Myth: "Watch the ball"

[HappyAndFriendlyAlways]

Lee Couillard, USPTA, Head Tennis Professional, Punahou School explains the "MYTH" about watching the ball hit the strings of the racquet. Also, as reported in Sports Illustrated, the Punahou Boys tennis team has won the state high school championships 40 times and the girls 34 times since 1958.

http://iws.punahou.edu/user/lcouillard/2008/06/myth_watch_the_ball.html

double click the video to play

edit: If people just keep their head very still they would improve like crazy. Watching the ball is a given, but keeping your head still is not. Asking a student over and over to watch the ball is addressing the symptom not the source(cause). To cure the symptom you must treat the source, which is the head moving.

KISS people, and drop watch the ball, but pick up, keep your head still

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

(Didn't get a chance to watch the vid. Using a slow connection right now so it's taking an incredibly long time to try to dl this 56 MB video).

I've been saying this for quite a while -- the human eye cannot possibly track most (almost all) balls all the way in to the strings of your own racket. As the ball gets close to us, its motion exceeds our ability to track the ball with our smooth pursuit tracking system. It can even exceed out saccadic tracking system.

According to Sport Science (Fox Sports) Episode 3, a baseball batter facing a 95 mph pitch can no longer see the ball when it get within 15 feet (more than 4 meters) of him. If the batter has decided to swing at the pitch at this point, his head turns so that his eyes are focusing on the expected contact point and stay fixed there for most of his swing (even well after contact). Take a look at the super slow motion sequence in this video. At 3:41 the batter's eyes are already fixed on the expected contact. At 3:47 he makes contact, yet at 3:51 we see that his head & eyes are still at the contact.

Take a look at slow motion videos of Federer hitting a groundstroke and you will see the same sort of thing happening. Shortly before the ball gets to him (perhaps a few feet, perhaps more), we see Fed's head turn dramatically and his eyes move to the expected contact point. His eyes and head stay quiet before, during and after contact. He is well into his follow-thru (after contact) before he lifts his head to track the ball again.

Just as we cannot track the ball all the way into the strings, we cannot possibly see the ball coming off of our strings either -- not until it is quite a distance away from us. Using saccadic tracking, Federer does pick up a yellowish blur just prior to contact with his strings -- but he has not actually followed the ball all the way into his strings since his eyes lost sight of the ball (possibly for several feet or more) until his saccadic system picks up the momentary blur.

 

[Puma]

You keeping posting these comments from whatever sources that are misleading. Watching the ball is not a myth. Regardless if you can actually focus on the ball at impact the biggest benifit from this exercise is keeping the head still.

I guess everything would be better if the racket back drill was properly called the "Unit turn" drill or watch the ball drill was called "keep the head still" drill.........

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Lee Couillard, USPTA, Head Tennis Professional, Punahou School explains the "MYTH" about watching the ball hit the strings of the racquet. Also, as reported in Sports Illustrated, the Punahou Boys tennis team has won the state high school championships 40 times and the girls 34 times since 1958.

http://iws.punahou.edu/user/lcouillard/2008/06/myth_watch_the_ball.html

double click the video to play

We have to be careful here because this thread can easily get out of hand.

I think when we say "myth" to some it implies we shouldn't even try or to forget trying. We still need to try and see the ball into contact as best we can, even though our eyes are legally blind and all we see is a blur.

There are two different techniques used when "watching the ball". The one that Federer uses and the one a majority of us use. Both techniques are learned and will have the brain filling in missing information as you practice and learn.

One of the biggest benefits of watching the ball into the strings is keeping the head still. This helps you keep your swing path on course as you have calculated and improves your chances for clean contact.

Whether Federer can actually see the ball hit the strings or not, the common point to watching the ball into the strings is to have a quiet upper body (especially the head) and to stay focused on what you are trying to do.

It is true that the eyes are legally blind (things are blurred with no detail), but this doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Also, when you see pictures of players with their eyes forward from contact, you are talking about a split second of time. This is not a long duration. A pro still needs to keep focused on the ball because of the difficulty level of the ball they are hitting. What happens is once the ball blurs, the eyes stop following, the head remains slightly forward, and the brain through its learning and other senses fills in the necessary calculations to bring the racquet into the ball. This happens extremely fast.

Federer does it differently. He actually rotates his head back as if he is following the ball into the strings, however, he is also looking at the contact from slightly behind the strings as he makes contact in front.

Just my take.

 

[Steady Eddy]

Vic Braeden said that he discovered that you can't watch the ball all the way into your strings because no one's eyes can adjust that fast. But he did say to keep you eye on it for as long as you can.

One thing is sure; lots of shots get ruined because of taking your eye off the ball.

 

[BeHappy]

you mightn't see the ball right on to the strings, but the more information you gather, the better your brain can calculate the remaining trajectory of the ball, and the better you can fill in the gaps.

For eg, if we look away from the ball before it crossed the net, we would be screwed

 

[sureshs]

Did any of you catch the latest science news (about couple of weeks) which said that since the brain takes 100 milliseconds to react to an image, it projects an expected image 100 ms before? This is what helps batters react to pitches without getting knocked out first! Another example was walking swiftly thru a crowd. The early image generation helps in avoiding collisions. But this feature leaves us vulnerable to optical illusions.

Let me try to find the article.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

you mightn't see the ball right on to the strings, but the more information you gather, the better your brain can calculate the remaining trajectory of the ball, and the better you can fill in the gaps.

That is a good point.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Did any of you catch the latest science news (about couple of weeks) which said that since the brain takes 100 milliseconds to react to an image

Yes, sensory feedback is slower then the ball stays on our strings. That is why tennis tips about turning over the ball for more topspin do not make sense. We can not control the ball that precisely. By the time we even "sense" a collision took place, the ball is already long gone. That is why many of us preach the fundamentals.

The brain has an amazing capability of projecting and calculating additional information to help us hit a tennis ball. Imagine the development that took place in a professional players mind.

Consider the limited amount of errors and the information they have grown accustomed to process over time in such a fast manner.

 

[HappyAndFriendlyAlways]

Instead of telling people to "watch the ball" it would be better to tell the person to "keep your head still, before, during, and slightly after contact"

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Instead of telling people to "watch the ball" it would be better to tell the person to "keep your head still, before, during, and slightly after contact"

Maybe, however, you still need to watch the ball into the strings even though the main purpose is to keep the head quiet. There are other minor things involved with "watching the ball" that support hitting the ball cleanly.

 

[HappyAndFriendlyAlways]

maybe? lol, man you are tough old bill

 

[Bungalo Bill]

maybe? lol, man you are tough old bill

Oh I am not that tough, I have perhaps studied too much on this stuff.

 

[basil J]

I spent a week with a teaching pro in Florida over xmas break and he said that Federer tires to see the ball more from behind the racquet, through the strings. I thought this was ridiculous, but we drilled over a course of a week, spending 20 minutes a day doing this drill for my forehand and 1 HBH and two things emerged: I hit all my shots further out in front of me, and My consistancy improved quite a bit. Now i will say, that i don't think I ever once saw the ball through my strings, but the net result was improved control and accuracy, so my point is whatever works for each individual. When I play I always use the "bounce hit" exercise, always trying to follow the ball all the way to my strings and always watching the bounce on both sides of the court it always helps my consistancy.

 

[HappyAndFriendlyAlways]

If people just keep their head very still that would improve like crazy. Watching the ball is a given, but keeping your head still is not. Asking a student over and over to watch the ball is addressing the symptom not the source. To cure the symptom you must treat the source, which is the head moving.

KISS people, and drop watch the ball, but pick up, keep your head still

 

[southpaw]

Let me try to find the article.

Here is a link.

If his theory is correct, then visually, we always live in a fabricated virtual world. We never see things as they are, only what our brains forecast they should be.

I don't know if I buy it. But, it does make sense from a evolutionary standpoint. Better to be alive in an imaginary world, then to die in real time.

 

[sureshs]

Here is a link.

If his theory is correct, then visually, we always live in a fabricated virtual world. We never see things as they are, only what our brains forecast they should be.

I don't know if I buy it. But, it does make sense from a evolutionary standpoint. Better to be alive in an imaginary world, then to die in real time.

Thanks! I couldn't find it myself - probably didn't have the right keywords.

That is how compressed videos work, too. They are compressed based on statistical correlations from scene to scene, what you see is the prediction of a scene, which is corrected continuously based on the next scenes. So the fabricated scenes of the mind are not mere fabrications - they are constantly refined based on reality, so that they "track" closely.

Now, it is also well known that baseball, cricket and tennis players all anticipate the ball by "dead reckoning." Interesting question is how that plays into this virtual world. Is the "anticipation" just a better tuned version of the above? Or do both of them occur - the brain flashing a pre-image based on prediction and the athlete's brain further predicting taking this prediction into account? Or does one occur before the other in serial fashion?

BTW, reminded me of something else I had read couple of years back. One side of the brain also lags behind the other (I forget which is which) in perception. That is what leads to deja vu. First time something is preceived, and second time the same thing is reperceived, and it appears to be deja vu.

 

[sureshs]

Here is a link.

If his theory is correct, then visually, we always live in a fabricated virtual world. We never see things as they are, only what our brains forecast they should be.

I don't know if I buy it. But, it does make sense from a evolutionary standpoint. Better to be alive in an imaginary world, then to die in real time.

The alternative, older viewpoint mentioned in the article is that the brain does not come up with a pre-image, but the motor system does, sort of, by adjusting to the expected prediction. So the issue is only where the prediction occurs - in the visual system or the motor system.

 

[Bagumbawalla]

Try not looking at the ball at all and see what happens.

 

[HappyAndFriendlyAlways]

Try not looking at the ball at all and see what happens.

or better yet, keep your head still, and you will then :

1. look at the ball better
2. keep your body still, and avoid lifting your head and body on contact
3. get more control
4. get more smooth power

keep your head still is the root of the problem

 

[swimntennis]

Try not looking at the ball at all and see what happens.

I can play without tracking it into my racquet at all. It's a bad habit I formed when I was younger before I played "competitively". Now I try exaggerate looking at the contact point a la Federer to relearn it correctly.

 

[Deleted member 25923]

We have to be careful here because this thread can easily get out of hand.

I think when we say "myth" to some it implies we shouldn't even try or to forget trying. We still need to try and see the ball into contact as best we can, even though our eyes are legally blind and all we see is a blur.

There are two different techniques used when "watching the ball". The one that Federer uses and the one a majority of us use. Both techniques are learned and will have the brain filling in missing information as you practice and learn.

One of the biggest benefits of watching the ball into the strings is keeping the head still. This helps you keep your swing path on course as you have calculated and improves your chances for clean contact.

Whether Federer can actually see the ball hit the strings or not, the common point to watching the ball into the strings is to have a quiet upper body (especially the head) and to stay focused on what you are trying to do.

It is true that the eyes are legally blind (things are blurred with no detail), but this doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Also, when you see pictures of players with their eyes forward from contact, you are talking about a split second of time. This is not a long duration. A pro still needs to keep focused on the ball because of the difficulty level of the ball they are hitting. What happens is once the ball blurs, the eyes stop following, the head remains slightly forward, and the brain through its learning and other senses fills in the necessary calculations to bring the racquet into the ball. This happens extremely fast.

Federer does it differently. He actually rotates his head back as if he is following the ball into the strings, however, he is also looking at the contact from slightly behind the strings as he makes contact in front.

Just my take.

(Didn't get a chance to watch the vid. Using a slow connection right now so it's taking an incredibly long time to try to dl this 56 MB video).

I've been saying this for quite a while -- the human eye cannot possibly track most (almost all) balls all the way in to the strings of your own racket. As the ball gets close to us, its motion exceeds our ability to track the ball with our smooth pursuit tracking system. It can even exceed out saccadic tracking system.

According to Sport Science (Fox Sports) Episode 3, a baseball batter facing a 95 mph pitch can no longer see the ball when it get within 15 feet (more than 4 meters) of him. If the batter has decided to swing at the pitch at this point, his head turns so that his eyes are focusing on the expected contact point and stay fixed there for most of his swing (even well after contact). Take a look at the super slow motion sequence in this video. At 3:41 the batter's eyes are already fixed on the expected contact. At 3:47 he makes contact, yet at 3:51 we see that his head & eyes are still at the contact.

Take a look at slow motion videos of Federer hitting a groundstroke and you will see the same sort of thing happening. Shortly before the ball gets to him (perhaps a few feet, perhaps more), we see Fed's head turn dramatically and his eyes move to the expected contact point. His eyes and head stay quiet before, during and after contact. He is well into his follow-thru (after contact) before he lifts his head to track the ball again.

Just as we cannot track the ball all the way into the strings, we cannot possibly see the ball coming off of our strings either -- not until it is quite a distance away from us. Using saccadic tracking, Federer does pick up a yellowish blur just prior to contact with his strings -- but he has not actually followed the ball all the way into his strings since his eyes lost sight of the ball (possibly for several feet or more) until his saccadic system picks up the momentary blur.

Do these two posts refer to the "Federer vision" everyone is talking about?

So pretty much you watch the ball until it gets so close that you can't track it and instead of trying to track it, start looking at the expected contact point?

 

[tricky]

pretty much you watch the ball until it gets so close that you can't track it and instead of trying to track it, start looking at the expected contact point?

SystemicAnomaly had a good thread somewhere on this.

As I interpret this style, you keep your head still until you set up the unit turn. (This is assuming you initiate or set up the unit turn with your core rather than your non-hitting hand.) THEN you can track the ball and let your head turn.

Theoretically, this should help you better find your optimal contact point (thereby striking the ball "cleaner"), and also automatically vary the degree of your takeback according to the line of the ball.

 

[skuludo]

What happens to Federer's head when he mishits the ball using his backhand and forehand?

 

[swimntennis]

What happens to Federer's head when he mishits the ball using his backhand and forehand?

It's just that: a mishit. With a ball coming at him so fast and him swinging just as fast, everyone is bound to miss sometimes.

 

[tricky]

One reason Federer mishits on his FH a lot is that he switches up between his straight-arm and his "normal" FH a lot. As a result, his contact point changes a lot. But, at least for him, his way of tracking shots enables him to find that contact point more easily, given the pace and spin variation he sees per match.

Agassi is another good example. You'll notice that his head is still until he sets his unit turn. Once it is set, he turns his head to track the ball into the racquet.

The technique does not work if you're used to setting up the unit turn using your non-hitting arm, or if your footwork patterns are really poor. You essentially have to "lock in" your core and legs before you try following the ball. Otherwise, you'll introduce trunk tilt, which will prevent you from timing your swing or hitting properly. You'll probably launch the ball into the other court.

My theory about this technique goes like this. Once you've already set your unit turn, you don't lose your balance when you turn your head. Instead, when you first turn your head to track the ball, your core will counterbalance correctly (i.e. stretch out.) If you track a high ball, your head turns upwards and your core dips closer to the ground, rather than tilts backwards. If you track a ball from far away, your head moves out more forward and in turn, your body coils much more.

In other words, as you track the ball, your body will load accordingly and correctly for the path of that ball. As the ball gets closer, your head starts turning "inwards." To counterbalance that, the core now unloads, thus initiating the forward swing and then guiding the racquet toward the contact point, which is where your vision "plots" the ball will be.

 

[Uthree]

This subject seems a little over-analysed and over-complicated. Some players have their eyes on the ball at contact others don't. So maybe either way is OK.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

One reason Federer mishits on his FH a lot is that he switches up between his straight-arm and his "normal" FH a lot. As a result, his contact point changes a lot. But, at least for him, his way of tracking shots enables him to find that contact point more easily, given the pace and spin variation he sees per match.

Come on Tricky, do you expect me to buy this? Have you discussed this with Rodger? Have you counted the errors between his straight arm and his "normal" forehand?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IumE7ItXqC8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0L1L6Aqqwg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0L1L6Aqqwg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNm-Vo38Jeo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72tJ0E0vMys&feature=related

Agassi is another good example. You'll notice that his head is still until he sets his unit turn. Once it is set, he turns his head to track the ball into the racquet.

I have never have seen Agassi do that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiHIklJiM7U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znzt0Mboigw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ejfRSVnmg&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byKo3Q8I1EE&NR=1

The technique does not work if you're used to setting up the unit turn using your non-hitting arm, or if your footwork patterns are really poor. You essentially have to "lock in" your core and legs before you try following the ball. Otherwise, you'll introduce trunk tilt, which will prevent you from timing your swing or hitting properly. You'll probably launch the ball into the other court.

Can you tell me where are you getting this information? I would like to research it.

My theory about this technique goes like this. Once you've already set your unit turn, you don't lose your balance when you turn your head. Instead, when you first turn your head to track the ball, your core will counterbalance correctly (i.e. stretch out.) If you track a high ball, your head turns upwards and your core dips closer to the ground, rather than tilts backwards. If you track a ball from far away, your head moves out more forward and in turn, your body coils much more.

In other words, as you track the ball, your body will load accordingly and correctly for the path of that ball. As the ball gets closer, your head starts turning "inwards." To counterbalance that, the core now unloads, thus initiating the forward swing and then guiding the racquet toward the contact point, which is where your vision "plots" the ball will be.

Hmmmmm...

 

[tricky]

Yeah I don't actually advocate it myself. Actually Bill, I'd like to hear your theory on why Federer does it. Do you think it's just habit for him?

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Yeah I don't actually advocate it myself. Actually Bill, I'd like to hear your theory on why Federer does it. Do you think it's just habit for him?

I guess that is my point Tricky and I definetly want to keep this civilized. My point is why would I try to theorize on something I have no business doing so?

First, I would not be able to back it up (I have no stats showing that it is material enough to even be concerned about it). In other words, I have no evidence that it happens that often compared to it not happening. Second, I haven't seen this "other" forehand he is using that contributes to lots of mishits.

I am also asking where you are getting this information on Agassi as well. I have studied Agassi for years both his personal and professional life and unless I am completely blind, I don't see what you say is happening.

I have provided you examples to show where that other Federer forehand is and if you know where these video clips are please point me to them. I have been on Yandells site and maybe I am not looking at something right. Also, show me where are you seeing Agassi's head turn?

If you can show me this so I can see what you are seeing that would be great.

 

[tricky]

My point is why would I try to theorize on something I have no business doing so?

I see your point but I don't have a problem with this topic, because often people go back to the same arguments about vision and whether Federer actually sees the ball going into the racquet bed. I don't believe he does, but from what I know about how head movements affects overall coordination, it seemed plausible to me that it might help improve his striking. That said, I don't promote even if the possible GOAT practices it, because as you said, 99% of technically proficient players do not do that with their head.

Second, I haven't seen this "other" forehand he is using that contributes to his mishits.

Oh okay, I think we have a misunderstanding there. From Yandell's articles, Federer switches between hitting the ball with a strong double-bend and more of a straight-arm, sometimes in between. Other players do this too, but Federer seems to mix it up more in his shot selection. Because of that, his contact point moves in and out more than most other players.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiHIklJiM7U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znzt0...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ejfRSVnmg&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byKo3Q8I1EE&NR=1

Could be interpretation (i.e. Federer is more extreme.) At 0:06, he turns his head significantly to track the ball. At 0:03 in 2nd clip, he turns his head to track the ball. At 0:04 in 4th clip, he turns his head significantly to track the ball.

 

[Cruzer]

Lee Couillard, USPTA, Head Tennis Professional, Punahou School explains the "MYTH" about watching the ball hit the strings of the racquet. edit: If people just keep their head very still they would improve like crazy. Watching the ball is a given, but keeping your head still is not. Asking a student over and over to watch the ball is addressing the symptom not the source(cause). To cure the symptom you must treat the source, which is the head moving.

KISS people, and drop watch the ball, but pick up, keep your head still[/B]

The "watch the ball" advice is not really a myth and I don't doubt all the prrof that no ordinary human can clearly see a tennis ball hit the racquet strings however instead of "watch the ball" the advice should be more like "watch the ball and not where you are planning to hit the ball to". I think you could just as easily say keeping your head still is a given. Whether you are trying to hit a tennis ball, golf ball, baseball, or hockey puck having your head still or quiet upper body (a term I much more prefer) is the key.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

I see your point but I don't have a problem with this topic, because often people go back to the same arguments about vision and whether Federer actually sees the ball going into the racquet bed. I don't believe he does, but from what I know about how head movements affects overall coordination, it seemed plausible to me that it might help improve his striking. That said, I don't promote even if the possible GOAT practices it, because as you said, 99% of technically proficient players do not do that with their head.

Yes, I can buy this and am completely with you. I do not think he has super eyes. I think it is a matter of his technique and how he brings his head back with the incoming ball. I think him seeing the ball behind the strings has some validity.

What I don't understand is why so many people are so into this topic and want to find that magic bullet with their eyes. However, their footwork, racquet preparation, conditioning is poor.

What my question would be is not whether he can see the ball hit the strings, but where did he learn this stuff? I am surprised there is a lack of interview information on this. This is what I wish the Tennis Channel would bring us instead of looking into someone's stinking bag on bag checks.

Oh okay, I think we have a misunderstanding there. From Yandell's articles, Federer switches between hitting the ball with a strong double-bend and more of a straight-arm, sometimes in between. Other players do this too, but Federer seems to mix it up more in his shot selection. Because of that, his contact point moves in and out more than most other players.

Okay, I will have to revisit that because I just did not pay attention to that.

Could be interpretation (i.e. Federer is more extreme.) At 0:06, he turns his head significantly to track the ball. At 0:03 in 2nd clip, he turns his head to track the ball. At 0:04 in 4th clip, he turns his head significantly to track the ball.

Yes, at times Agassi does follow the ball with a very minor move with his head till a certain point. However, he doesn't do it all the time. Also, other players do that as well which is sort of the norm amongst many players.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFibX-inICg&NR=1

Here is one that I think supports what you are saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiHIklJiM7U

 

[tricky]

Is this Agassi? And which clip?

The Agassi clips. 0:06 for first clip, 0:03 for 2nd clip, 0:04 for 4th clip. Mostly commenting on the degree of his head turn after his unit turn.

Okay, I will have to revisit that because I just did not pay attention to that.

Yeah, that surprised me too because all of the free clips have him using a straight-arm form. I think JY believes Nadal has some variation too.

I think it is a matter of his technique and how he brings his head back with the incoming ball. I think him seeing the ball behind the strings has some validity.

Yeah, absolutely. That's also why I'm not encouraging people to do "Federer vision." Maybe Federer and only Federer DOES have magic eyes and can see the racquet string bed kiss the ball.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

The Agassi clips. 0:06 for first clip, 0:03 for 2nd clip, 0:04 for 4th clip. Mostly commenting on the degree of his head turn after his unit turn.

I revised my quote on this above.

Yeah, that surprised me too because all of the free clips have him using a straight-arm form. I think JY believes Nadal has some variation too.

Well, Yandell is one person I respect a lot. He must be seeing something I haven't seen or is emphasizing a part of the swing I didn't deem as different in the grand scheme of the swing.

Yeah, absolutely. That's also why I'm not encouraging people to do "Federer vision." Maybe Federer and only Federer DOES have magic eyes and can see the racquet string bed kiss the ball.

I know Tricky. You have good insight and help people learn tennis. I know when one feels challenged, it is difficult to stay civilized about it.

I dont teach Federer stuff because for one I haven't had the time to disect it. I am waiting for people to get off this "Federer is god" thing and settle down some to make sure this isn't just unique to Federer before I start figuring out how to teach it without disintegrating arms.

 

[NamRanger]

(Didn't get a chance to watch the vid. Using a slow connection right now so it's taking an incredibly long time to try to dl this 56 MB video).

I've been saying this for quite a while -- the human eye cannot possibly track most (almost all) balls all the way in to the strings of your own racket. As the ball gets close to us, its motion exceeds our ability to track the ball with our smooth pursuit tracking system. It can even exceed out saccadic tracking system.

According to Sport Science (Fox Sports) Episode 3, a baseball batter facing a 95 mph pitch can no longer see the ball when it get within 15 feet (more than 4 meters) of him. If the batter has decided to swing at the pitch at this point, his head turns so that his eyes are focusing on the expected contact point and stay fixed there for most of his swing (even well after contact). Take a look at the super slow motion sequence in this video. At 3:41 the batter's eyes are already fixed on the expected contact. At 3:47 he makes contact, yet at 3:51 we see that his head & eyes are still at the contact.

Take a look at slow motion videos of Federer hitting a groundstroke and you will see the same sort of thing happening. Shortly before the ball gets to him (perhaps a few feet, perhaps more), we see Fed's head turn dramatically and his eyes move to the expected contact point. His eyes and head stay quiet before, during and after contact. He is well into his follow-thru (after contact) before he lifts his head to track the ball again.

Just as we cannot track the ball all the way into the strings, we cannot possibly see the ball coming off of our strings either -- not until it is quite a distance away from us. Using saccadic tracking, Federer does pick up a yellowish blur just prior to contact with his strings -- but he has not actually followed the ball all the way into his strings since his eyes lost sight of the ball (possibly for several feet or more) until his saccadic system picks up the momentary blur.

You are not taking into account that in tennis, the ball has to travel a much farther distance, and usually hits the ground before it is struck again. Because of this, the speed of the ball is drastically reduced before ever reaching the player. The tennis ball is drastically affected by many elements, because it is so light.


Theoritically, it is possible for you to track the ball, especially at the speeds most professional players hit. You have to realize not everyone hits blinding 100 mph forehands every ball. The average speed of most rallys probably lies within a 60-70 mph range, and the ball is much slower when it reaches the player at that point, which means it is very possible that Federer can track the object somewhat. It may not be clear as daylights, but not as a fast green blur as you describe.



I'm sure someone could do some guesstimating work on this. I can assure you, Federer may not be able to perfectly track the ball, but he has a pretty good idea where it is going to be.


On returning serve though, I have no idea. The speeds get really high, and it may be coming in around 90 mph, which would be a blur as you described.


Edit : Also, you should always try and keep track of the ball. Why? Because the more information your body has, the easier it will be for your body to calculate and predict where the ball will be. If you don't, you basically just have to guess where the ball will be. By keeping your eyes on the ball, you are making a more educated guess (if you know what I mean).


Ok HappyAndFriendly. You are getting way too out of hand. Is it important to keep the head still to maintain balance? Yes. Is it possible to get away with it though? Yes. Why don't you try playing blindfolded while just keeping your head still? I'd love to see what happens then.

 

[lethalfang]

Here is a link.

If his theory is correct, then visually, we always live in a fabricated virtual world. We never see things as they are, only what our brains forecast they should be.

I don't know if I buy it. But, it does make sense from a evolutionary standpoint. Better to be alive in an imaginary world, then to die in real time.

The brain is an amazing machine.
You know that when you watch movie or TV, you are only looking at still pictures shown in short time intervals, giving you an illusion of continuous motion.
I've also known a person who has suffered an industrial accident, such that her eyes have certain blind spots, i.e., very much like your computer monitor with dead pixels. Some time after the accident, however, her brain has learned to fill those blind spots with visual imageries, even though the imaginary visuals are not always correct. The brain has figured out a way to fill the missing information!