Myth of a "Heavy" Shot Explained - Part 1

[jonolau]

Article from www.tennisplayer.net by John Yandell (please contact John directly if you need more clarification and acknowledgements).

Do certain players really produce a "heavier" ball than others?
"The Heavy Ball." It's a mythical term. "His ball was so heavy it was like hitting a bowling ball." Most tennis players and coaches have had the experience of playing an opponent whose ball seemed unusually "heavy".

Maybe the ball seemed to get on top of you before you could respond. Maybe the ball felt like it was going to rip the racket out of your hand. Maybe it felt like the ball would by pass your strike zone altogether and bounce over your shoulder or even your head.

Everywhere I go in tennis I hear different versions of the same story. This player or that player had the "secret" of the heavy ball. It was Don Budge, Bjorn Borg, Tomas Muster, or Pete Sampras--or some legendary local college or pro player that you or I never heard of. "This guy hit the heaviest forehand I've ever played against."

So "heavy ball" is a term with a lot of connotations for a lot of people. But does it have any real meaning? Is there in fact any such a thing as a shot that is really "heavier"? If so can we understand it, quantify it, and/or teach it?

If the heavy ball does really exist, it must be some combination of speed, spin, and shot trajectory. But what combination? Is it something that's just natural for a few gifted or lucky players? Is there a way to intentionally maximize the weight of your shots?

In this section of Tennisplayer, we've set out to investigate these questions in a different way. Thanks to new filming and analytic technologies, it is now possible to measure the shot signatures of the top players and to distinguish how they play by the quality of the ball they produce.


If the heavy ball exists, is it some unique combination of ball speed and spin?
Over the last several years, researchers from Advanced Tennis Research(AdvancedTennis.com) have been investigating these factors of ball speed, spin, and trajectory, and beginning to put the pieces of the puzzle together. A big part of the story is the evolution in technologies that makes this possible. And that's part of the ongoing story we plan to tell


Ball Speed

We'll start with ball speed, and the groundbreaking research Advanced Tennis scientists began on the speed of the ball in 1997 and 1998. This was the first quantitative study to measure the speed of the ball in pro tennis, beyond what the radar guns told us about the initial velocity of the serve. We not only studied the speed of the serve, but also of the groundstrokes, the returns and the volleys.

Although it's absolutely invisible to the human eye, virtually every shot in pro tennis lost half or more of its speed by the time it reached the opponent's baseline.


It's invisible, but every shot in pro tennis, like this serve, loses half it's speed between the players.
In the first article we go into detail about how we developed this information, what the results were, and what it might mean for players looking for an edge.


Ball Spin

After looking at the study of ball speed, we'll go on to look at the first ever study of the actual spin rates in pro tennis. In 1997, we filmed at the U.S. Open using a new high speed digital camera technology that filmed at 250 frames per second. This was the first time that live professional matches were ever studied by a camera that was fast enough to actually "see" how the ball spins.

How fast was a Pete Sampras serve really spinning? How about an Andre Agassi forehand? Our camera allowed us to answer these questions. During the course of 5 days, we built up and extensive data base of several hundred spin events with top professional players.

We found for example that there was no such thing as a "flat" first serve in the pro game. In reality, a 120mph Pete Sampras serve was actually spinning at an average of over 2500rpm.

We also found that although many people believed that Andre Agassi's forehand was hit with "heavy" topspin, it was actually spinning at about 1800rpm, less than half what some of the European players were developing.


Contrary to popular belief, Agassi's forehand isn't hit with "heavy" tospin relative to other pros.
We also saw for the first time what happened to spin during the bounce on the court. Surprisingly, we found the friction between the ball and the court created as much topspin as the initial hit (and sometimes more), something which had important implications for the creation of the "heavy ball."

These studies of speed and spin opened a window on the literally invisible world of ball dynamics. They also raised almost as many questions as they answered.

We were able to put real numbers to spin and speed in pro tennis for the first time--key components in trying to understand the heavy ball. But how did speed and spin actually interact?

The next step in the research was to measure speed and spin simultaneously, instead of in separate studies. To do this required a new, more elaborate filming protocol and new original motion analysis software, developed by Nasif Iskander.

Nasif was able to measure the speed of 10 returns hit by Pete's opponents, as well as 3 returns hit by Sampras.

In 2000 we were able to put these new tools into action. We were able to film and compare the ball dynamics of two of the best servers in the history of the game in live tournament play: Pete Sampras and Greg Rusedski. For the first time we were able to measure the speed and spin of the serve over the entire course of the flight. Greg Ryan performed the critical and painstaking task of putting the together to form our most complete picture yet of the heavy ball.


How does speed interact with different types spin over the flight of the serve?
A critical advance in Nasif's software was the ability to measure the components in the spin of top players, for example, the level of sidespin and topspin in the deliveries of Sampras and Rusedski. In addition, Nasif developed a "shot simulator" that actually allowed us to measure how changing amounts of spin influenced the curve and the drop of high speed professional serves.

The results were again surprising. We found that there was in fact no such thing as a "topspin" serve, that the majority of spin in the deliveries of both players was sidespin not topspin. But a critical difference turned out to be the relative amounts of topspin.

These differences in the type and amount of spin had a significant impact on the quality of the ball they produced. And it had a significant effect on the total "heaviness" of the shot at the time of the return.


High speed filming shows that 2/3s or more of the spin on pro serves is actually sidespin.
Since Advanced Tennis completed its initial studies of ball speed and spin, the technology has continued to evolve, making even more detailed and precise studies possible that can contribute to our understanding of the nature of the heavy ball in new ways.

Currently Advanced Tennis is engaged in a collaboration with Hawk-Eye technologies in London, the developer of the "Shot Spot," which has taken a prominent place in ESPN tennis broadcasts, reviewing line calls. "Shot Spot" is based on amazing technology developed by the brilliant young English scientist Paul Hawkins, who first applied it in cricket.

To the average television viewer, this is exciting because it allows for the potential "instant replay" review of the controversial calls which frequently have an impact on the outcome of matches (not to mention the fragile emotional psyches of the players).

But in reality the "Shot Spot" technology can tell us far more, because it is actually measuring the entire trajectory of every shot hit in professional tennis. This means Shot Spot can tell us the exact speeds of the shots of the top balls at any point in the flight of the ball, as well as the path each shot takes.


How does the "weight" of Roddick's ball compare to Sampras?
The one factor that Shot Spot cannot directly measure is spin, which requires an additional, even faster high speed camera trained exclusively on the flight of the ball.

** End of Part 1 **

 

[Woodstock_Tennis]

When I think of someone hitting a heavy ball it's just usauly very flat and fast.

 

[paulfreda]

Actually, I think one CAN measure and therfore quantify the "heaviness" of a heavy ball.
It would be the formula .....

HB = a P + b S
..... a and b coefficients, P= Pace or linear ball speed in ft/sec and S = spin in rev/min

Trouble is the equipment needed to make these measurements are not easily available outside a lab.

When I have hit with someone who hits a heavy ball, I know it immediately. And they are usually big and strong fellows or top amateurs or pros.

 

[ta11geese3]

Uh... why are you posting something from tennisplayer.net? You didn't even make a comment on it or even ask a question. What are you expecting from posting this?

oh, sorry. Didn't see you posted the other parts.

Thanks... but I don't think this is legal. Not to mention others have to pay to get to these articles...

 

[papa]

Well, I think it a very informative article - the subject is presented in a logical way that makes one looking forward to the next part.

Nice work.

 

[Pomeranian]

never mind sorry...........

 

[kevhen]

A heavy ball is one with decent pace and alot of spin and sort of bites you like a cobra as it accelerates and jumps up quickly after the bounce (which has good depth) and is difficult to counter the spin and reverse and control and hit back with much power. The incoming spin may also try to twist the racquet in your hands. There is no myth of a heavy ball. It exists, just play more players, especially at the higher levels who hit deep, with good spin, and good pace.

 

[brucie]

Heavy or weighty shots should have power and topspin as the kick adds to the weight and difficulty for the opponant. Thats my idea as its true sampras hits werent fastest but were heaviest due to the combination of pace and spin wereas roddick for example has pace of shot but considering this not weight of shot.

 

[just out]

For me it has nothing to do with spin, it's more about consistent power and depth. I have played both guys who hit flat and guys who hit with a lot of spin where I felt as if I was fighting off balls that they're hitting. I think it is the constant power and depth and the ability to hit it from all points on the courts that creates my perception that I'm playing someone who hits a heavy ball. Good players can all hit hard from time to time but whenever I hear the "heavy ball" mentioned it is usually someone who is hitting hard and deep consistently. I have never played a 5.5 - 6.0 baseliner that didn't hit what I considered a heavy ball. I have rarely played a 4.0 or lower player that hit a heavy ball (and if they did, not consistently) IMHO.

 

[joe sch]

There have been many threads on heavy balls and they usually focus on speed, trajectory, ball spin, and weight of player/racket launching the ball. Another factor that I feel impacts this discussion is the players strokes. With players like Gonzales, Phillipousis, and Nadal, they have big swings so you have more time to read the hit. Other players with more compact flatter strokes have more deception built into thier hits since its harder to anticipate the strokes intention. Anybody else think these issues are related to "heavy" or hard to handle hits ?

 

[habib]

Heavy or weighty shots should have power and topspin as the kick adds to the weight and difficulty for the opponant. Thats my idea as its true sampras hits werent fastest but were heaviest due to the combination of pace and spin wereas roddick for example has pace of shot but considering this not weight of shot.

Uhh, I don't think Sampras' forehand had anywhere near the spinrate of Roddick's. And as hard as Blake hits his forehand, he has described Andy as having a heavier shot because it has more topspin on it.

 

[habib]

There have been many threads on heavy balls and they usually focus on speed, trajectory, ball spin, and weight of player/racket launching the ball. Another factor that I feel impacts this discussion is the players strokes. With players like Gonzales, Phillipousis, and Nadal, they have big swings so you have more time to read the hit. Other players with more compact flatter strokes have more deception built into thier hits since its harder to anticipate the strokes intention. Anybody else think these issues are related to "heavy" or hard to handle hits ?

Only in the sense that the big swings tend to generate the big spins.

 

[FiveO]

I believe the general meaning of "the heavy ball" is quality of shot, speed and hop, post bounce. The "heavier" ball gets on the player receiving it much sooner than his usual cues, i.e. the opponent's swing speed, sound of contact and ball flight speed coming toward him prior to the bounce, tell him it will. In other words one opponent's shot loses less speed due to the friction between court and ball on the bounce than another opponent's shot which came off their racquet at the same horizontal velocity. This unexpected post bounce ball speed can cause slightly mis-timed points of contact for the receiver, causing the subjective sensation of "extra", surprising or "heavier" weight of shot. In addition to that "added" post bounce ball speed, spin variances can cause difficult to anticipate variances in the height of bounce on apparently similarly struck balls, making for slightly varied heights of contact for the receiver and therefore a greater percentage of "not so centered" points of contact. This can contribute to more "not so sweet" points of contact for the receiver, again making the ball feel "heavier" on the strings than anticipated.

 

[just out]

I believe the general meaning of "the heavy ball" is quality of shot, speed and hop, post bounce. The "heavier" ball gets on the player receiving it much sooner than his usual cues, i.e. the opponent's swing speed, sound of contact and ball flight speed coming toward him prior to the bounce, tell him it will. In other words one opponent's shot loses less speed due to the friction between court and ball on the bounce than another opponent's shot which came off their racquet at the same horizontal velocity. This unexpected post bounce ball speed can cause slightly mis-timed points of contact for the receiver, causing the subjective sensation of "extra", surprising or "heavier" weight of shot. In addition to that "added" post bounce ball speed, spin variances can cause difficult to anticipate variances in the height of bounce on apparently similarly struck balls, making for slightly varied heights of contact for the receiver and therefore a greater percentage of "not so centered" points of contact. This can contribute to more "not so sweet" points of contact for the receiver, again making the ball feel "heavier" on the strings than anticipated.

FiveO,
Good points, I think you're on to something that explains what I was getting at in my first post. When you feel that someone is hitting a heavy ball against you, you are not getting the usual feedback and are constantly fighting the pace and depth of that person's shots. I think for me facing players normally at the 4.0-4.5 level you get used to certain patterns and feedback when someone hits a ball and you begin to anticipate when someone is going to be able to hit hard shots against you. There also seems to be a direct correlation with the effort put into the shot by your opponent and the heaviness of the shot at lower levels and it's not that way in my experience when you face a 5.5 - 6.0 level player (they can often crush the ball with little or no extra visible physical effort). Heavy hitters are hitting this way all of the time and from positions where I typically would not expect a deep powerful return. For me it's not about speed or trajectory after the bounce or anything like that it's about my ability to anticipate and handle it.

 

[kevhen]

I agree, it might be more than just pace, spin, and depth and include sort of an element of surprise.

I played one guy last summer that hit heavier than his swing looked and the kick on his forehand shots would surprise me. I think he was using more of a western closed face grip which was adding more topspin than his swing looked like.

I have played other guys in the past that hit heavy with rather violent (more upward) swings that generated alot of spin and decent pace. They were definitely heavy but not quite as surprising since you could see it coming.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

things should not be posted without giving the full reference (esp the author), and should not be posted at all when covered by copyright, as it seems to be in this case.

 

[jackson vile]

Well there are two types those that jump up and those that jump forward of course at any time you can get variences inbetween.

"Heavy ball" is a relative term and will be different for everyone so that is not something that you can quantify. The term just simply means a ball that feels heavy when attemtping to strike it. To further complicate this is also relative to the situation.


In the end it is the right combo of spin and pace as well as dirrection of ball and direction of the spin on the ball.

I am a spin and do everything to spin the ball as hard as I possbily can, as of this last month I have started working at hitting my shot flater and harder but with the same amount of spin, as a result the person returning the ball is not experience much greater force from my shots many of which are attempting to tear the racket out of their hand.

In short it is a progression of play not to purposly produce a "Heavy Ball" but rather to end a point quicker with a flater faster shot, but still keeping it safe with the same amount of spin to keep the ball in

 

[papa]

I am a spin and do everything to spin the ball as hard as I possbily can, as of this last month I have started working at hitting my shot flater and harder but with the same amount of spin, as a result the person returning the ball is not experience much greater force from my shots many of which are attempting to tear the racket out of their hand.

)

Isn't this somewhat of a contridiction? It just seems to me that the flater the stroke (assuming the swing speed is the same) the "less" topspin one would put on the ball. Are we trying to apply more sidespin to achieve this ("greater rotation" or "harder") but thats not going to do much in keeping the ball in.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Isn't this somewhat of a contridiction? It just seems to me that the flater the stroke (assuming the swing speed is the same) the "less" topspin one would put on the ball. Are we trying to apply more sidespin to achieve this ("greater rotation" or "harder") but thats not going to do much in keeping the ball in.

I thought the ol' chap made a funny. He is a humorous fellow...

 

[lucky leprechaun]

I believe the general meaning of "the heavy ball" is quality of shot, speed and hop, post bounce. The "heavier" ball gets on the player receiving it much sooner than his usual cues

Yeah that's it, post-bounce. Couldn't quite put my finger on it before, I'm usually spouting it exists dang it! I know it does. Yep I would say, this at least is the "symptom" of the heavy ball so we can diagnose it now, but the disease that causes it is still a mystery. I personally still think heavy racquets do it for whatever reason.

 

[TennisAsAlways]

things should not be posted without giving the full reference (esp the author), and should not be posted at all when covered by copyright, as it seems to be in this case.

Mr Hancu, I once pointed out the same thing that you're pointing, and I was insulted as being like someone who is just looking for an opportunity to nitpick (I wasn't. At the time, I was only telling/reminding the OP, as an FYI.)

There is nothing wrong with what you are suggesting. It is only the common "right" thing to do.

Good day now. 8)

 

[jackson vile]

Isn't this somewhat of a contridiction? It just seems to me that the flater the stroke (assuming the swing speed is the same) the "less" topspin one would put on the ball. Are we trying to apply more sidespin to achieve this ("greater rotation" or "harder") but thats not going to do much in keeping the ball in.

No, once you become more experienced in spin you will learn to keep the high amount of top spin yet still be able to flaten it out. Bassicly it just has more speed so it ends up fallowing a much straighter path rather than a loopy one

 

[paulfreda]

Pace can make a ball feel heavy as if your racquet got hit with a weight or a ball much larger and heavier than a tennis ball. But it is the spin that adds the feeling that your racquet is getting knocked out of your hand. The combination is what I have always felt was a heavy ball. Not just spin and not just pace.
Again, a player must have great strength or excellent technique to generate such a ball.

 

[sureshs]

Isn't this from tennisplayer.net? It is a paid site. Check about copyright issues.

 

[JohnYandell]

jonolau,

That text seems familiar...what a minute I wrote it...it's OK to post something from the Tennisplayer articles--any more would have been too much--but you should acknowledge the source...

John Yandell

 

[jonolau]

jonolau,

That text seems familiar...what a minute I wrote it...it's OK to post something from the Tennisplayer articles--any more would have been too much--but you should acknowledge the source...

John Yandell

My apologies, I was not aware of any copyright issues as this article in it's entirety was shared by someone else from another local forum.

If it in breach of anything, I will get TW to shut down these threads immediately.

 

[jonolau]

things should not be posted without giving the full reference (esp the author), and should not be posted at all when covered by copyright, as it seems to be in this case.

Dear Marius,

I am not aware of whether this article was covered by a copyright, and it was copied in its entirety from a local forum which did not quote a full reference.

If that's the case, I will inform the local forum and at the same time, get TW to delete these threads.

Jonathan

 

[papa]

things should not be posted without giving the full reference (esp the author), and should not be posted at all when covered by copyright, as it seems to be in this case.

Seems to me he did this in the first sentence. I would assume, like others have done, that there is an "applied consent" for the members of the site to use some of their material - many others have done it. Pictures, symbols, slogans and written materials are protected under copyrights laws - has the material been copyrighted in the first place or registered with the Library of Congress?

 

[papa]

jonolau,

That text seems familiar...what a minute I wrote it...it's OK to post something from the Tennisplayer articles--any more would have been too much--but you should acknowledge the source...

John Yandell

I think he clearly did this in the first sentence.

 

[jonolau]

Seems to me he did this in the first sentence. I would assume, like others have done, that there is an "applied consent" for the members of the site to use some of their material - many others have done it. Pictures, symbols, slogans and written materials are protected under copyrights laws - has the material been copyrighted in the first place or registered with the Library of Congress?

Hi papa, thank you for your kind support. I did an edit after receiving the comments.

 

[JohnYandell]

Actually there is no "implied" or any other consent as it's all copyrighted, and yes with the copyright office, but that isn't even necessary under the law.

I can't read every thread on the site or the internet about tennis, and so yeah I'm quite sure some of our text and a few of our images are reproduced--even though when you sign up as a subscriber you have to check a box and agree not to do this.

The point is I don't really care about quoting brief excerpts from the text from our articles--so long as the source is acknowledged. It can help to stimulate discussion and it's good for Tennisplayer. I know there are a lot of supporters/subscribers on this board. I appreciate that and I enjoy the dialgoue myself.

So far as the videos, stills, and animations go, I feel that is another story. I have had to write to various people(politely I hope) and ask them to take stuff down.

So yeah if you see imagery that you know is from Tennisplayer you can let the poster or me know about it. Not that big a deal and I rarely have to get my lawyer involved, though it happens occassionally. We just feel that stuff needs to stay on the site, and we are well within our rights to expect that.

 

[shindemac]

There's no excuse for plagiarism. Unless you're 10 years old, you should know not to do it. Didn't we learn anything from the Harvard girl who lost a multimillion dollar book deal cause some of her passages were ripped line by line from other books?

To the OP, what was your point? Couldn't you have summarized everything into something simple like, "To hit the heavy ball, use pace and lots of spin or whatever the hell you want to say!"

 

[JohnYandell]

I don't think any advance money for chick novels will ever change hand in relation to the heavy ball.

 

[papa]

Actually there is no "implied" or any other consent as it's all copyrighted, and yes with the copyright office, but that isn't even necessary under the law.

I can't read every thread on the site or the internet about tennis, and so yeah I'm quite sure some of our text and a few of our images are reproduced--even though when you sign up as a subscriber you have to check a box and agree not to do this.

The point is I don't really care about quoting brief excerpts from the text from our articles--so long as the source is acknowledged. It can help to stimulate discussion and it's good for Tennisplayer. I know there are a lot of supporters/subscribers on this board. I appreciate that and I enjoy the dialgoue myself.

So far as the videos, stills, and animations go, I feel that is another story. I have had to write to various people(politely I hope) and ask them to take stuff down.

So yeah if you see imagery that you know is from Tennisplayer you can let the poster or me know about it. Not that big a deal and I rarely have to get my lawyer involved, though it happens occassionally. We just feel that stuff needs to stay on the site, and we are well within our rights to expect that.

 

[papa]

Actually there is no "implied" or any other consent as it's all copyrighted, and yes with the copyright office, but that isn't even necessary under the law.

I can't read every thread on the site or the internet about tennis, and so yeah I'm quite sure some of our text and a few of our images are reproduced--even though when you sign up as a subscriber you have to check a box and agree not to do this.

The point is I don't really care about quoting brief excerpts from the text from our articles--so long as the source is acknowledged. It can help to stimulate discussion and it's good for Tennisplayer. I know there are a lot of supporters/subscribers on this board. I appreciate that and I enjoy the dialgoue myself.

So far as the videos, stills, and animations go, I feel that is another story. I have had to write to various people(politely I hope) and ask them to take stuff down.

So yeah if you see imagery that you know is from Tennisplayer you can let the poster or me know about it. Not that big a deal and I rarely have to get my lawyer involved, though it happens occassionally. We just feel that stuff needs to stay on the site, and we are well within our rights to expect that.

Sorry for the post that didn't appear - have no idea what happened.

Yes, I agree that material does not have to be copyrighted/registered to be protected but it does help make any claim that much easier to prove - generally but not always, the "owner" is the one that produced the material the first. Changing a few words here and there, does not give "another" the right to use/copy material. Copyright/intellectual property laws (which are stronger and different than patent laws) even survive the death of the author/owner. We (USA) have Federal Laws and each state has their own version of intellectual property law but generally it follows the Federal example. States generally get involved with name registration and the like.

There are a mulitude of misconceptions about intectual property rights. For example, a book can be copyrighted but the name of the book can't - there are exceptions of course.

Our laws (again the USA) do not follow exactly the laws of the international community which for reasons, that can be somewhat complex and difficult to explain, we chose not to join. Violations can be difficult to prove in some cases and getting judgement against people/companies in places like China can really be a problem if not impossible.

Anyway, having said all this, everyone should clearly give credit and ample reference to the "owner" of the material and its publisher. Whenever possible, they should get permission to "use" the material or any selected parts. This not only includes "words" but pictures, symbols etc. Slogans, are certainly one of the "gray" areas of copyright law.

 

[The Gorilla]

so if agassi's ball was so flat how was it so heavy?

 

[JohnYandell]

Yeah well good question. I think that the point of the article is that you can look at speed and spin and depth and trajectory and all those are factors.

1800rpm isn't totally flat, that's for sure. The question just becomes what does that ball feel like to someone who intercepts it with his racket.

What feels heavy to one person may not to another. With Agassi 99.9% of all players in world history are gonna find it that way. Fed at the Open in that last match, probably not so much.

It's not some "magic" independent factor--although we still need to understand one piece of the puzzle better probably which is how speed and spin interact with the bounce.

But I think it helps to understand some of the pieces independently and how they might fit together.

 

[The Gorilla]

maybe you should get some ball machines with adjustable pace and spin and use your slo mo cams to see how both flat and highly spun balls which are percieved as heavy interact with the racquet face, and the effect they have on the frame and strings

 

[JohnYandell]

Would be very interesting. Especially with the claims about spin and the new strings and all.

We'd need to spend about $3K a day to do the filming. But the big problem is the logistics of the camera positions and lens lengths you'd need in a pro venue to really get enough of a data base to conclude things. Not easy.

To me though what actually happens on the strings is less relevant than what the properties of the ball coming off the strings are.

I think we can safely conclude that this interaction on the strings will be a relative constant from player to player--and the new strings or the new hybrids are dominant on the tour. It's been established by many researchers what the dwell times are. It would be interesting to see any advantages of the strings, but according to Rod Cross in Technical Tennis, these are minimal and even vary little with tension. Not sure I totally agree with that but again, what are the properties of the shot?

To me the speed and spin coming off the racket are a function of natural ability--and technical variations: Grip, swing patterns, etc. The swing variations are more interesting to me, because I think this is where the potential lies for making a difference in coaching.

 

[The Gorilla]

What I meant by that is, seeing as you know exactly what the variables that constitute Sampras' serve or Nadal's forehand are,( ie: what the rotations per minute,(rpm) , the mph , the contact height and the axis of rotation of the ball is), if you recreated his serve using a ball machine set to these variables and put your racquet in front of the ball and it felt heavy, you'd know whether or not it was one of the variables you measured which made it feel heavy.
Knowing this you could increase one of the variables while keeping the others the same, that is you could
1) increase the spin and see whether, as your theory suggests, this makes it feel heavier,
2)you could try increasing the pace and see whether this made it feel heavier,
3) you could try changing the axis of the balls rotation to see whether or not it is importantfor theball to have more sidespin or topspin or whether some combination of the two is ideal etc.

The beauty of such an experiment is that you wouldn't need a pro to hit the ball, you could do it on any court anywhere.You could determine which factor was responsible for a percieved heavy ball through testing.

 

[JohnYandell]

Got it. Understand what you are asking.

The current ball machines though just won't get up to that level of pace and spin. You can have one or the other... Verifying the changes even if it were possible to create them would also require time consuming analysis.

Plus the "feel." Would you agree that would be pretty subjective? If I could clone myself and had unlimited researches taking this further would be worthy.

We do have a future filming planned that I think may shed some indirect light on all this. Don't want to jink it at this point but if we pull it off I'll share what we find.

 

[The Gorilla]

fair enough
As to the 'feel', that was the reason I suggested filming the racquet face/ball interaction, so you could see what physically happens that makes a ball that is percieved as feeling heavy, feel heavy.

3k is very expensive though lol

 

[Bagumbawalla]

About once a month someone brings up this subject- two or three times this month, alone.

And I notice that 90% of disagreement in tennis discussions of this sort stem from vague or confusing, or regional terminology.

I suggest that if there is some tennis pro out there wanting to write a book--he/she might consider a book that updates much of the old, awkward tennis terminology like "brush up" or "cup under" and define other terms in a standardized wa an "inside out" as opposed to "reverse" stroke-- and so forth.

The book should choose terms that make sense in relation to science or physics- not just terms that relate to how one person feels when making such and such a shot.

With a book like this, a kid in Maine would be able to communicate with a player in California and be assured they are discussing the same thing.

Volunteers?

 

[Rickson]

When I think of someone hitting a heavy ball it's just usauly very flat and fast.

Excellent point as a flat ball that's hit hard is faster than a topspin shot hit with the same swing speed.

 

[The Gorilla]

About once a month someone brings up this subject- two or three times this month, alone.

And I notice that 90% of disagreement in tennis discussions of this sort stem from vague or confusing, or regional terminology.

I suggest that if there is some tennis pro out there wanting to write a book--he/she might consider a book that updates much of the old, awkward tennis terminology like "brush up" or "cup under" and define other terms in a standardized wa an "inside out" as opposed to "reverse" stroke-- and so forth.

The book should choose terms that make sense in relation to science or physics- not just terms that relate to how one person feels when making such and such a shot.

With a book like this, a kid in Maine would be able to communicate with a player in California and be assured they are discussing the same thing.

Volunteers?

perhaps someone should start a thread on this very topic bagumba...

 

[Steady Eddy]

Here's how it was explained to me. Some players put their weight into the shot so that even though it looked like they took an easy, effortless, swing at the ball, it comes over the net with plenty of power. Because their swing was so smooth you're not expecting it to have much on it. When it hits your racket, the power surprises you, and the ball feels "heavy".

Chris Evert was said to hit a heavy ball because it didn't look like she was wailing on it. Somebody like Seles who noisily grunts when she hits the ball is not said to hit a heavy ball because even though she hits it hard, you're expecting it to be coming hard.

 

[The Gorilla]

Here's how it was explained to me. Some players put their weight into the shot so that even though it looked like they took an easy, effortless, swing at the ball, it comes over the net with plenty of power. Because their swing was so smooth you're not expecting it to have much on it. When it hits your racket, the power surprises you, and the ball feels "heavy".

Chris Evert was said to hit a heavy ball because it didn't look like she was wailing on it. Somebody like Seles who noisily grunts when she hits the ball is not said to hit a heavy ball because even though she hits it hard, you're expecting it to be coming hard.

thaht is not a heavy ball, nadal puts a lot of effort into his shot, and his is the ehaviest ball around, a heavy bal hits your racquet so hard you have a hard time following through.

 

[Tennisplayer92]

watch prince of tennis for further details just kidding... no one flame/kill me x__x anyway i always thought of those shots to have a... heavier swing to it.

 

[Bagumbawalla]

I am coming to this discussion late, and may just be repeating what has already been said.

In my opinion, there are, basically, 2 elements to a "heavy" ball.

One is psychological-- A ball that comes to you with "unexpected" force that causes you to mistime your shot, hit off center or late. Because you are unprepared, the ball seems much harder than it really is. There is a young girl, where I play, that is barely five feet tall, if that, who uncoils into her backhand so smoothly that one is often unprepared for the sheer speed of the ball. A fast, flat ball that lands deep and robs one of reaction time (and time for the ball to slow down after a bounce) can be considered part of the psychological aspect of the sensation of heaviness.

The other element is based more on physics. When there is a choice between the two elements, I would tend to prefer the scientific approach. In this senes the "heaviness" of a ball is its mass. Mass can be sheer speed, as in a small 22 bullet traveling at 3700 feet per second-- so a fast, flat ball can be heavy, both in the physical and the psychological sense.

But, also, mass can be stored in the spin of the ball. If the ball is fast and then releases even more "stored" energy (from spin) then the mass may equal or excede that of the flat, fast ball.

 

[The Gorilla]

I am coming to this discussion late, and may just be repeating what has already been said.

In my opinion, there are, basically, 2 elements to a "heavy" ball.

One is psychological-- A ball that comes to you with "unexpected" force that causes you to mistime your shot, hit off center or late. Because you are unprepared, the ball seems much harder than it really is. There is a young girl, where I play, that is barely five feet tall, if that, who uncoils into her backhand so smoothly that one is often unprepared for the sheer speed of the ball. A fast, flat ball that lands deep and robs one of reaction time (and time for the ball to slow down after a bounce) can be considered part of the psychological aspect of the sensation of heaviness.

The other element is based more on physics. When there is a choice between the two elements, I would tend to prefer the scientific approach. In this senes the "heaviness" of a ball is its mass. Mass can be sheer speed, as in a small 22 bullet traveling at 3700 feet per second-- so a fast, flat ball can be heavy, both in the physical and the psychological sense.

But, also, mass can be stored in the spin of the ball. If the ball is fast and then releases even more "stored" energy (from spin) then the mass may equal or excede that of the flat, fast ball.

how can spin increase the physical volume of the ball bagumba?Not being impertinant, just trying to understand.