe" at the pro level 7.0 they have the eye hand coordination to do this but with the exception of very few players, even at that level, I think it would be hard to pull off.


Everyone knows this. What we are pointing out, and arguing is his definitiion of a sweet spot. In the book he provides a photo of a volkl frame, and he outlines the ENTIRE STRING BED as the "Modern Sweet Spot".

I'm not that familiar with Volkl but I am very aware of Wilson and Prince specs. This business of the "sweet spot" area seems to grow each year so it must be an effective marketing tool. I think most knowledgeable racquet people would agree that the center axis is the preferable area to strike the ball. However, I think they would also agree that "off center axis" hits can be effective also - thus the enlargement of the sweet spot. Are you saying that he (Oscar) is advocating hitting off "center axis" on purpose or that its preferable? I wasn't aware that he even got into the "sweet spot" discussion very seriously and must admit that I couldn't even find much reference to it in his book other than a casual mention here and there.


Of course, we all know he is dead wrong, as there is no such racquet that the entire string bed is a sweet spot.

I find it hard to believe he is saying this but I might be wrong. Oscar has a background in engineering, like I do, and I this statement doesn't ring true for me anyway. Can you hit a ball anywhere on the string bed and have it go over - sure, common knowledge, sometimes it doesn't even have to hit the strings.

It's just another one of Oscar's completely innacurate conclusions. He and his followers choose to call this thinking, "Revolutionary or Modern", the rest of us choose to call it for what it is... DEAD WRONG.

I realize, as you do, that often we are all quoted as saying things that we didn't say or things are taken out of context. I had a guy helping me with clinics that I give, for example, that thought he knew what I was saying but when he explained something, it was just plain wrong - not always but often enough that it was a mistake to have him around. He would hear things and come to conclusions that were just wrong.

 

[sureshs]

My post on this apparently got scrubbed for some reason. However, I've tried to follow this discussion which, like many, has not been exactly easy.

My question is based on the fact that I did retrieve a copy of Oscar's original book which was published in the early 90's. In the twenty pictures in this book there is not one where the ball is being shown hit on the lower portion of the stringbed - all twenty show the ball being hit almost in the exact middle of the racquet. Have the pictures changed in later editions of this book?

The sweet spot of racquets is not something that Oscar invented but is used by all racquet manufactures in marketing their products. Why are we attributing this work to just his observations - his opinion on this matter is very similar to all major racquet manufacturers. Are you guys saying that racquet manufacturers are all wrong also?

What opinion? That the racquet hits the ball on the sweetspot? No, we are talking about the specific advice quoted in the earlier parts of this thread. The diagrams you talk about are probably generic stuff, while the diagram shown in this thread was used to make a specific point.

 

[sureshs]

I realize, as you do, that often we are all quoted as saying things that we didn't say or things are taken out of context. I had a guy helping me with clinics that I give, for example, that thought he knew what I was saying but when he explained something, it was just plain wrong - not always but often enough that it was a mistake to have him around. He would hear things and come to conclusions that were just wrong.

In this case, the advice has been published in a book with a clear diagram to illustrate it. There is no analogy with your anecdote. In addition, we have received clarifications from Oscar that this is what he intended.

Are you even reading this thread?

 

[papa]

Thanks for your input, and I agree, it is not easy following the discussion at hand>>>> primarily because Oscar and his followers are "all over the place", and refuse to provide answers to direct questions. All they do is throw smoke-screens.

As is the case with your book, we are all finding out that Oscar's teachings are all over the place, and quite frankly, contradict one another. One day he will say one thing, and the next day he is contradicting what he said the day prior.



Everyone knows this. What we are pointing out, and arguing is his definitiion of a sweet spot. In the book he provides a photo of a volkl frame, and he outlines the ENTIRE STRING BED as the "Modern Sweet Spot".

Of course, we all know he is dead wrong, as there is no such racquet that the entire string bed is a sweet spot.

It's just another one of Oscar's completely innacurate conclusions. He and his followers choose to call this thinking, "Revolutionary or Modern", the rest of us choose to call it for what it is... DEAD WRONG.

This is getting silly. My entire response was trimed down to the last paragraph which really didn't sum up what I said.

I was writing about off center hits and the like and saying that I really question anyone suggesting that its preferable to strike the ball off of this center axis. I was also discussing the "sweet spot" which for someone must be a sensitive area to get into. I think that in Oscar's book (at least the original one) there is very little discussion of it. I think the racquet folks, especially at Prince and Wilson, have used it to market their products. I'm familiar with both of these companies, at least to a limited degree, and I believe they are the ones to suggest that the "sweet spot" keeps getting bigger - look it sell more racquets because it gives you a greater margin for error. Suggesting the entire racquet is the "sweet spot" is just plain nonsense and I think everyone would realize that.

 

[papa]

Thanks for your input, and I agree, it is not easy following the discussion at hand>>>> primarily because Oscar and his followers are "all over the place", and refuse to provide answers to direct questions. All they do is throw smoke-screens.

As is the case with your book, we are all finding out that Oscar's teachings are all over the place, and quite frankly, contradict one another. One day he will say one thing, and the next day he is contradicting what he said the day prior.

OK, that might explain a few things if things keep changing - I guess that I didn't realize that. Are you saying that NOW he is advocating hitting off the center axis or hitting below the center of the string bed? Have the new editions of his book changed these photos? If this is in fact the case, I don't know what level of player he is addressing because for the high percentage of players that would be inappropriate to say the least. "Maybe" at the pro level 7.0 they have the eye hand coordination to do this but with the exception of very few players, even at that level, I think it would be hard to pull off.


Everyone knows this. What we are pointing out, and arguing is his definitiion of a sweet spot. In the book he provides a photo of a volkl frame, and he outlines the ENTIRE STRING BED as the "Modern Sweet Spot".

I'm not that familiar with Volkl but I am very aware of Wilson and Prince specs. This business of the "sweet spot" area seems to grow each year so it must be an effective marketing tool. I think most knowledgeable racquet people would agree that the center axis is the preferable area to strike the ball. However, I think they would also agree that "off center axis" hits can be effective also - thus the enlargement of the sweet spot. Are you saying that he (Oscar) is advocating hitting off "center axis" on purpose or that its preferable? I wasn't aware that he even got into the "sweet spot" discussion very seriously and must admit that I couldn't even find much reference to it in his book other than a casual mention here and there.


Of course, we all know he is dead wrong, as there is no such racquet that the entire string bed is a sweet spot.

I find it hard to believe he is saying this but I might be wrong. Oscar has a background in engineering, like I do, and I this statement doesn't ring true for me anyway. Can you hit a ball anywhere on the string bed and have it go over - sure, common knowledge, sometimes it doesn't even have to hit the strings.

It's just another one of Oscar's completely innacurate conclusions. He and his followers choose to call this thinking, "Revolutionary or Modern", the rest of us choose to call it for what it is... DEAD WRONG.

I realize, as you do, that often we are all quoted as saying things that we didn't say or things are taken out of context. I had a guy helping me with clinics that I give, for example, that thought he knew what I was saying but when he explained something, it was just plain wrong - not always but often enough that it was a mistake to have him around. He would hear things and come to conclusions that were just wrong.

 

[sureshs]

This is getting silly. My entire response was trimed down to the last paragraph which really didn't sum up what I said.

I was writing about off center hits and the like and saying that I really question anyone suggesting that its preferable to strike the ball off of this center axis. I was also discussing the "sweet spot" which for someone must be a sensitive area to get into. I think that in Oscar's book (at least the original one) there is very little discussion of it. I think the racquet folks, especially at Prince and Wilson, have used it to market their products. I'm familiar with both of these companies, at least to a limited degree, and I believe they are the ones to suggest that the "sweet spot" keeps getting bigger - look it sell more racquets because it gives you a greater margin for error. Suggesting the entire racquet is the "sweet spot" is just plain nonsense and I think everyone would realize that.

The sweetspot for a given head size does keep getting bigger. The Prince speedports have increased the sweetspot for a given head size by increasing the freedom of movement of the strings. But of course the increase is mainly due to going to bigger head sizes.

In addition, advances in cushioning and dampening technology have made off-center hits more comfortable, thus effectively increasing the sweetspot.

 

[papa]

The sweetspot for a given head size does keep getting bigger. The Prince speedports have increased the sweetspot for a given head size by increasing the freedom of movement of the strings. But of course the increase is mainly due to going to bigger head sizes.

In addition, advances in cushioning and dampening technology have made off-center hits more comfortable, thus effectively increasing the sweetspot.

Yes, I agree. I think some of the confusion, if there is any, might come from what "some" (very small percentage of players) are able to do and what's good advice for the general player below the pro level. When I read this, I don't come to the conclusion that the advice is for everyone. However, I will be the first to admit that I don't follow Oscar very much and maybe I'm that familiar with what he really means.