Move Forward In Tennis And Don't Change A Thing

BallBag

Professional
Now what happens if they are moving forward, i.e. "transferring their weight" into the shot?

What about hitting volleys with your legs instead of swinging? These are all things where we tell our students to get their body into the shot. Some of these "such and such is a myth" threads are based on some misunderstanding of what the advice is for.
It doesn't matter if the ball is moving at 30 MPH and the racket is stationary or if the ball is stationary and the racket is moving at 30 MPH or any other combination. The experiment did not preclude attaching mass to the handle creating and effect. A stiffer racket and strings would shorten the round trip so there could be an effect. That experiment is simple enough for anyone to duplicate if you want to try different setups. I would be interested to see if the is an effect with a hard mounted handle.
 

Kevo

Legend

If you look at the graph and read, the conclusion is hand waved slightly. It's also apparently one racquet and string condition. In any case, the idea of weight transfer as a coaching cue or general bit of advice when learning to hit is not about whether I could hit harder if I gained weight. It's about using the mass that I have more effectively.
 

BallBag

Professional
If you look at the graph and read, the conclusion is hand waved slightly. It's also apparently one racquet and string condition. In any case, the idea of weight transfer as a coaching cue or general bit of advice when learning to hit is not about whether I could hit harder if I gained weight. It's about using the mass that I have more effectively.
There is no doubt that the free standing racket deflected more than the one being held. The data is showing that the effect on the ball is negligible. This is also not saying anything about "weight transfer" and its effect on the weight of the racket or apparent weight or any other quasi-scientific terminology you want to use. Those two concepts are unrelated even though they both include weight as a factor.
 

Kevo

Legend
It doesn't matter if the ball is moving at 30 MPH and the racket is stationary or if the ball is stationary and the racket is moving at 30 MPH or any other combination. The experiment did not preclude attaching mass to the handle creating and effect. A stiffer racket and strings would shorten the round trip so there could be an effect. That experiment is simple enough for anyone to duplicate if you want to try different setups. I would be interested to see if the is an effect with a hard mounted handle.

I don't know for sure about held vs stationary in all conditions, but clearly you can see the difference between a volleyer moving forward and not moving forward. You're adding an additional velocity. Same thing for the traditional step in closed forehand. I think it would be fascinating to see some experiments done to try and tease out if a larger person holding a racquet makes any difference to the result vs a smaller person in a wide range of equipment scenarios, but I think that's a separate issue from "weight transfer". I think that's always been about what you do with your body, not somehow transferring your weight to the object your hitting.
 

Kevo

Legend
There is no doubt that the free standing racket deflected more than the one being held. The data is showing that the effect on the ball is negligible. This is also not saying anything about "weight transfer" and its effect on the weight of the racket or apparent weight or any other quasi-scientific terminology you want to use. Those two concepts are unrelated even though they both include weight as a factor.

Yes, I agree. In the tested conditions the effect was negligible. I also agree that we seem to be discussing two unrelated concepts currently.
 
The high school physics homework is great and all, but I'm still curious about my question.

Are proponents of the move forward and add mass theory saying skin and bones lanky Rublev could usefully add power to his 100mph ground strokes by running forward each time he hits the ball, or by adding a weight vest?
 

BallBag

Professional
The high school physics homework is great and all, but I'm still curious about my question.

Are proponents of the move forward and add mass theory saying skin and bones lanky Rublev could usefully add power to his 100mph ground strokes by running forward each time he hits the ball, or by adding a weight vest?

Rublev running at 10 MPH and hitting a ball vs Rublev running on a treadmill at 10 MPH and hitting ball would result in Rublev's racket moving 10 MPH faster when running on the court vs. running on the treadmill. Also, if Rublev packed on an extra 50 lb of muscle he would hit the ball harder and be one scary Russian.
 
From a physics standpoint it's both very complicated and fairly simple depending on how much you want to go into detail. Unfortunately this is not a physics forum, we're trying to improve at the sport of tennis.

OP's original article is pretty straightforward. Hit dynamically with your whole body and learn to hit on the rise and be aggressive. That's fine. The physics squabbling has pretty much derailed the whole thread without any gain. It's like if someone made a thread on how to dunk in basketball and the thread was about whether you do pull the earth towards you when you jump.

In a world where pretty much everyone has a HD video recorder on their phone and we have access to thousands of hours of high quality tennis footage on youtube, a text article describing a technique just doesn't really cut it, or at best is just invitation into pages of arguing. If you're feeling lazy, find some footage of pro's demonstrating your idea. If you're really keen, buy a $20 tripod for your phone and demo hitting some balls on a court. If you espouse at once that both pros are unable or unaware of your brilliant idea and additionally you are incapable of demonstrating it because of a college injury or your phone is broken then you're just begging for pages of silly arguing about your ideas.
 

fecund345

Rookie
From a physics standpoint it's both very complicated and fairly simple depending on how much you want to go into detail. Unfortunately this is not a physics forum, we're trying to improve at the sport of tennis.

OP's original article is pretty straightforward. Hit dynamically with your whole body and learn to hit on the rise and be aggressive. That's fine. The physics squabbling has pretty much derailed the whole thread without any gain. It's like if someone made a thread on how to dunk in basketball and the thread was about whether you do pull the earth towards you when you jump.

In a world where pretty much everyone has a HD video recorder on their phone and we have access to thousands of hours of high quality tennis footage on youtube, a text article describing a technique just doesn't really cut it, or at best is just invitation into pages of arguing. If you're feeling lazy, find some footage of pro's demonstrating your idea. If you're really keen, buy a $20 tripod for your phone and demo hitting some balls on a court. If you espouse at once that both pros are unable or unaware of your brilliant idea and additionally you are incapable of demonstrating it because of a college injury or your phone is broken then you're just begging for pages of silly arguing about your ideas.

And I am old with back problems and a hip replacement...so I can't hit as hard or move toward it as fast

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
 

fecund345

Rookie
Here you go
185bc50bac18c57a04a57a304f280983.gif


Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
 

Znak

Hall of Fame
And the whip is faster when it’s cracked by a heavier person?? o_O
yes and no. from my link above:

(...) he calculated that if you assume a baseball player starts out with about 50% of their weight as muscle, every 10% of muscle mass he gains will translate into a roughly 3.6% to 3.9% increase in bat speed. The trouble is, if a player gets bigger—even if he is also getting stronger—he might start to move his bat through the zone more slowly. This happens because of another aspect of physics: momentum.
...
This is why it’s critical for athletes to not only increase their strength, but also their power, which is a combination of force and speed, explains Karakolis.
 
Top