In essence, rackets are a trade-off. We want power, but we also want control (or at least, consistency in power). Finding your own personal balance is the hard part.
But what if it turned out that your playing style is predetermined by that balance? In other words, is there any truth that the Pure Drive and its practitioners don't volley well? Call it the impossible question of nature vs. nurture, if you want - but oh, yes - this is where we're going.
Now, the USRSA will argue that their definition of power really means launch angle, and therefore depth. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about momentum transfer. That's how much mass you're putting on the ball, and how quickly. This is otherwise known as the TASTES GREAT (stab stab)!!!/LESS FILLING (stab stab)!!! school of tennis racket spec flamewar, especially with regard to mass.
Note that when we say "mass" we really mean hitting weight. Only a fraction of a racket's total mass actually contributes at the point of impact.
What if (gasp), what we're seeing on court is actually true? The Pure Drive is INDEED a better mousetrap, at least for the currently en vouge style of baseline bashing. What if it's combination of slightly less mass (and therefore hitting weight) and slightly higher swingspeed does indeed more often than not result in higher total momentum transfer? This would therefore apply when we're swinging, right? As in during serves and groundstrokes, right? As in Andy Roddick, right?
Well, what of volleys, then? You're swinging less, and less fast, too - but the hitting weight involved is still lower than traditionally weighted frames. So, the working theory is that Pure Drive users would consequently be less well-equipped to volley, even against opponents using traditionally weighted frames - and they'd be at that much more of a disadvantage against opponents using Pure Drives against them. Which would mean the preponderance of Pure Drives in today's modern game would also correspond to far, far less netplay.
HOLY FRIJOLES, batman. IT'S FULL OF STARS. IT'S ALL TRUE.
Say you're a serve & volleyer. You know you've been screwed for a while, but I've just told you *WHY* you're screwed. So, you go down to Q's lair of neato gadgets and ask him to build you your own better mousetrap. What do you need? Well, you need higher total momentum transfer during the serve - which, as discovered by all those evil Pure Drivers, means less mass and higher resulting swingspeed. But less mass means less hitting weight, which means that unless you start swinging at your volleys, a bigger serve comes with the trade-off of less effective volleys.
Reality check - are people, in fact, hitting more swing volleys? Again, full of stars, HAL.
Q's got bad news for you, though: for you to be more effective at both serve & volley, the rackets you'll need for either are mutually exclusive. So you need to pick, bub - bigger serve (less mass, faster swing, higher total momentum) or easier volley (more mass, less swing, higher total momentum).
Reality check - do doubles players, who make a living at net, tend towards either frames that swing even faster than pure drives (i.e. more "granny" frames) or traditionally weighted, head-light frames? Really, HAL, I've got all the stars I need. Thanks, though. Granny frames yield big enough serves to make the lack of mass irrelevant, considering the weak replies. Playa frames assume you've got the skillz to serve big enough with such a frame and be able to back it up at net - cause you'll need to, especially nowadays.
I've got an idea, though - let's design the six-million dollar tennis player. He'll be faster, stronger, better than before. He'll realize that the way to exploit a monoculture in playing style is to play a different playing style altogether. Survive the bigger serves, and play prevent defense against the bigger groundies until you can take your own shot. Since the ball's coming faster, you need to either swing faster (with less mass) or just block and chip it back with more mass for adequate total momentum back.
Well, since EVERYONE is swinging with less mass, let's go the other way - just for grins.
In other words, the Pure Drivers NEED to swing fast - take them out of position, neutralize their ability to swing fast, consistently - and they're done. Whatever it takes. Hang some higher, or lower, or wider, or into the body - just don't let them get a good cut.
Do we know anyone who plays this? Who would then, according to what I've just laid out, pretty much own Andy Roddick and players like him? HMMMMMM.
Oh my god, ohplease, you're the greatest TW contributor ever! Yes, yes. Thank you. You've all been great. I'm here all week. Remember to tip the waitresses.
Forget baseliner vs. server & volleyer. It's not about where you stand, anymore. It's about WHEN you take your shot. We're now in an era of pure punchers vs. counterpunchers. Less mass and higher swingspeeds if you play first strike tennis and insist on flicking at the ball when you're out of position on defense (another area where the Pure Drive archetype shines). More mass for chip and slice defense and better volleys - though you'll need to wait for your chances on groundies (reality check - does Federer play this way? Yup).
If you never hear from me again, it's because Federer and his people have rubbed me out for revealing his dirty little secrets - but you heard it here, first.
But what if it turned out that your playing style is predetermined by that balance? In other words, is there any truth that the Pure Drive and its practitioners don't volley well? Call it the impossible question of nature vs. nurture, if you want - but oh, yes - this is where we're going.
Now, the USRSA will argue that their definition of power really means launch angle, and therefore depth. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about momentum transfer. That's how much mass you're putting on the ball, and how quickly. This is otherwise known as the TASTES GREAT (stab stab)!!!/LESS FILLING (stab stab)!!! school of tennis racket spec flamewar, especially with regard to mass.
Note that when we say "mass" we really mean hitting weight. Only a fraction of a racket's total mass actually contributes at the point of impact.
What if (gasp), what we're seeing on court is actually true? The Pure Drive is INDEED a better mousetrap, at least for the currently en vouge style of baseline bashing. What if it's combination of slightly less mass (and therefore hitting weight) and slightly higher swingspeed does indeed more often than not result in higher total momentum transfer? This would therefore apply when we're swinging, right? As in during serves and groundstrokes, right? As in Andy Roddick, right?
Well, what of volleys, then? You're swinging less, and less fast, too - but the hitting weight involved is still lower than traditionally weighted frames. So, the working theory is that Pure Drive users would consequently be less well-equipped to volley, even against opponents using traditionally weighted frames - and they'd be at that much more of a disadvantage against opponents using Pure Drives against them. Which would mean the preponderance of Pure Drives in today's modern game would also correspond to far, far less netplay.
HOLY FRIJOLES, batman. IT'S FULL OF STARS. IT'S ALL TRUE.
Say you're a serve & volleyer. You know you've been screwed for a while, but I've just told you *WHY* you're screwed. So, you go down to Q's lair of neato gadgets and ask him to build you your own better mousetrap. What do you need? Well, you need higher total momentum transfer during the serve - which, as discovered by all those evil Pure Drivers, means less mass and higher resulting swingspeed. But less mass means less hitting weight, which means that unless you start swinging at your volleys, a bigger serve comes with the trade-off of less effective volleys.
Reality check - are people, in fact, hitting more swing volleys? Again, full of stars, HAL.
Q's got bad news for you, though: for you to be more effective at both serve & volley, the rackets you'll need for either are mutually exclusive. So you need to pick, bub - bigger serve (less mass, faster swing, higher total momentum) or easier volley (more mass, less swing, higher total momentum).
Reality check - do doubles players, who make a living at net, tend towards either frames that swing even faster than pure drives (i.e. more "granny" frames) or traditionally weighted, head-light frames? Really, HAL, I've got all the stars I need. Thanks, though. Granny frames yield big enough serves to make the lack of mass irrelevant, considering the weak replies. Playa frames assume you've got the skillz to serve big enough with such a frame and be able to back it up at net - cause you'll need to, especially nowadays.
I've got an idea, though - let's design the six-million dollar tennis player. He'll be faster, stronger, better than before. He'll realize that the way to exploit a monoculture in playing style is to play a different playing style altogether. Survive the bigger serves, and play prevent defense against the bigger groundies until you can take your own shot. Since the ball's coming faster, you need to either swing faster (with less mass) or just block and chip it back with more mass for adequate total momentum back.
Well, since EVERYONE is swinging with less mass, let's go the other way - just for grins.
In other words, the Pure Drivers NEED to swing fast - take them out of position, neutralize their ability to swing fast, consistently - and they're done. Whatever it takes. Hang some higher, or lower, or wider, or into the body - just don't let them get a good cut.
Do we know anyone who plays this? Who would then, according to what I've just laid out, pretty much own Andy Roddick and players like him? HMMMMMM.
Oh my god, ohplease, you're the greatest TW contributor ever! Yes, yes. Thank you. You've all been great. I'm here all week. Remember to tip the waitresses.
Forget baseliner vs. server & volleyer. It's not about where you stand, anymore. It's about WHEN you take your shot. We're now in an era of pure punchers vs. counterpunchers. Less mass and higher swingspeeds if you play first strike tennis and insist on flicking at the ball when you're out of position on defense (another area where the Pure Drive archetype shines). More mass for chip and slice defense and better volleys - though you'll need to wait for your chances on groundies (reality check - does Federer play this way? Yup).
If you never hear from me again, it's because Federer and his people have rubbed me out for revealing his dirty little secrets - but you heard it here, first.
Last edited:
