Modelling strokes after professional players

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#51
I guess you were watching the Racquet Tech guy? Than he also mentioned a lot of other racket parameteres and not only weight. Djokovic has a static weight of around 360 and SW of 370 and a less head light balance (around 32,8 cm). These are very different specs than mine and very good for a 2HBH. For now the closest to what I'm looking for might be Berdich. He is using a very headlight racket for a 2HBH.
As for why the Fed FH and serve...:
1. I'm using the same FH grip (eastern/semi western), so a headlight balance with high MGR/I naturally suits my FH.
2. I enjoy heavy rackets as they have a much higher ceiling and they force me to stay in good shape to play competitive tennis.
3. I have a platform stance on the serve and combined with similar racket specs like fed, his service motion or something similair is the only thing that really works. Feliciano Lopez has similar specs (considering he uses an extended racket) and service motion but is tailored for the pinpoint stance.
4. His strokes are fluid, efficient and consequentially Antifragile (https://impactingtennis.com/pro_tour/antifragile-2/) as I mention in the video. Part of the reason for that is the high static weight and high MGR/I.

Both serves are very different and the main reason for that are 2 very different rackets. Fed's racket can't produce cracking serves like the extended pure drive in Roddick's hands can and vice versa for the variety accuracy and spins.



Some people might find what I'm doing neurotic, but as much as I try to avoid judging anyone, I find a lot of people ignorant when it comes to equipment. I mean I can't force my principles to anyone, but for the people that see the value in this and want to learn and improve I try to document my process and findings. Off course these specs are not for everyone. The most important here is the FH grip and the stroke mechanics. I guess there are 2 approaches that players can take. Build the strokes mechanics around the specs they have or the specs around the strokes they have. And this really is the essence of what I'm trying to communicate to you all here.

Now I would say that your stroke mechanics didn't work for this kind of specs. Do you mind posting what do you use now and what you find to suit your strokes the best?

And about Djokovic's 2HBH, I just answered above to 5263.



I agree on that, but that's not exactly what I mean with "the whole picture". It's more about understanding what even makes certain strokes possible. I'm not knocking anyone, although I can see why I might come off like that. I just try to clear some of the misconceptions. If I break it down a bit and simplify what I'm trying to say... I want players and coaches to understand that, for example, buying a stock Pure Aero and trying to model Nadal's strokes won't work how you want it to work because the specs play a major role in how close can you get to a certain players mechanics. While if you understand this, you might want to model the strokes that have proven effective for a player that uses a similar specs that you have.

Hope this makes sense.
Find someone who can beat you 0&0, give them a racquet not suited for their strokes and offer them some money if they can beat you with it.

Please report your findings.

J
 
#52
Find someone who can beat you 0&0, give them a racquet not suited for their strokes and offer them some money if they can beat you with it.

Please report your findings.

J
This might be a good experiment actually, but some boundaries would have to be established...l don't think giving them a junior racket or something with 400+ SW would make sense lol.
I had something similar happen a year or 2 ago. I was getting outplayed for a set and 2 or 3 games and then my opponent broke a string and apparently he didn't have the time to restring the spare, so he found and borrowed the closest thing he could find to his racket, but I managed to turn the match around after that easily. I think it was a switch from a prestige MP to a blade.
 
#53
Some people might find what I'm doing neurotic, but as much as I try to avoid judging anyone, I find a lot of people ignorant when it comes to equipment. I mean I can't force my principles to anyone, but for the people that see the value in this and want to learn and improve I try to document my process and findings. Off course these specs are not for everyone. The most important here is the FH grip and the stroke mechanics. I guess there are 2 approaches that players can take. Build the strokes mechanics around the specs they have or the specs around the strokes they have. And this really is the essence of what I'm trying to communicate to you all here.

Now I would say that your stroke mechanics didn't work for this kind of specs. Do you mind posting what do you use now and what you find to suit your strokes the best?

And about Djokovic's 2HBH, I just answered above to 5263.
Yeah, I understand what you mean. Last year I was tinkering with racquet specs a lot. My original intention in my modifications were to find a setup that maximized my racquet drop momentum based swing. I originally got this inspiration from my local stringer who is also a grand slam stringer, who mentioned to me about Nadal's general racquet spec, essentially less headlight with a low static weight. I didn't copy his spec (I don't even know the exact measurements), but I followed the concept. I modded my Blade 16x19 to have about a 350 swingweight, 338g static weight and a balance of 3-4 pts headlight (~33.3cm balance I'm guessing). I think my setup would probably be considered "polarized". Throughout my experience with this racquet setup, it allowed me to maximize my racquet head speed while using less effort with my arm, I'm essentially throwing the racquet into the ball, and the weight & momentum of the racquet just pulls my arm through. Aside from maintaining my grip on the racquet, my arm is only active at the beginning of the swing. This setup was originally very difficult to control because timing a swing was difficult. My overall goal is to maximize the use of a complete kinetic chain while maintaining my arm as relaxed as possible. The forehand grip I use is in between eastern and semi-western, and I use a variety of stroke styles, high, heavy spin or take the early ball and flat, but most of the time I improvise my shots depending on the situation.
 
#54
Nothing here is rigorous optics - intended to get useful videos for comparisons.

The video camera takes a 2D image of 3D space. The components of motion across the fame and up and down in the frame are reasonably accurately portrayed once the magnification is accounted for. But the component of motion toward or away from the camera is not. This makes accurate 3D motion impossible to observe in a single camera video.

One demo of the 2D of 3D effect can be done with a paper clip. Straighten the paper clip and bend it in half with about a 20 degree bend in the wire. Hold one end between your fingers pointed straight up. Rotate it and estimate the angle as seen by one eye. That is what a camera sees from various observation angles during the serve. When you rotate the wire, what is the largest and smallest angle that you see? Now try tilting the wire and repeating the rotation. Repeat until the wire in your fingers becomes horizontal. Notice also that the apparent lengths of each half of the wire appear to shrink and lengthen. You can do the same thing in the mirror with a tennis racket. Look at lengths of your lower and upper arm and the racket. That stuff is in videos.

But very informative comparisons can still be made by using closely similar camera viewing angles.

To look at tennis strokes it helps to select certain viewing angles, a limited number, and use those to get familiar with them. If you have a high level stroke from a certain camera angle and then view your stroke from that same angle, the comparison can be very information. But if the two camera viewing angles are different, it is much easier to misinterpret the videos being compared.

Two camera viewing angles that are useful are 1) to the side of the ball's trajectory and 2) looking along the ball's trajectory. For the side view the camera would view perpendicular to the point on the ball's trajectory that you want to study, that point might often be right after impact. The are two views are especially good for the serve.

Even though these viewing angles are generally useful for comparing strokes, other camera angles will be more useful for particular features of the stroke. For example, the upper arm is often probably touching the chest on the one hand backhand for Wawrinka, Gasquet and Justine Henin. Camera viewing angles that show the armpit just before the upper arm separates from the chest require experimenting to find. Another challenging observation is to catch the angle of racket face closure that Cross and Lindsay indicate for the face of the racket just before ball contact. Their book, Technical Tennis, shows diagrams of racket-to-ball contact. The contact spot itself cannot be seen, but how closed the racket is just before impact can be seen by how closed the racket handle is.

The rare above camera view is special for showing strokes characteristics. Although you don't have the set up to get the above camera view when you see above videos bookmark them as they are very informative. Search: Frank Salazar Fuzzy Yellow Balls Antipin flat slice Youtube

240 fps is a very good frame rate for showing strokes. For a 100 MPH object it shows the object every 4.2 milliseconds and object movement is 7.2 inches.

You can get the speed of a tennis ball by observing the distance traveled in one video frame time and using the ball's diameter as a length reference. The camera should view near perpendicular to the ball's trajectory. I've posted on some other details related to accuracy and calibration.
 
Last edited:
#55
I agree on that, but that's not exactly what I mean with "the whole picture". It's more about understanding what even makes certain strokes possible. I'm not knocking anyone, although I can see why I might come off like that. I just try to clear some of the misconceptions. If I break it down a bit and simplify what I'm trying to say... I want players and coaches to understand that, for example, buying a stock Pure Aero and trying to model Nadal's strokes won't work how you want it to work because the specs play a major role in how close can you get to a certain players mechanics. While if you understand this, you might want to model the strokes that have proven effective for a player that uses a similar specs that you have.

Hope this makes sense.
I hear you, but I disagree on the racket specs thing. OK maybe some rec players are prone to magical thinking, but does anyone honestly believe using pro equipment means they'll hit like a pro? I haven't seen it. Certainly not in coaching. Unless you bring something ridiculously outdated, coaches barely even discuss equipment.

I am a ski instructor, a sister industry where some have a tendency to geek out over equipment specs. Yes, the shaped ski revolution was a major shift, and yes, people can learn to turn quicker and easier today than could in the days of super long no-sidecut skis. But they don't turn for you. Analogous to the shift to larger rackets, graphite and different string technologies, there are real, positive differences, but most players (like skiers) remain eternal intermediates. They may get to Intermediate sooner, and the overall level of all tennis players (and skiers) across all levels may have improved due to equipment changes, but the incremental difficulty of pushing beyond the intermediate level remains tied completely to technique, not equipment.
 

Dragy

Hall of Fame
#57
I am a ski instructor, a sister industry where some have a tendency to geek out over equipment specs. Yes, the shaped ski revolution was a major shift, and yes, people can learn to turn quicker and easier today than could in the days of super long no-sidecut skis. But they don't turn for you. Analogous to the shift to larger rackets, graphite and different string technologies, there are real, positive differences, but most players (like skiers) remain eternal intermediates. They may get to Intermediate sooner, and the overall level of all tennis players (and skiers) across all levels may have improved due to equipment changes, but the incremental difficulty of pushing beyond the intermediate level remains tied completely to technique, not equipment.
Tell me as a ski instructor, if you worked with a guy aimed to participate in amateur slalom competition, would it be ok for him to train using expert GS ski (I don't even speak about FIS GS)?
 
#58
No, I wouldn't recommend it.

But not an apt analogy for my point. The analogy would be a guy who wanted to train with one expert slalom ski vs. another expert slalom ski for slalom. Or one expert GS ski vs another expert GS ski for GS.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time worrying about which ski he picks, I'm going to worry about getting on the hill and training.
 
#59
I guess you were watching the Racquet Tech guy? Than he also mentioned a lot of other racket parameteres and not only weight. Djokovic has a static weight of around 360 and SW of 370 and a less head light balance (around 32,8 cm). These are very different specs than mine and very good for a 2HBH. For now the closest to what I'm looking for might be Berdich. He is using a very headlight racket for a 2HBH.
As for why the Fed FH and serve...:
1. I'm using the same FH grip (eastern/semi western), so a headlight balance with high MGR/I naturally suits my FH.
2. I enjoy heavy rackets as they have a much higher ceiling and they force me to stay in good shape to play competitive tennis.
3. I have a platform stance on the serve and combined with similar racket specs like fed, his service motion or something similair is the only thing that really works. Feliciano Lopez has similar specs (considering he uses an extended racket) and service motion but is tailored for the pinpoint stance.
4. His strokes are fluid, efficient and consequentially Antifragile (https://impactingtennis.com/pro_tour/antifragile-2/) as I mention in the video. Part of the reason for that is the high static weight and high MGR/I.

Both serves are very different and the main reason for that are 2 very different rackets. Fed's racket can't produce cracking serves like the extended pure drive in Roddick's hands can and vice versa for the variety accuracy and spins.

Some people might find what I'm doing neurotic, but as much as I try to avoid judging anyone, I find a lot of people ignorant when it comes to equipment. I mean I can't force my .
I'm impressed and think your answers are pretty good even though I think there are better Fhs and serves to emulate, ....but then as you say, they wouldn't be that different other than Imo the straight arm Fh is normally a poor choice.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#60
I'm impressed and think your answers are pretty good even though I think there are better Fhs and serves to emulate, ....but then as you say, they wouldn't be that different other than Imo the straight arm Fh is normally a poor choice.
That never stopped us from trying!

J
 

Dragy

Hall of Fame
#62
The analogy would be a guy who wanted to train with one expert slalom ski vs. another expert slalom ski for slalom. Or one expert GS ski vs another expert GS ski for GS.
Tennis example for this analogy would be going between similar spec racquets of various brands, or various iterations of the same racquet. While things like head size, string pattern, mass and it's distribution are significant.
 
#63
Could you please elaborate why? Apart from bent elbow allows for spacing adjustment.
I think this is a good question and not so easy to answer beyond what you mention, because spacing is such a critical part of receiving the ball. One good thing about the straight arm is that it forces you to be better at spacing and Imo if you master it, it will force you "receive" the ball at better diagonals.

So the simple answer is that the Straight arm is harder. Not so much for one or two shots or even any reasonable incoming ball, but Imo the problem lies with consistent execution with challenging balls....especially if you are still carrying some of the classic flawed instruction mentalities.

More detailed answer is that the SA makes it tougher to use a more direct path from 'slot to contact' due to the arm working as a radius. Instead if just making micro adjustments in the arm bend to gain your best alignment from "slot to contact", the SA really puts a premium on more body adjustment and timing, along with 'diagonal ball reception' to create the proper spacing. While all these things are good to master, they do make it harder for the learning player who doesn't even know about these concepts.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#64
I think this is a good question and not so easy to answer beyond what you mention, because spacing is such a critical part of receiving the ball. One good thing about the straight arm is that it forces you to be better at spacing and Imo if you master it, it will force you "receive" the ball at better diagonals.

So the simple answer is that the Straight arm is harder. Not so much for one or two shots or even any reasonable incoming ball, but Imo the problem lies with consistent execution with challenging balls....especially if you are still carrying some of the classic flawed instruction mentalities.

More detailed answer is that the SA makes it tougher to use a more direct path from 'slot to contact' due to the arm working as a radius. Instead if just making micro adjustments in the arm bend to gain your best alignment from "slot to contact", the SA really puts a premium on more body adjustment and timing, along with 'diagonal ball reception' to create the proper spacing. While all these things are good to master, they do make it harder for the learning player who doesn't even know about these concepts.
One thing I'll add as a plus is that your hitting lever is always the same length.

J
 

BlueB

Hall of Fame
#65
Everyone should model their strokes after Gilles Simon. So freaking compact and simple.
Yes Simon and Berdych are probably easiest models for amateurs. Maybe honorary mention of Fognini.
Djokovic is also text book, but maybe slightly more complex then the guys above.

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
 

Dragy

Hall of Fame
#66
I think this is a good question and not so easy to answer beyond what you mention, because spacing is such a critical part of receiving the ball. One good thing about the straight arm is that it forces you to be better at spacing and Imo if you master it, it will force you "receive" the ball at better diagonals.

So the simple answer is that the Straight arm is harder. Not so much for one or two shots or even any reasonable incoming ball, but Imo the problem lies with consistent execution with challenging balls....especially if you are still carrying some of the classic flawed instruction mentalities.

More detailed answer is that the SA makes it tougher to use a more direct path from 'slot to contact' due to the arm working as a radius. Instead if just making micro adjustments in the arm bend to gain your best alignment from "slot to contact", the SA really puts a premium on more body adjustment and timing, along with 'diagonal ball reception' to create the proper spacing. While all these things are good to master, they do make it harder for the learning player who doesn't even know about these concepts.
Well, why not bend you arm closer to contact if jammed? Haven’t seen straightarmers hit with the throat because arm doesn’t bend - even more, many of them seem pretty relaxed with elbow bending just after or even at aroun contact!

Also, we have a range of just-bent forehands like Cilic or Zverev jr.

Actually I accept all the logics behind bent arm being easier and I agree there’re lots of players hitting great forehands with bent arm. I also cannot settle with any undisputable benefit of SA apart from maximizing leverage. It’s a lot, allowing more RHS, as well as more effortless RHS... But still a bit unsure.

But. But! Generally accepted 3 top FHs among current players are SA. So different, but all so effective. This won’t let me in peace with bent arm, never)
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#67
Well, why not bend you arm closer to contact if jammed? Haven’t seen straightarmers hit with the throat because arm doesn’t bend - even more, many of them seem pretty relaxed with elbow bending just after or even at aroun contact!

Also, we have a range of just-bent forehands like Cilic or Zverev jr.

Actually I accept all the logics behind bent arm being easier and I agree there’re lots of players hitting great forehands with bent arm. I also cannot settle with any undisputable benefit of SA apart from maximizing leverage. It’s a lot, allowing more RHS, as well as more effortless RHS... But still a bit unsure.

But. But! Generally accepted 3 top FHs among current players are SA. So different, but all so effective. This won’t let me in peace with bent arm, never)
Who's the third? Delpo?

J
 

Dragy

Hall of Fame
#69
Yes Simon and Berdych are probably easiest models for amateurs. Maybe honorary mention of Fognini.
Djokovic is also text book, but maybe slightly more complex then the guys above.

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
This discussion got me to the idea that we should ditinguish modeling from copying. Can one actually copy a stroke of a pro player? Especially when learning, or reworking fundamentally, not adjusting an already fundamentally sound techniques? I doubt so much.

Now modeling, following, getting inspired by some pro players' strokes may be very beneficial, while other, among which I count most compact motions, not so much. The reason is players have all fundamentals in place, settled down, abbreviated here and there to their needs and preferences. And naked, uneducated eye may miss those fundamentals - like in "how we cannot see what we don't know". It's the reason why coaches give exersises and provide exaggerated demonstrations to ensure key fundamentals get into the motions. Once owning all the components, player will consolidate the complex motion in a form that suits and works.
Some players keep more of those loops and arms along the baseline and so on. For example, I never liked how Thiem performs his techniques - huge loops, tight postures. Seems the guy of his ability could be much smoother. But then I read of his training and how high is the level of his discipline, and it's possibly a reason why he kept many of academic components in his techniques - just been extremely dutiful. Does it hurt his game, keeping all the exaggeration? I don't know. Will he evolve to some smoother outlook? Also don't know. But he's a great model currently for those struggling with shorter ranges of motion, lacking amplitude and power. Pick some elements try to perform them, so that later this work helps one settle in the good middleground.
Nadal as well is possibly not great to copy techniques. But the way he performs it, the way he exerts full body effort into hitting the ball and even moving, is great for following. As many rec players finding inspiration in Fed-like lite and fluid movement end up being absolutely unathletic on the court.
 
#70
Well, why not bend you arm closer to contact if jammed? Haven’t seen straightarmers hit with the throat because arm doesn’t bend - even more, many of them seem pretty relaxed with elbow bending just after or even at aroun contact!

Also, we have a range of just-bent forehands like Cilic or Zverev jr.

Actually I accept all the logics behind bent arm being easier and I agree there’re lots of players hitting great forehands with bent arm. I also cannot settle with any undisputable benefit of SA apart from maximizing leverage. It’s a lot, allowing more RHS, as well as more effortless RHS... But still a bit unsure.

But. But! Generally accepted 3 top FHs among current players are SA. So different, but all so effective. This won’t let me in peace with bent arm, never)
Actually they do bend at times, but you can't lengthen the SA if you don't get close enough..... and Imo, the just bent Fhs (I include Delpo here) Imo are better overall. Back in the day I loved DJ's Bh, but his Fh...not so much. Last few yrs, when he is playing well, it is the best Fh on tour.

Explain to me what I have backwards. I discussed this with several folks and even other engineers who agree with me here. How do you have a long lever working for you with the SA? Don't you have the wrong end of this long lever? SA is the weakest arm position I can imagine due to the long lever against you. I know if you can move the longer arm just as fast, the you get more rhs in theory, but you can't move it as fast....Fastes Fhs are not recorded by SA hitters either.
 
Last edited:

Dragy

Hall of Fame
#71
Explain to me what I have backwards. I discussed this with several folks and even other engineers who agree with me here. How do you have a long lever working for you with the SA? Don't you have the wrong end of this long lever? SA is the weakest arm position I can imagine due to the long lever against you. I know if you can move the longer arm just as fast, the you get more rhs in theory, but you can't move it as fast....Fastes Fhs are not recorded by SA hitters either.
I don’t claim to have absolute understanding here. My view on this is pretty straight forward. Torso rotation powered by big muscles can be performed within reasonable ranges of speeds without much difference to be caused by SA or BA lever working against. Now if we accept same rotational speed bigger radius gives more speed to the hand and racquet.
Meanwhile, chest and shoulder muscles are much less potent to produce/support high force. That’s why one needs effective link to be set at shoulder, or he cannot support higher rotation speed or same rotation speed with racquet at bigger radius. This effective link is full ESR locked shoulder, and this link isn’t tight chest and shoulder muscles.

Obviously, all/mostly arm swing struggles as well with bigger radius and cannot benefit speed-wise from the SA.

Now should SA be used for higher RHS on shots? Not mandatory. It may be same RHS, but with slower, therefore possibly more consistent torso rotation. It may be same RHS with shorter range of motion, when insufficient time for full preparation.

Even if we look at this in such a way that longer lever significantly limits core rotation speed, it’s possible for some players getting same RHS with slower core rotation can be beneficial, while for other more bursty action with bent arm is more natural?

Fastest forehands, I believe, are hit of the heavy incoming pace like first serve. So here maybe the ability to adjust plays huge role. I suppose if you feed first serves to Del Porto strike zone and ask him to hit fastest shot possible, he’ll produce a couple of monstrous balls, as well as some shanks and backfence hitters )
 
#72
For these biomechanical stroke issues, it is important to keep track of where the main rotation axes are. Overhead camera videos would show the ground stroke axes best but there are hardly any of those videos.

For the one hand backhand technique that starts with the chest press, the rotation axis of Gasquet (and I assume Wawrinka and Justine Henin) is
1) first, the rotation axis (of Gasquet) starts the forward racket motion with the spine as the rotation axis (when the upper arm is pressed to the chest). The radius from the rotation axis at the center of the body to the racket head can be seen in high speed videos.
2) Before impact, when the upper arm is seen to separate from the chest, the rotation axis is then the shoulder if the spine rotation has stopped. The radius from the shoulder joint to the racket head can be seen in high speed videos.
OR
2) Before impact, when the upper arm is seen to separate from the chest, one rotation axis is the shoulder joint and, if the spine is still rotating, then there are two rotation axes. The radius of one axis is from the shoulder joint to the racket head. The radius of the other axis is from the spine to the racket head.

In other words, for this backhand technique, the torques that accelerate the arm and racket head are two stage, first, uppermost body turn and then shoulder joint motion (diagonal abduction?). The uppermost body turn may or may not stop to impact.

There is a second one hand backhand technique that does not use much of the chest pressing the upper arm. For it, the rotation axes are the shoulder joint from the start and upper body turn. F. Lopez and maybe Federer. This takes more shoulder strength over a longer range of motion. I think that the other technique is used more often by the top one hand backhand players.

The forehand also appears to have more than one important rotation axis, probably spine & shoulder joint also?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
After the axes are identified and located -

An important point, I believe, is that the shoulder can produce less torque than the uppermost body using the trunk and legs. I believe that this means the shoulder muscles cannot move the upper arm off the chest when the uppermost body is producing its maximum torque and resulting acceleration. The shoulder muscles are not strong enough. I have not seen this described for the one hand backhand. References?

The shoulder torque and uppermost body torque can be measured under static conditions for the one hand backhand body orientation. These could also be measured for the forehand body orientations. But these measurements are for static conditions not during the stroke motions.

Raul_SJ

Experiment for healthy shoulder -

Tie a rope to a fixed object. Take a luggage scale in your hand. Position so that your arm is straight and about across your chest resembling the positions in a backhand takeback ready to go forward. Don't stress your shoulder joint - with a moderate slow effort isolate your shoulder joint muscles and measure the pull force on the scale.



When I did this experiment I measured about 28 lbs when using the shoulder joint muscles.

When I used the trunk, legs and other available muscles with the upper arm pressed on the chest and no shoulder joint muscles, I measured about 52 lbs.

Try it.
 
Last edited:
#73
I don’t claim to have absolute understanding here. My view on this is pretty straight forward. Torso rotation powered by big muscles can be performed within reasonable ranges of speeds without much difference to be caused by SA or BA lever working against. Now if we accept same rotational speed bigger radius gives more speed to the hand and racquet.
Meanwhile, chest and shoulder muscles are much less potent to produce/support high force. That’s why one needs effective link to be set at shoulder, or he cannot support higher rotation speed or same rotation speed with racquet at bigger radius. This effective link is full ESR locked shoulder, and this link isn’t tight chest and shoulder muscles.

Obviously, all/mostly arm swing struggles as well with bigger radius and cannot benefit speed-wise from the SA.

Now should SA be used for higher RHS on shots? Not mandatory. It may be same RHS, but with slower, therefore possibly more consistent torso rotation. It may be same RHS with shorter range of motion, when insufficient time for full preparation.

Even if we look at this in such a way that longer lever significantly limits core rotation speed, it’s possible for some players getting same RHS with slower core rotation can be beneficial, while for other more bursty action with bent arm is more natural?

Fastest forehands, I believe, are hit of the heavy incoming pace like first serve. So here maybe the ability to adjust plays huge role. I suppose if you feed first serves to Del Porto strike zone and ask him to hit fastest shot possible, he’ll produce a couple of monstrous balls, as well as some shanks and backfence hitters )
my point is that the supposed ideas created to support the superiority of the SA just don't hold up. Imo this is just another (common practice) of people justifying the techniques of the very successful. It's also a bit interesting in how Nadal's Fh is both seen as spinny, short and weak, while also claimed as the best in the game. Interesting extremes Imo, that support my take is that he has a very solid Fh that works well with his exceptional movement and tactical style. Imo his SA aspect has little to nothing to do with this, except maybe adding a bit of challenge to the shot that is not needed.
 

Dragy

Hall of Fame
#74
my point is that the supposed ideas created to support the superiority of the SA just don't hold up. Imo this is just another (common practice) of people justifying the techniques of the very successful. It's also a bit interesting in how Nadal's Fh is both seen as spinny, short and weak, while also claimed as the best in the game. Interesting extremes Imo, that support my take is that he has a very solid Fh that works well with his exceptional movement and tactical style. Imo his SA aspect has little to nothing to do with this, except maybe adding a bit of challenge to the shot that is not needed.
I started thinking through what I can respond, and what I think of Nadal... well, it's a broad field with multiple routes of discussions splitting and crossing again. I'm sure we don't want to follow just one, or jump back and forth between some, or try to cover each aspect page after page - not a suitable format o_O
I got my general response to why you find SA forehand sub-optimal to learn, and also chance to think and read and post some related thoughts, which was great, thanks!

Personally I feel better with straighter arm, but video confirms I cannot get my arm truly straight at accelleration phase unless I really force it at some point, which feel is weird. Good hits are made mostly with just-bent arm. More bend, and I have to speed up the swing, don't get the "propelling" effect. Also feel bad with modified-eastern grip - have to manipulate wrist to close racquet face the more bend I get at elbow.
 
#75
Guys thank you for the responses. I'm glad I got a great topic and conversation started. I have to take time to respond to everything but I'm impressed with the inputs and what I have read.
 
#76
First of all like promised a better angle of the FH. I'm working on a new video, but for now a GIF. I'm using the RF97 now. Still working on how to hold the left arm coiled longer. Any tips for that? Also any other feedback is appreciated.


Yeah, I understand what you mean. Last year I was tinkering with racquet specs a lot. My original intention in my modifications were to find a setup that maximized my racquet drop momentum based swing. I originally got this inspiration from my local stringer who is also a grand slam stringer, who mentioned to me about Nadal's general racquet spec, essentially less headlight with a low static weight. I didn't copy his spec (I don't even know the exact measurements), but I followed the concept. I modded my Blade 16x19 to have about a 350 swingweight, 338g static weight and a balance of 3-4 pts headlight (~33.3cm balance I'm guessing). I think my setup would probably be considered "polarized". Throughout my experience with this racquet setup, it allowed me to maximize my racquet head speed while using less effort with my arm, I'm essentially throwing the racquet into the ball, and the weight & momentum of the racquet just pulls my arm through. Aside from maintaining my grip on the racquet, my arm is only active at the beginning of the swing. This setup was originally very difficult to control because timing a swing was difficult. My overall goal is to maximize the use of a complete kinetic chain while maintaining my arm as relaxed as possible. The forehand grip I use is in between eastern and semi-western, and I use a variety of stroke styles, high, heavy spin or take the early ball and flat, but most of the time I improvise my shots depending on the situation.
That setup would be close to Nadal, except that Blades usually have a higher TW than the APDO that Nadal uses. Less head light rackets, light and high SW rackets are very polarized yes, and also the MGR/I is lower. Because of the lower MGR/I it can be difficult to time the ball well like you mentioned. Are you still using this setup? Would be interested to know how you evolved the setup.

Nothing here is rigorous optics - intended to get useful videos for comparisons.

The video camera takes a 2D image of 3D space. The components of motion across the fame and up and down in the frame are reasonably accurately portrayed once the magnification is accounted for. But the component of motion toward or away from the camera is not. This makes accurate 3D motion impossible to observe in a single camera video.

One demo of the 2D of 3D effect can be done with a paper clip. Straighten the paper clip and bend it in half with about a 20 degree bend in the wire. Hold one end between your fingers pointed straight up. Rotate it and estimate the angle as seen by one eye. That is what a camera sees from various observation angles during the serve. When you rotate the wire, what is the largest and smallest angle that you see? Now try tilting the wire and repeating the rotation. Repeat until the wire in your fingers becomes horizontal. Notice also that the apparent lengths of each half of the wire appear to shrink and lengthen. You can do the same thing in the mirror with a tennis racket. Look at lengths of your lower and upper arm and the racket. That stuff is in videos.

But very informative comparisons can still be made by using closely similar camera viewing angles.

To look at tennis strokes it helps to select certain viewing angles, a limited number, and use those to get familiar with them. If you have a high level stroke from a certain camera angle and then view your stroke from that same angle, the comparison can be very information. But if the two camera viewing angles are different, it is much easier to misinterpret the videos being compared.

Two camera viewing angles that are useful are 1) to the side of the ball's trajectory and 2) looking along the ball's trajectory. For the side view the camera would view perpendicular to the point on the ball's trajectory that you want to study, that point might often be right after impact. The are two views are especially good for the serve.

Even though these viewing angles are generally useful for comparing strokes, other camera angles will be more useful for particular features of the stroke. For example, the upper arm is often probably touching the chest on the one hand backhand for Wawrinka, Gasquet and Justine Henin. Camera viewing angles that show the armpit just before the upper arm separates from the chest require experimenting to find. Another challenging observation is to catch the angle of racket face closure that Cross and Lindsay indicate for the face of the racket just before ball contact. Their book, Technical Tennis, shows diagrams of racket-to-ball contact. The contact spot itself cannot be seen, but how closed the racket is just before impact can be seen by how closed the racket handle is.

The rare above camera view is special for showing strokes characteristics. Although you don't have the set up to get the above camera view when you see above videos bookmark them as they are very informative. Search: Frank Salazar Fuzzy Yellow Balls Antipin flat slice Youtube

240 fps is a very good frame rate for showing strokes. For a 100 MPH object it shows the object every 4.2 milliseconds and object movement is 7.2 inches.

You can get the speed of a tennis ball by observing the distance traveled in one video frame time and using the ball's diameter as a length reference. The camera should view near perpendicular to the ball's trajectory. I've posted on some other details related to accuracy and calibration.
Thank you, for now, I've only been filming my self by looking along the balls' trajectory. I will also start filming form the side for great analisis, but I guess it would be great to have 2 cameras, to you can get the whoel picture of the same shot. Also I'm limited to 60 fps max for the time being. I don't feel the need for higher frame rate for now. I guess it would be useful to analyze the contact point. Might also have to get the Technical Tennis book. For now, my main reference is The Physics and Technology of Tennis.
 
#77
I hear you, but I disagree on the racket specs thing. OK maybe some rec players are prone to magical thinking, but does anyone honestly believe using pro equipment means they'll hit like a pro? I haven't seen it. Certainly not in coaching. Unless you bring something ridiculously outdated, coaches barely even discuss equipment.

I am a ski instructor, a sister industry where some have a tendency to geek out over equipment specs. Yes, the shaped ski revolution was a major shift, and yes, people can learn to turn quicker and easier today than could in the days of super long no-sidecut skis. But they don't turn for you. Analogous to the shift to larger rackets, graphite and different string technologies, there are real, positive differences, but most players (like skiers) remain eternal intermediates. They may get to Intermediate sooner, and the overall level of all tennis players (and skiers) across all levels may have improved due to equipment changes, but the incremental difficulty of pushing beyond the intermediate level remains tied completely to technique, not equipment.
I don't support any kind of magical thinking. I read some crazy stuff here about the magical MGR/I number for every player and so on, and I disagree, but I do use the MGR/I for example, as a reference number to connect racket specs and strokes mechanics.

Where I disagree with you is the thinking that the equipment and technique are completely untied. The different equipment allows for different techniques and I'll go as far to say that specs alo force different techniques. Of course we are talking small margins here, but that's what it's all about at the professional level. You also can't deny that the very best skiers don't work with the best ski technicians and that this is a part of the small margins (milliseconds) that decide the winner of a GS.

My point: two professionals in any sport, that have (in a vacuum) had the same training regimen their whole lives, can reach a very different peaks. There can be a lot of reasons for that but a major one is if one has dedicated his time (or how much time) in training to optimizing his equipment to suit his technique. This holds true for sports with personalized equipment off course..like tennis, golf, skiing etc.

I'm impressed and think your answers are pretty good even though I think there are better Fhs and serves to emulate, ....but then as you say, they wouldn't be that different other than Imo the straight arm Fh is normally a poor choice.
Thank you. Also you started a great debate about the SA FH, which I do not have the perfect answer to jet, but others have made some good arguments for the straight arm FH. One of the obvious ones should be longer reach.. Federer and Del Potro both have amazing running forehands, and hit some of the best shots when they are really pulled wide. Maintaining the same spacing between the racket and the body is also an advantage, as the stroke gets more consistent that way I think.

Also, how I feel about the SA FH when using it is that it enables me to get a better lag and a smoother kinetic chain. My arm can stay realxed as I rotate the body and the racket will follow, as the arm can not be straightened anymore. While when using a bent arm the force of the racket pulling back is trying to "unbend" the arm and you have to use the muscles to keep the arm bend in the elbow.

Well, why not bend you arm closer to contact if jammed? Haven’t seen straightarmers hit with the throat because arm doesn’t bend - even more, many of them seem pretty relaxed with elbow bending just after or even at aroun contact!

Also, we have a range of just-bent forehands like Cilic or Zverev jr.

Actually, I accept all the logics behind bent arm being easier and I agree there’re lots of players hitting great forehands with bent arm. I also cannot settle with any undisputable benefit of SA apart from maximizing leverage. It’s a lot, allowing more RHS, as well as more effortless RHS... But still a bit unsure.

But. But! Generally accepted 3 top FHs among current players are SA. So different, but all so effective. This won’t let me in peace with bent arm, never)
How I feel about the SA FH when using it is that it enables me to get a better lag and a smoother kinetic chain. My arm can stay realxed as I rotate the body and the racket will follow, as the arm can not be straightened anymore. While when using a bent arm the force of the racket pulling back is trying to "unbend" the arm and you have to use the muscles to keep the arm bend in the elbow.

This discussion got me to the idea that we should ditinguish modeling from copying. Can one actually copy a stroke of a pro player? Especially when learning, or reworking fundamentally, not adjusting an already fundamentally sound techniques? I doubt so much.

Now modeling, following, getting inspired by some pro players' strokes may be very beneficial, while other, among which I count most compact motions, not so much. The reason is players have all fundamentals in place, settled down, abbreviated here and there to their needs and preferences. And naked, uneducated eye may miss those fundamentals - like in "how we cannot see what we don't know". It's the reason why coaches give exersises and provide exaggerated demonstrations to ensure key fundamentals get into the motions. Once owning all the components, player will consolidate the complex motion in a form that suits and works.
Some players keep more of those loops and arms along the baseline and so on. For example, I never liked how Thiem performs his techniques - huge loops, tight postures. Seems the guy of his ability could be much smoother. But then I read of his training and how high is the level of his discipline, and it's possibly a reason why he kept many of academic components in his techniques - just been extremely dutiful. Does it hurt his game, keeping all the exaggeration? I don't know. Will he evolve to some smoother outlook? Also don't know. But he's a great model currently for those struggling with shorter ranges of motion, lacking amplitude and power. Pick some elements try to perform them, so that later this work helps one settle in the good middleground.
Nadal as well is possibly not great to copy techniques. But the way he performs it, the way he exerts full body effort into hitting the ball and even moving, is great for following. As many rec players finding inspiration in Fed-like lite and fluid movement end up being absolutely unathletic on the court.
As an engineer how I want to distinguish between copy and model is whether you understand the process or not. If not, than you are copying what how you say: "naked, uneducated eye" can see. If I use your example of Nadal. If you just look at how he performs the shot and don't use the same racket specs you will over do the body extertion etc because you don't use such a high swingweight and poalrization. Thiem is similair in this way, but he also has a high TW (and a small grip) and all this prevents him from using a more compact strokes. At one point I tried his setup on the oringinal red pure strike, and I just couldn't shorthen the swing apart from just bunting the ball.
 

Dragy

Hall of Fame
#78
While when using a bent arm the force of the racket pulling back is trying to "unbend" the arm and you have to use the muscles to keep the arm bend in the elbow.
How the racquet pullig back is trying to "unbend" this arm?

Never heard of such an issue.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#79
First of all like promised a better angle of the FH. I'm working on a new video, but for now a GIF. I'm using the RF97 now. Still working on how to hold the left arm coiled longer. Any tips for that? Also any other feedback is appreciated.



That setup would be close to Nadal, except that Blades usually have a higher TW than the APDO that Nadal uses. Less head light rackets, light and high SW rackets are very polarized yes, and also the MGR/I is lower. Because of the lower MGR/I it can be difficult to time the ball well like you mentioned. Are you still using this setup? Would be interested to know how you evolved the setup.


Thank you, for now, I've only been filming my self by looking along the balls' trajectory. I will also start filming form the side for great analisis, but I guess it would be great to have 2 cameras, to you can get the whoel picture of the same shot. Also I'm limited to 60 fps max for the time being. I don't feel the need for higher frame rate for now. I guess it would be useful to analyze the contact point. Might also have to get the Technical Tennis book. For now, my main reference is The Physics and Technology of Tennis.
Your arm is facing the wrong direction.

You are arming the ball.

Look at the direction your elbow points in the forward swing.

J
 
#80
For these biomechanical stroke issues, it is important to keep track of where the main rotation axes are. Overhead camera videos would show the ground stroke axes best but there are hardly any of those videos.

For the one hand backhand technique that starts with the chest press, the rotation axis of Gasquet (and I assume Wawrinka and Justine Henin) is
1) first, the rotation axis (of Gasquet) starts the forward racket motion with the spine as the rotation axis (when the upper arm is pressed to the chest). The radius from the rotation axis at the center of the body to the racket head can be seen in high speed videos.
2) Before impact, when the upper arm is seen to separate from the chest, the rotation axis is then the shoulder if the spine rotation has stopped. The radius from the shoulder joint to the racket head can be seen in high speed videos.
OR
2) Before impact, when the upper arm is seen to separate from the chest, one rotation axis is the shoulder joint and, if the spine is still rotating, then there are two rotation axes. The radius of one axis is from the shoulder joint to the racket head. The radius of the other axis is from the spine to the racket head.

In other words, for this backhand technique, the torques that accelerate the arm and racket head are two stage, first, uppermost body turn and then shoulder joint motion (diagonal abduction?). The uppermost body turn may or may not stop to impact.

There is a second one hand backhand technique that does not use much of the chest pressing the upper arm. For it, the rotation axes are the shoulder joint from the start and upper body turn. F. Lopez and maybe Federer. This takes more shoulder strength over a longer range of motion. I think that the other technique is used more often by the top one hand backhand players.

The forehand also appears to have more than one important rotation axis, probably spine & shoulder joint also?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
After the axes are identified and located -

An important point, I believe, is that the shoulder can produce less torque than the uppermost body using the trunk and legs. I believe that this means the shoulder muscles cannot move the upper arm off the chest when the uppermost body is producing its maximum torque and resulting acceleration. The shoulder muscles are not strong enough. I have not seen this described for the one hand backhand. References?

The shoulder torque and uppermost body torque can be measured under static conditions for the one hand backhand body orientation. These could also be measured for the forehand body orientations. But these measurements are for static conditions not during the stroke motions.
Yes, the rotational torque comes from the legs and the core. It is the same for both sides I believe. This is some pretty complex stuff you are proposing here with the rotational axes. At some point in college, I had the idea to create the perfect model using rotational axes and pendulums for the stroke, but I quickly realized that no software at the time would enable me to go into enough detail to be useful at all lol. The idea was to simulate the stroke to determine what racket specs extort the least amount of force on the muscles in the different phases of strokes. The closest I got was with some software designed for modelling rehabilitation or something like that.


I started thinking through what I can respond, and what I think of Nadal... well, it's a broad field with multiple routes of discussions splitting and crossing again. I'm sure we don't want to follow just one, or jump back and forth between some, or try to cover each aspect page after page - not a suitable format o_O
I got my general response to why you find SA forehand sub-optimal to learn, and also chance to think and read and post some related thoughts, which was great, thanks!

Personally I feel better with straighter arm, but video confirms I cannot get my arm truly straight at accelleration phase unless I really force it at some point, which feel is weird. Good hits are made mostly with just-bent arm. More bend, and I have to speed up the swing, don't get the "propelling" effect. Also feel bad with modified-eastern grip - have to manipulate wrist to close racquet face the more bend I get at the elbow.
I had a similair issue until I started to thinker with the specs I was using. Care to share what you are using?
 
#81
First of all like promised a better angle of the FH. I'm working on a new video, but for now a GIF. I'm using the RF97 now. Still working on how to hold the left arm coiled longer. Any tips for that? Also any other feedback is appreciated.



........................
A high level player builds up speed in the off arm and pulls it into their body to speed up uppermost body rotation (the line between the shoulders). I don't see the off arm being pulled into the body in your forehand. Holding it out would also slow down uppermost body rotation instead of speeding it up. Compare to high speed videos. See post #27.

There have been several posts on the off arm.
 
Last edited:

Dragy

Hall of Fame
#82
I had a similair issue until I started to thinker with the specs I was using. Care to share what you are using?
Yonex DR98 339g SW 325 balance 31,7cm (~8pts HL), roughly

Edit: I should actually check the SW. I used iPhone app to measure it. Meanwhile I have some lead at 9, 12 and 3. And ended at 325 on 2 racquets. While TW shows 325 for stock racquets.
 
Last edited:
#83
Thank you. Also you started a great debate about the SA FH, which I do not have the perfect answer to jet, but others have made some good arguments for the straight arm FH. One of the obvious ones should be longer reach.. Federer and Del Potro both have amazing running forehands, and hit some of the best shots when they are really pulled wide. Maintaining the same spacing between the racket and the body is also an advantage, as the stroke gets more consistent that way I think.

.
Thanks for the nice words, but I don't think reach is in the SA's corner. The SA is the one who may mess up the spacing and need more reach which won't be there, while the Bent arm can always extend extra. Sampras may have had the best running Fh and he didn't hit SA.

Imo, you guys should just admit you like the SA and prefer it and stop with the efforts to justify using it. At best those advantages are opinions, and at worse they are just wrong. lol
 
#86
How the racquet pullig back is trying to "unbend" this arm?

Never heard of such an issue.
At this point in time during the swing he is transfering momentum from his core->arm->to the racket and therefore the muscles have to be activated to prevent the momentum from deforming the lever(bent arm) instead of pulling the racket through the contact. That's how I see it. Have I explained it, or do you see it differently?
Your arm is facing the wrong direction.

You are arming the ball.

Look at the direction your elbow points in the forward swing.

J
We are talking about the left arm right? I'm aware of this issue than you and am working on it. It's proving to be quite the challenge. Any useful drills maybe?
A high level player builds up speed in the off arm and pulls it into their body to speed up uppermost body rotation (the line between the shoulders). I don't see the off arm being pulled into the body in your forehand. Holding it out would also slow down uppermost body rotation instead of speeding it up. Compare to high speed videos. See post #27.

There have been several posts on the off arm.
Thank you and like I said to Jolly I'm working on it. You mean several posts in this topic or on this forum? I'd like to read more on how to address this issue. I think the problem's origin is my shadow swinging in a confined space where I don't feel comfortable to fully extend the off arm. =/
Yonex DR98 339g SW 325 balance 31,7cm (~8pts HL), roughly

Edit: I should actually check the SW. I used iPhone app to measure it. Meanwhile I have some lead at 9, 12 and 3. And ended at 325 on 2 racquets. While TW shows 325 for stock racquets.
I was also using the DR some time ago and I have to say these are some weird specs. maybe they are way off spec stock? Mine was modified to 333 SW, 32 balance and 347 static. Without any mass on the handle, the balance was over 32cm. Yours have to be very off spec. Anyways I calculated polarization and MGR/I and I'd say try to get the racket less polarized and higher MGR/I.




Why? You can't hit the same length with a bent arm?
You certainly can, but you are also prone to more variance during the swing and potentially more errors. With the SA you eliminate that by always just fully extending the arm. But there is less room to adjust to compensate for bad positioning (foot work).
The main advantage would be that you can hit certain shots only (or much better) with a SA. For example an inside-out FH from a low bouncing ball. I won't go into more detail as I'm still making arguments and evidence for this hah.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
#87
We are talking about the left arm right? I'm aware of this issue than you and am working on it. It's proving to be quite the challenge. Any useful drills maybe?
No, your hitting arm. Your elbow joint would face the sky if you weren't arming the ball, but yours faces the net.

J
 
#90
For a long time now I 'm thinking about switching to a 1 hander too, maybe this will be the stroke after the serve to model. =D I always found that for a very good 2HBH completely different specs are required than for a forehand and a serve, at least for the style of the forehand that I always try to advocate and develop.
I just can't agree on the Simon part, although many people like his strokes. They are simple, hard to get wrong etc. but they just have a low ceiling.


I guess you are trying to say that the newer generations have better strokes?


Yes, I have. I only have a couple hours with it now but I'll make some videos on the progress with the RF in the future. I made a video of my initial thoughts though.

I think to copy simons strokes by themselves o any pros for that matter isnt a good idea unless you like / hve the ability to copy the rest of their game. Simon for example is basically a pusher with quick strokes and good aim. Most over 40 players shouldnt copy this style unless theyre also marathon runners etc.
 
#91
You certainly can, but you are also prone to more variance during the swing and potentially more errors. With the SA you eliminate that by always just fully extending the arm. But there is less room to adjust to compensate for bad positioning (foot work).
The main advantage would be that you can hit certain shots only (or much better) with a SA. For example an inside-out FH from a low bouncing ball. I won't go into more detail as I'm still making arguments and evidence for this hah.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all. I will explain.

When you do stretch your arm for the SA FH, you neither try to really stretch it uncomfortably nor keep it consciously bent. In other words, it is just a feel. You feel your arm is fully extent and not bent any degree. However, in reality it's neither physically straight or noticeably bent.

Want proof? Consider the master, the epitome of the SA-- Mr. Federer:


Is he aware that his arm aren't straight with this shot?




Very straight, eh?



A little bendy, no?




Bendy or straight? Your choice. I go with comfortably extended.




So, likewise, the so called bent FH has the same logic. The same feel. The play extends and hit the ball, his arm happens to be physically bent, but he couldn't tell that precisely.
 

Dragy

Hall of Fame
#93
At this point in time during the swing he is transfering momentum from his core->arm->to the racket and therefore the muscles have to be activated to prevent the momentum from deforming the lever(bent arm) instead of pulling the racket through the contact. That's how I see it. Have I explained it, or do you see it differently?
I actually meditated on this whole idea and came to the conclusion we should consider various phases of swing. When initially speeding up the racquet after the backswing, there's not much centrifugal force yet, but momentum of inertia is there in the "resting" arm and racquet. It's easier to propel the racquet closer to the body (with shorter radius), which makes for arm collapsing and tucking into torso when a huge takeback is followed by high acceleration right from the start of forward swing. We see lots of players increasing the bend in their arms on the initial stage of forward swing. The ones who get their arms lower and closer to the body at the end of the backswing (Nadal) or early through the forward swing, before major rotaional acceleration (U-shape swing), don't suffer from the effect. So here is where my confusion regarding withstanding the unbending comes from))
Now when arm is already moving fast in a circular motion centrifugal force is built up and acting to unbend the arm, as you said. There are some swings where arm is straightening towards contact (some my swings). This may be harmful for RHS hindering the recently discussed on the forums "parametric acceleration", hindering racquet had release and natural rotation from under the handle to over the handle. So bent-arm forehanders better resist that straightening. This also explains all the pull-accross and use-your-biceps talks - if you accelerate your arm with bent posture you don't want it to straighten into contact.

All above are thoughts and speculations rather than confident ideas.
was also using the DR some time ago and I have to say these are some weird specs. maybe they are way off spec stock? Mine was modified to 333 SW, 32 balance and 347 static. Without any mass on the handle, the balance was over 32cm. Yours have to be very off spec. Anyways I calculated polarization and MGR/I and I'd say try to get the racket less polarized and higher MGR/I.

I actually have ~3g under the buttcap to get to 8pts HL. Also re-measured SW with iPhone app to be 328. Last time I checked 20.8 MGR/I was pretty close to "magical 21" (yes I remember you don't share the single magical number approach). So I'm not way off from what you suggested for Fed FH in your video. I guess you suggest throwing ~5g at the balance point?

Also I have some thoughts that I think you may be interested in with the way you approach all this stuff. They are used to refer to racquet balance as major spec to get similar feel swinging racquets with different mass. Ok, let's even say balance and MGR/I, as extremely polarized vs extremely depolarized setups will likely swing and feel different despite same mass and balance point. But let's take into consideration racquet doesn't act by itself - we grip it. Therefore when playing tennis we must consider at least racquet mass+hand mass (if we call wrist a loose hinge point), because hand is always on the handle, and despite some move allowed and not dead grip, its mass is always contributing to the swing and to ball collision.

As per this link (https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-human-hand-weigh) hand mass is ~0,58% of body mass - which is huge 430g for me personally, more than the whole racquet! If we add this mass to racquet customization tool @2" we get the "actual" balance point at the top of the handle (6.5"). And it's the location to add mass to keep "actual" balance and increase "actual" MGR/I.

Of course it's not that straight and easy as it is for just racquet - already mentioned non-dead grip, and at the flip side - non-loose wrist and forearm being part of a unit (though not rigid one) for many shots. But taking the described circumstances into consideration I don't by the idea that ~320g and ~350g racquets will swing similarly if having same balance point and MGR/I.

Another interesting conclusion is for the backhand side: having extra ~400g on the handle for 2HBH favors less HL balance than for 1HBH. It's a "known fact" reasoned by "more strength from 2 hands", but it's also actual for most flippy 2HBHs like Nishikori's - just extra mass on the handle allows for faster recoil of the high-SW, less HL balanced racquets.
 
#98
This guy comes close
Good call. I like Karen's play. I had been trying to see his grip since it looked so extreme and I was watching this video too. My wrist aches just watching his take back. I tried ti and it wasn't comfortable for me at all. Crazy.
 

Dragy

Hall of Fame
#99
Good call. I like Karen's play. I had been trying to see his grip since it looked so extreme and I was watching this video too. My wrist aches just watching his take back. I tried ti and it wasn't comfortable for me at all. Crazy.
It's like Raonic pre-serve basically. But believe relaxed rather than forced (just tried). I also think it comes from the same issues/approach as Goffin takeback. Just another interpretation of "put it high and swing from there when time comes".
 

Dragy

Hall of Fame
Good call. I like Karen's play. I had been trying to see his grip since it looked so extreme and I was watching this video too. My wrist aches just watching his take back. I tried ti and it wasn't comfortable for me at all. Crazy.
Wow, he just beat Sascha in Paris. Shame none of my providers shows this tourney, just WTA for me :confused:
 
Top