Men's league tennis - are the classic strokes the best for intermediates?

[lostinamerica]

By deg

then why is OP observing obsolete wooden racket eastern slicing 4.0s totally dominating the modern 3.5 topspin slammers?
its because real world adult tennis has zero resemblance to pro tennis

By definition, 4.0s are better than 3.5.

I’m a classical player that learned in the 1980s and I changed my game to a more modern game and while my groundstrokes improved, my volleys suffered and elbow problems arose.

I’ve returned to soft strings and a lot less tennis. It could be age but I never had injuries prior to modernizing my game.

 

[E46luver]

yea and OP is saying the better 4.0 players are not hitting hard like the 3.5
hitting hard means losing

 

[J011yroger]

yea and OP is saying the better 4.0 players are not hitting hard like the 3.5
hitting hard means losing

Missing means losing.

On average as level goes up players hit the ball harder.

J

 

[Injured Again]

Why is the underlying assumption that modern strokes are more difficult to execute or more physically taxing? Why would an older player lose the ability to hit modern strokes but still be able to hit classic strokes?

I don't know how old you are, but I'm 58 and that is the viewpoint I'm coming from.

Physically taxing is a given. The court gets relatively larger every year as we get older. Shots that we could have easily reached now require a serious, concerted, and high effort movement to reach and execute a stroke. As much as I have tried to maintain my stride length, I need one extra step now to get from the center hash to the sidelines than I needed ten years ago. Good drop shots are an all out sprint. And this is despite working out, a lot. I spend at least ten hours a week in the gym, and I bet I am stronger than 95% of tennis players of any age. I can squat 350 pounds and bench press 225 pounds easily. During the summer, I do run sprint training and participate in day-long endurance events. Strength is not an issue, but elasticity and speed of contraction of muscles is, and that affects speed of movement.

Modern strokes require a lot of rapid and coordinated muscular contractions and interactions. This also gets more difficult as we get older. We may still be able to use the technique, but racquet head speed slows down, and the ability to repeatedly generate the same stroke with correct timing while hitting the ball on the sweetspot, diminishes. Eyesight gets worse. We can't change our focus on the ball from the opponent's baseline to near the hitting zone as quickly. The ability of the eyes to track a moving object, called a saccade, diminishes. These eye movements become less accurate and combined with the slower focus once our eyes become stationary, leads to more mis-hits and worse timing. Reaction time diminishes. Fine balance diminishes. Never more noticeable than descending a curvy road fast on a bicycle, or even driving in a high performance event on a track. It takes longer and bigger inputs before I notice things, and in tennis that means that my balance isn't as good when I get twisted around or are scrambling to recover to the middle of the court.

So at some point, there are diminishing returns. The modern technique may be there, but with decreasing physical ability the effort to generate it may result in a ball that an opponent with a large headed racquet can easily neutralize. The risk/reward isn't worth it, and it's better to use a less complicated stroke and use ball directionality versus spin or ball speed. A less complicated stroke can also be executed better with a more forgiving racquet, which is why in one semifinal at last year's gold ball indoor 60's tournament, three of the four players were using extreme OS racquets.

This is no different than in any other sport. If Nolan Ryan were to play age competitive baseball at age 60, there's no way he can throw 100 MPH any more. He's probably lucky to get it up to 70 MPH at age 60, and so he can't just throw it past people any more. He's got to move the ball around the corners of the plate, throw in change ups, and not just fire it down the middle of the plate.

I take it that by asking your question, you're not as old as I am. Enjoy the physicality you now have, and really, really relish what you can do on a court because at some point, those things will only be a memory. I wish I had the foresight to enjoy what I could do back in my 30's and 40's.

 

[Injured Again]

Because older players make excuses.

J

We'll see what you're saying in twenty years!

 

[J011yroger]

We'll see what you're saying in twenty years!

Probably that my knee hurts.

J

 

[fundrazer]

Because older players make excuses.

J

This is absolutely true in my experiences also. Maybe this is in a different context to the post you're replying to also, but the older guys I've played against always have excuses for things or make little comments. Hardly ever happens with younger guys I've played with.

Oh I haven't played in three weeks
I've been driving in the car for 6 hours today I gotta loosen up
I don't like the way I wrapped my grip
Something about being sore from softball

The funny thing is I think the last three are were all complaints from the same guy... some wacko that I played the other night.

There's also the usual on court antics which I often find funny. A lot of the players I've played against get so upset when they're missing balls, and in my head I'm thinking yeah buddy, if I was a little more consistent this match wouldn't even be close, so what are you complaining about?

 

[Moveforwardalways]

I don't know how old you are, but I'm 58 and that is the viewpoint I'm coming from.

Physically taxing is a given. The court gets relatively larger every year as we get older. Shots that we could have easily reached now require a serious, concerted, and high effort movement to reach and execute a stroke. As much as I have tried to maintain my stride length, I need one extra step now to get from the center hash to the sidelines than I needed ten years ago. Good drop shots are an all out sprint. And this is despite working out, a lot. I spend at least ten hours a week in the gym, and I bet I am stronger than 95% of tennis players of any age. I can squat 350 pounds and bench press 225 pounds easily. During the summer, I do run sprint training and participate in day-long endurance events. Strength is not an issue, but elasticity and speed of contraction of muscles is, and that affects speed of movement.

Modern strokes require a lot of rapid and coordinated muscular contractions and interactions. This also gets more difficult as we get older. We may still be able to use the technique, but racquet head speed slows down, and the ability to repeatedly generate the same stroke with correct timing while hitting the ball on the sweetspot, diminishes. Eyesight gets worse. We can't change our focus on the ball from the opponent's baseline to near the hitting zone as quickly. The ability of the eyes to track a moving object, called a saccade, diminishes. These eye movements become less accurate and combined with the slower focus once our eyes become stationary, leads to more mis-hits and worse timing. Reaction time diminishes. Fine balance diminishes. Never more noticeable than descending a curvy road fast on a bicycle, or even driving in a high performance event on a track. It takes longer and bigger inputs before I notice things, and in tennis that means that my balance isn't as good when I get twisted around or are scrambling to recover to the middle of the court.

So at some point, there are diminishing returns. The modern technique may be there, but with decreasing physical ability the effort to generate it may result in a ball that an opponent with a large headed racquet can easily neutralize. The risk/reward isn't worth it, and it's better to use a less complicated stroke and use ball directionality versus spin or ball speed. A less complicated stroke can also be executed better with a more forgiving racquet, which is why in one semifinal at last year's gold ball indoor 60's tournament, three of the four players were using extreme OS racquets.

This is no different than in any other sport. If Nolan Ryan were to play age competitive baseball at age 60, there's no way he can throw 100 MPH any more. He's probably lucky to get it up to 70 MPH at age 60, and so he can't just throw it past people any more. He's got to move the ball around the corners of the plate, throw in change ups, and not just fire it down the middle of the plate.

I take it that by asking your question, you're not as old as I am. Enjoy the physicality you now have, and really, really relish what you can do on a court because at some point, those things will only be a memory. I wish I had the foresight to enjoy what I could do back in my 30's and 40's.

I agree about the effects of age. I just do not see why age wouldn’t have the same effect on classic strokes as well. Are classic strokes really less complicated? Is a 2-handed drive backhand really more complicated than a 1-handed backhand? I don’t think so. Modern strokes evolved because they are simple, require less effort, less preparation, and have a higher margin for error. What seems complicated might just be a matter of what you learned first. By contrast, as I age, the thought of trying to hit classic 1-handed backhands seems ominous and physically taxing. It’s too easy to just unit turn, have no take back, and meet the ball with two hands.

 

[Injured Again]

Probably that my knee hurts.

J

At my age, what doesn't hurt, doesn't work. So you'd better hope that more than just your knee hurts....

 

[Injured Again]

I agree about the effects of age. I just do not see why age wouldn’t have the same effect on classic strokes as well. Are classic strokes really less complicated? Is a 2-handed drive backhand really more complicated than a 1-handed backhand? I don’t think so. Modern strokes evolved because they are simple, require less effort, less preparation, and have a higher margin for error. What seems complicated might just be a matter of what you learned first. By contrast, as I age, the thought of trying to hit classic 1-handed backhands seems ominous and physically taxing. It’s too easy to just unit turn, have no take back, and meet the ball with two hands.

I guess it might be a matter of semantics. When I think modern stroke, like the typical "ATP forehand", I visualize a signifcant amount of wrist layback and a windshield wiper pronation finish. A classic stroke has a fairly fixed wrist position and a more forward stroke trajectory where the racquet head pretty much follows the same path as the hand. That classic stroke eliminates many variables that can cause timing issues, and allows the stroke to happen in a shorter timeframe as reflexes and speed of movement decrease.

As an example, Federer has a beautiful modern ATP style forehand, but when returning serve, he significantly truncates the swing and decreases the amount of wrist and pronation that he uses. He does that because he doesn't have enough time, and because he wants to most accurately square up the ball. As players get older, our need to square up the ball more consistently also increases.

The guys I watched at the national 60 indoors tournament all had beautiful and classic strokes with minimal wrist or pronation, that were mostly straight through the ball, hitting with very moderate spin or flat, but timing the contact consistently well so their directional control was what they emphasized. I mean, if all of a sudden the court were enlarged 25%, would you choose heaviness of ball over directional accuracy?

 

[34n]

Why is the underlying assumption that modern strokes are more difficult to execute or more physically taxing? Why would an older player lose the ability to hit modern strokes but still be able to hit classic strokes?

With age we loose power and gain weight , hence less and less power-to-mass ratio to produce top spin.
Top spin is a product of mainly raw leg power. You need your body mass going upward to make a good top spin shot. ( Pros lift off the ground on many shots. )
You need to be light and have powerful legs.
Underspin shots and flat shots require more horizontal weight transfer. Need less leg power obviously and can be initiated faster.

 

[Cashman]

Anyone have a video of a 5.0+ match pitting flat vs modern? It'd be interesting to see.

Watch the Legends tour, you’ll see plenty of those.

 

[Injured Again]

With age we loose power and gain weight , hence less and less power-to-mass ratio to produce top spin.
Top spin is a product of mainly raw leg power. You need your body mass going upward to make a good top spin shot. ( Pros lift off the ground on many shots. )
You need to be light and have powerful legs.
Underspin shots and flat shots require more horizontal weight transfer. Need less leg power obviously and can be initiated faster.

I don't agree with this. It is possible to hit heavy topspin without any vertical body motion, and besides the relative amount of vertical body velocity is miniscule compared to the vertical velocity of a racquet. This is easy to visualize - how high does a player get off the ground when trying to hit a heavy topspin shot? Maybe about six inches? Then, imagine if a player were to let go of their racquet at the contact point when trying to hit a heavy looping shot - the racquet would probably go 30 or 40 feet in the air. The magnitude of the vertical component of jumping up versus the vertical component of racquet head speed are several orders of magnitude different, so the contribution of jumping in adding topspin is negligible.

For me, the loading and launching upward using my legs is not to generate additional topspin due to the jump. It is to move the shoulder relative to the racquet so that additional wrist layback is generated, and to preload the pec and shoulder muscles so they can contract more strongly - this is the same effect as how you can jump higher when you jump, land, and then jump again versus just jumping from a stationary position.

In any case, the coordination of all of this motion gets more difficult as we age, and it just is easier to have less moving parts.

EDIT: It's also not strength that is an issue. It is muscle contractile velocity and the flexibility to allow that contraction to occur over a greater distance. As a personal example, when I was in my early 20's, I could easily get a wrist over a basketball rim. I wasn't doing any resistance training at that time. When i started, my one rep max was about one-third of what I could do even now, but now I can barely touch the net. My strength to weight ratio is probably twice what it was back then, but I can't contract my muscles as fast no matter how hard I strain at it.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

No one disputes that explosive power and general athleticism diminish with age. They certainly do. The question is whether there is any real difference in the explosive power or athleticism needed to hit effective modern vs classic strokes. I don’t think there is.

 

[E46luver]

topspin has nothing to do with legs
I can lock out my knees and hit topspin
topspin is racket moving upwards

 

[Injured Again]

No one disputes that explosive power and general athleticism diminish with age. They certainly do. The question is whether there is any real difference in the explosive power or athleticism needed to hit effective modern vs classic strokes. I don’t think there is.

In my opinion, there is. You need more racquet head speed to hit with more spin if you are going to maintain the same ball velocity, and because explosive spin declined with aging, it means you're closer and closer to your maximum capability with every passing year. But because you can't be as accurate the closer you get to your maximum swing speeds, the number of unforced errors increases.

What I've also been trying to say is that eyesight, coordination, and fine motor control also decline with time, and it is all of these factors combined that make playing modern strokes a losing proposition at some point. Some people, like me, will continue to doggedly and stubbornly try until age slaps us upside the head with the realization it is not a winning game. Others who may be smarter, realize that time comes for everyone, so might as well ditch the modern strokes for classic ones and work on perfecting them while the athleticism, coordination, and eyesight still allows substantial improvement.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

In my opinion, there is. You need more racquet head speed to hit with more spin if you are going to maintain the same ball velocity, and because explosive spin declined with aging, it means you're closer and closer to your maximum capability with every passing year. But because you can't be as accurate the closer you get to your maximum swing speeds, the number of unforced errors increases.

What I've also been trying to say is that eyesight, coordination, and fine motor control also decline with time, and it is all of these factors combined that make playing modern strokes a losing proposition at some point. Some people, like me, will continue to doggedly and stubbornly try until age slaps us upside the head with the realization it is not a winning game. Others who may be smarter, realize that time comes for everyone, so might as well ditch the modern strokes for classic ones and work on perfecting them while the athleticism, coordination, and eyesight still allows substantial improvement.

But doesn’t it take eyesight, coordination, and fine motor skills to hit classic strokes too? I think so. The kinetic chain - via leg, back, and core strength - powers all tennis strokes, both modern and classic. Both decline over time. If all of these things have declined, it is much harder to hit an offensive 1-handed backhand than a 2-handed back hand. If you are hitting with no topspin, it requires far more directional control and fine motor skills to place the ball.

 

[Injured Again]

But doesn’t it take eyesight, coordination, and fine motor skills to hit classic strokes too? I think so. The kinetic chain - via leg, back, and core strength - powers all tennis strokes, both modern and classic. Both decline over time. If all of these things have declined, it is much harder to hit an offensive 1-handed backhand than a 2-handed back hand. If you are hitting with no topspin, it requires far more directional control and fine motor skills to place the ball.

The simpler the movement, the more accurately it can be repeated. Try this - run along at a good pace while bouncing the ball about 8-10 inches high on your strings. Then, run along but in between every bounce, flex your wrist 45 degrees. Then, run along at the same pace, flex your wrist between each bounce, and bounce the ball once on one side of the stringbed, and then on the other side of the stringbed, and repeat. Which is easier? In which case can you more accurately hit the ball on the sweet spot, with the stringbed in the correct orientation so the ball goes straight up? In which case do you more consistently bounce the ball the same height?

Less wrist layback, less pronation, less vertical path of the racquet to the contact point - these all increase accuracy and timing of the swing.

 

[navigator]

Just a little more perspective... many here are familiar with Oren Motevassel who's one of the best 50+ players in the US. He occasionally loops some topspin FHs but for the most part he hits a pretty flat ball and definitely doesn't have "modern" strokes. He's a 5.5 for sure. (He's the shorter guy in the grey shirt.)

 

[Injured Again]

Oren Motevassel has strokes that look very similar to the players I saw at the national 60's indoors (gold ball) tournament, and arguably some of the guys I saw were less unorthodox in some respects. But overall the shape and speed of shot and the way they produced it were pretty much the same. Depth, consistency, and accuracy over spin and heaviness of shot.

Makes me wonder all the more why I'm going the opposite direction.

 

[34n]

No one disputes that explosive power and general athleticism diminish with age. They certainly do. The question is whether there is any real difference in the explosive power or athleticism needed to hit effective modern vs classic strokes. I don’t think there is.

I think we speak about different levels of top spin.
Anyone who playd agains a nationally ranked within 100 or active atp guys will tell that our moderate topspin shots have nothing resembling the modern strokes we discuss here.
Those can not be hit without ot leg power

 

[E46luver]

It's much much easier to hit topspin than to slice.
Topspin has tons of room for error while slice needs to be nearly perfect on 5 variables.

 

[J011yroger]

It's much much easier to hit topspin than to slice.
Topspin has tons of room for error while slice needs to be nearly perfect on 5 variables.

Weird how players hit slice on defense, off balance, or returning big serves huh?

J

 

[Dartagnan64]

It's much much easier to hit topspin than to slice.
Topspin has tons of room for error while slice needs to be nearly perfect on 5 variables.

I'm with Jolly. Slice is far easier to control the ball largely because the simplicity of the stroke without core rotation means you are less likely to hit off center. When you are uncoiling into a topspin shot there are lots of things to go wrong and a lot more prep and timing needed. For a slice I just need to get the racquet to the ball.

That being said I also think every shot has its time and place so it's not really a "one is better or easier than the other" thing. It's easier to slice low balls or balls out on the stretch. It's easier to hit topspin on waist high moderate pace balls.

 

[E46luver]

Weird how players hit slice on defense, off balance, or returning big serves huh?

J

yes and notice how they have almost no control over their defensive reply.
next ball is often put away for winner.

To paraphrase Vic Braden, to slice, you must manipulate 5 variables:
1) speed of opponent's shot
2) ball rotation that opponent has hit
3) angle of downswing
4) angle of bevel of racket
5) speed of your swing
This is why very few have control of their slice

for topspin, there are only 2 variables
1) vertical angle you will elevate ball
2) forward angle of the swing

slice is much more complex and precise
topspin has tons of room for error
hit topspin as hard as you like
no matter what opponent spin is, you can hit topspin
fix racket and leave it alone
good luck with passing shot as a slice

but, what does Vic Braden know?
he only coached the biggest names in tennis history, that's all.

 

[Injured Again]

yes and notice how they have almost no control over their defensive reply.
next ball is often put away for winner.

To paraphrase Vic Braden, to slice, you must manipulate 5 variables:
1) speed of opponent's shot
2) ball rotation that opponent has hit
3) angle of downswing
4) angle of bevel of racket
5) speed of your swing
This is why very few have control of their slice

for topspin, there are only 2 variables
1) vertical angle you will elevate ball
2) forward angle of the swing

slice is much more complex and precise
topspin has tons of room for error
hit topspin as hard as you like
no matter what opponent spin is, you can hit topspin
fix racket and leave it alone
good luck with passing shot as a slice

but, what does Vic Braden know?
he only coached the biggest names in tennis history, that's all.

So you are saying that for a topspin shot, you don't have to worry about any of these?

1) speed of opponent's shot
2) ball rotation that opponent has hit
3) angle of upswing
4) angle of bevel of racket
5) speed of your swing

 

[E46luver]

no vic braden the greatest tennis coach of all time said it

 

[Injured Again]

no vic braden the greatest tennis coach of all time said it

Then he's wrong.

You can't effectively time and respond to any shot if you don't know or don't care how hard your opponent has hit it, with what kind of spin it has been hit because that will determine where the ball lands on your side of the court and how it will bounce. If you don't care about the angle of your swing trajectory or the angle of your stringbed, you cannot effectively time the shot, nor know how much spin and net clearance it is going to have. And lastly, if you don't have to worry about your own swing speed, you won't have any ability to control where the ball lands. To ignore these things, you might as well play with a blindfold on.

I grew up in the golden age of Vic Braden. I'm sure I've heard his funky "bockhaaand" pronunciation at least a thousand times and his tennis advice is generally logical and scientific principles. I would challenge you to reference where he said these things. Just on the face of it, they are nonsensical. I care **a lot** about things way less critical than the items on that list, like which way the wind is blowing and where the sun is. To not care how hard or what kind of spin the opponent has hit the ball with is just silly when you are trying to return that ball.

 

[E46luver]

I would challenge you to reference where he said these things

page 36

 

[34n]

So you are saying that for a topspin shot, you don't have to worry about any of these?

1) speed of opponent's shot
2) ball rotation that opponent has hit
3) angle of upswing
4) angle of bevel of racket
5) speed of your swing

Key words in @J011yroger post about slice are " on defense, off balance, or returning big serves " ( time constraint ).
Slice takes less time to set up this is why it is used in difficult situations. Top spin needs time to set and load legs
Nobody argues that under normal circumstances top spin shots is preferable.

I wonder how do you play when you jammed, stretched, wrong footed and have change direction of your move suddenly?

 

[mxmx]

I agree, the clear evidence from the college and pros is that modern technique is best for young, elite players. That's why I'm talking about adult rec here. True, I would say 4.5 is an interesting level since it's generally the transition point from the best rec players to more formally competitive players.

Maybe the most interesting issue is what to do with teaching rec adults. If someone around, say 40, wants to get into tennis, or back into it after a layoff, do you teach them a big semi-western or western forehand in private lessons or clinics because that's considered the "best" technique across all levels of tennis? Or do you teach them a more conservative style that might suit them better given they will never go beyond rec?

I'd go eastern forehand for the forehand and continental for all other strokes. Less of a transition between strokes.

 

[Injured Again]

Key words in @J011yroger post about slice are " on defense, off balance, or returning big serves " ( time constraint ).
Slice takes less time to set up this is why it is used in difficult situations. Top spin needs time to set and load legs
Nobody argues that under normal circumstances top spin shots is preferable.

I wonder how do you play when you jammed, stretched, wrong footed and have change direction of your move suddenly?

I'm not following where you are going with your post, but in those situations I will do whatever it is I can to get that ball back into play. It will look more like a volley stroke than anything else if I have any sort of time and balance, and I will slap at the ball in any possible manner if I don't have time.

By the way, I agree with @J011yroger and disagree with @E46luver just to clear up any confusion.

 

[mxmx]

I agree about the effects of age. I just do not see why age wouldn’t have the same effect on classic strokes as well. Are classic strokes really less complicated? Is a 2-handed drive backhand really more complicated than a 1-handed backhand? I don’t think so. Modern strokes evolved because they are simple, require less effort, less preparation, and have a higher margin for error. What seems complicated might just be a matter of what you learned first. By contrast, as I age, the thought of trying to hit classic 1-handed backhands seems ominous and physically taxing. It’s too easy to just unit turn, have no take back, and meet the ball with two hands.

Extreme grips require more extreme leg bend. In order to hit lowish balls back at the correct contact point is often easier with a less extreme grip. As one gets older, you may play more doubles and volley more. The transition from western to continental is greater than that of eastern to continental. "Touch" may also become more important to older people compared to power...extreme grips are less "touch" orientated. Besides, most people serve with the continental grip anyways. Older players may have more skill to get away with any grip.

Personally I mostly play semi western or eastern. I can play continental or eastern on the backhand as well as serve with either continental or eastern backhand grips. This gives me more variation. One of the best players I have ever seen or played against always had a continental grip on the forehand and could also play topspin with that grip. He is a great volleyer.

 

[34n]

I'm not following where you are going with your post, but in those situations I will do whatever it is I can to get that ball back into play. It will look more like a volley stroke than anything else if I have any sort of time and balance, and I will slap at the ball in any possible manner if I don't have time.

By the way, I agree with @J011yroger and disagree with @E46luver just to clear up any confusion.

Sorry, I was responding to the @E46luver post. I just hit the "respond" button next to your post by accident. We are on the same page.

 

[am1899]

good luck

If your opponent can knife a short slice, or hit a deep, penetrating shot that rushes you for time...you can fix your wrist, sit in a chair, and swing up all you like. Good luck hitting topspin with any meaningful sort of consistency or efficacy there. Could pray, I guess.

The fact that slice ground strokes are still hit by pros in televised matches contradicts your interpretation of what Braden said on page 36. (Yes, I read it).

 

[Cashman]

Round here there are plenty of carpet and grass courts, so nobody plays with a full western grip. There is a bit of clay but hardcourt is rare.

Although I’ve varied my grip over the years I have always hit with something fairly eastern-ish on both sides. It’s just really versatile - I can get plenty of topspin without having to sacrifice my flat and sliced strokes, and it makes grip transitions much quicker.

I can’t imagine ever recommending a really extreme grip to a rec player.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Round here there are plenty of carpet and grass courts, so nobody plays with a full western grip. There is a bit of clay but hardcourt is rare.

Although I’ve varied my grip over the years I have always hit with something fairly eastern-ish on both sides. It’s just really versatile - I can get plenty of topspin without having to sacrifice my flat and sliced strokes, and it makes grip transitions much quicker.

I can’t imagine ever recommending a really extreme grip to a rec player.

I agree. I think most rec players should stick with Eastern/strong SW for the FH and Conti for everything else. It just generally makes everything a lot simpler. I don't see any of the guys in Open using crazy grips by and large.

 

[Matthew ATX]

Someone asked me the other day what kind of grip I use on my forehand. I was like... idk, hand me that racquet. Lol. Still don't know what you call it. I just hold it how I hold it.

 

[J B]

how come no one has mentioned footwork. Its the biggest issue with any of the hitters. Most people have a servicable stroke that would be served by better footwork. Adult tennis is built around the other guy making the mistake.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

I agree. I think most rec players should stick with Eastern/strong SW for the FH and Conti for everything else. It just generally makes everything a lot simpler. I don't see any of the guys in Open using crazy grips by and large.

So only continental backhand slices?

 

[Matthew ATX]

how come no one has mentioned footwork. Its the biggest issue with any of the hitters. Most people have a servicable stroke that would be served by better footwork. Adult tennis is built around the other guy making the mistake.

Are there different types of footwork? I think there's just good footwork, and bad footwork. Obviously good footwork would be better for rec players (all players.)

 

[J011yroger]

Are there different types of footwork? I think there's just good footwork, and bad footwork. Obviously good footwork would be better for rec players (all players.)

Of course there are different kinds of footwork.

J

 

[mxmx]

Of course there are different kinds of footwork.

J

I'm interested...can you share some kinds?

 

[Booger]

Round here there are plenty of carpet and grass courts, so nobody plays with a full western grip. There is a bit of clay but hardcourt is rare.

Where is that? Sounds awesome. On the west coast of America, it's 99.9% hard courts. I really wanted to play on the 1 grass court near indian wells, but it proved impossible.

 

[Cashman]

Where is that? Sounds awesome. On the west coast of America, it's 99.9% hard courts. I really wanted to play on the 1 grass court near indian wells, but it proved impossible.

East coast of Australia. Mind you, depending on where you go grass can be less common and hardcourt a bit moreso. Carpet is common everywhere though, and down south there is more clay (but mostly en tout cas rather than the European stuff).

I like playing on fast courts, but it’s very different tennis. People who come from overseas often hate it. You straight-up can’t play with heavy topspin on grass. You can on carpet, but it doesn’t provide anywhere near as much value as on clay/HC.

Players who grow up in an environment where good strokes = topspin often get very frustrated when they’re sliced up or cannoned off the court.

I once had a French doubles partner who commented that it was like going back in time. He couldn’t believe that I served and volleyed almost exclusively in singles.

 

[J011yroger]

I'm interested...can you share some kinds?

They don't have names like forehand grips, a lot of it has to do with stance, route to the ball, the foot you hit off of and land on, and how you recover.

I mean just moving laterally you can shuffle, cross in front, cross behind, caioca...

J

 

[n8dawg6]

We aren't talking about 3-4 inches.

thats what she said

 

[J B]

Are there different types of footwork? I think there's just good footwork, and bad footwork. Obviously good footwork would be better for rec players (all players.)

I must have been unclear. Most of peoples problems are not with their strokes or grip, they lose to people with the flat or slice only stroke ( the reason for a lot of tennis elbow) because they spent all their time on stroke development, not footwork. If the older classic player would just hit within 2 feet of them it would be a different game.<---- this is a sarcastic comment

 

[Dartagnan64]

So only continental backhand slices?

No because the 2HBH uses a conti right hand grip. And we all know that's a more accessible BH

 

[thanu]

Oren Motevassel has strokes that look very similar to the players I saw at the national 60's indoors (gold ball) tournament, and arguably some of the guys I saw were less unorthodox in some respects. But overall the shape and speed of shot and the way they produced it were pretty much the same. Depth, consistency, and accuracy over spin and heaviness of shot.

Makes me wonder all the more why I'm going the opposite direction.

Was Oren using a sw104?