Pinpoint vs Platform stance

[kyleisanoob12]

I usually use platform stance. Sometimes during practice, I hit a few serves using pinpoint for fun. I usually feel like I get more power out of pinpoint, except sometimes I lose my balance. I was hitting with my brother today, and he told me to do platform and then pinpoint. Platform was more of an accurate shot, but pinpoint had more power by a lot. He says I should start using pinpoint since it gives more power. Which do you guys use and why? What are the pros and cons of each? Oh and is it possible to hit kick serves with pinpoint?

 

[TennisCJC]

Patrick Rafter and Stephan Edberg hit great kick serves with pinpoint stances. There is youtube video of their serves. They hit a lot of 1st serve kicks as well as 2nd serve kicks. Rafter would flatten it out some and also had an excellent slice.

It is possible to get excellent power out of a platform though. Sampras and Federer are platform servers and some of the greatest servers of all time. Also, these guys are moderately tall but they are getting power from technique unlike a lot of the 6' 6" or taller guys who are basically hitting down into the court.

Either can work. But, I relate to what you are saying. I still seem to get a little more power off platform but more consistency and control off platform. Platform is also easier to hit 2nd serves for me too. I have been playing almost 40 years and used pin point for the first 20 years but platform for last 20 years.

 

[randomcollegeplayer]

I use pinpoint. At first balance was a problem for me, so I switched to a platform stance for a month or two and learned how to drive up to the ball instead of out into the court. The problem was that I had much less power and struggled to hit any spin serves. Once I went back to pinpoint, I was able to carry over the balance and different toss placement that I got from the platform and use it in the pinpoint, so I had more balance and a better drive into the ball which gave me more power than ever and greatly helped the kick serve

 

[shindemac]

I used pin point when i first started. There was no reason why. That's just how i learned and maybe subconsiously copied servers of the time. Then i switched to platform maybe 5 years ago. Saw improvements in balance and stability, so that's what i use. Last year, i tried a more narrow stance, you could say a narrow platform. My balance and core is much better nowadays, so i can use something that provides more power.

 

[syc23]

Platform for me as it is the stance that has enabled me to fix my inconsistent toss. I had a hybrid stance like Murray/Tsonga but I ended up tossing the ball too far forward. Platform is way more stable and forces me to explode up to the ball whereas hybrid, I would more forward but not employ much leg drive.

 

[LeeD]

Few care what we use, but 90% of WTA pros use pinpoint, and about 70% of ATP pros use pin point.
Why? More power, so of course, more practice is needed.

 

[counterfeit25]

Is the Roddick stance considered "narrow platform" or "wide pinpoint"? I use the Roddick stance because I tried to copy his motion a long time ago. I use a different takeback now, but my stance hasn't changed.

 

[Tight Lines]

Not sure if this was just my problem. But, I believe platform gave me a mild form of patellar tendonitis on my left knee because the pressure from jumping was all on the left leg. Was forced to switch to pinpoint for a while, then I went back to platform. Just be careful if you are older (say over 50) and have a platform stance as that will pressure the left knee a lot more.

Harry

 

[BuildStrikeCosmos]

Platform or pinpoint is like TWB or OHB. I would just suggest what feels more natural to you and just work at it.

 

[NikeVaporx]

Few care what we use, but 90% of WTA pros use pinpoint, and about 70% of ATP pros use pin point.
Why? More power, so of course, more practice is needed.

Are these stats true? You mean platform, right?

 

[5263]

I usually use platform stance. Sometimes during practice, I hit a few serves using pinpoint for fun. I usually feel like I get more power out of pinpoint, except sometimes I lose my balance. I was hitting with my brother today, and he told me to do platform and then pinpoint. Platform was more of an accurate shot, but pinpoint had more power by a lot. He says I should start using pinpoint since it gives more power. Which do you guys use and why? What are the pros and cons of each? Oh and is it possible to hit kick serves with pinpoint?

Imo this is a pretty simple issue that primarily comes down to 2 issues. If you tend to chase bad tosses (hand in hand with being off balance) and/or tend to turn to face your target too early during contact....then the platform is a great hack to help with those 2 issues.

If you can have the discipline to toss consistently to the right spot and avoid turning to face the court too early, then Imo the slide to pinpoint is a superior serve platform. Nobody would get into a platform to perform a vertical leap test because it is weaker than the feet together vertical leap technique. Leg drive up is a key fundamental of powerful, quality serves and the pinpoint makes that easier.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Are these stats true? You mean platform, right?

Don't know for certain. Had heard many times that a large majority of top WTA players prefer PP. For ATP players, a smaller majority... somewhat less than 2/3 but greater than 60%.

I recall that pressure (force) plate studies performed in the 1990s revealed that PP, on average, produced a greater ground reaction force. But the GRF difference between PP and Platform stances measured was relatively minor.

While many servers can generate greater racket head speed / power with a PP stance, this is not the case for all. Some pro and many rec players are more stable (balanced) with the Platform and actually serve faster with their implementation of that stance.

In his 20s (and possibly, early 30s), Federer could generate a massive amt of RHS for monster kick serves and often got his flatter serves over 140 mph with his Platform. Certainly, one of the most effective servers on the tour. Sampras, with his modestly-powered 85 sq" racket would hit his 1st serves in the 120-130 mph range. However, Pete was getting an incredible amt of RHS on his serves... 1st serves often around 3000 rpm and 2nd serves sometimes exceeding 5200 rpm... one of the heavier, and most effective, servers of all time.

Andy Roddick employed a narrow platform stance. He would often hit serves in the upper 140's and sometimes exceed 150 mph. He held records for the fastest serves for a good part of the 00s. Dominic Thiem, who switched from PP to Platform, has managed to serve up to 144 mph. Other conventional Platformers include: Milos Raonic (155 mph), Taylor Dent (149.8 mph), Frances Tiafoe (147.3 mph), Taylor Fritz (147.3 mph), and Fernando González (146.6 mph).

 

[Deleted member 771407]

I voted plarform for that poll apparently, I've recently changed to pinpoint recently and loving it on the first serve, even if I struggle a bit more on the 2nd serve

 

[NikeVaporx]

Don't know for certain. Had heard many times that a large majority of top WTA players prefer PP. For ATP players, a smaller majority... somewhat less than 2/3 but greater than 60%.

I recall that pressure (force) plate studies performed in the 1990s revealed that PP, on average, produced a greater ground reaction force. But the GRF difference between PP and Platform stances measured was relatively minor.

While many servers can generate greater racket head speed / power with a PP stance, this is not the case for all. Some pro and many rec players are more stable (balanced) with the Platform and actually serve faster with their implementation of that stance.

In his 20s (and possibly, early 30s), Federer could generate a massive amt of RHS for monster kick serves and often got his flatter serves over 140 mph with his Platform. Certainly, one of the most effective servers on the tour. Sampras, with his modestly-powered 85 sq" racket would hit his 1st serves in the 120-130 mph range. However, Pete was getting an incredible amt of RHS on his serves... 1st serves often around 3000 rpm and 2nd serves sometimes exceeding 5200 rpm... one of the heavier, and most effective, servers of all time.

Andy Roddick employed a narrow platform stance. He would often hit serves in the upper 140's and sometimes exceed 150 mph. He held records for the fastest serves for a good part of the 00s. Dominic Thiem, who switched from PP to Platform, has managed to serve up to 144 mph. Other conventional Platformers include: Milos Raonic (155 mph), Taylor Dent (149.8 mph), Frances Tiafoe (147.3 mph), Taylor Fritz (147.3 mph), and Fernando González (146.6 mph).

Very helpful thanks. Just getting back into the game and I’m reconstructing my serve mechanics. Good to know what’s out there. My early view is a bit more pop with pinpoint but platform gives me one less thing to think about. Perhaps once I get into a natural flow I’ll give it a go!

 

[LeeD]

In the real world, what can be more important than whether 60, 66, or 70 % od ATP pro serve pinpoint over platform?
Maybe it is actually 64%?

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

In the real world, what can be more important than whether 60, 66, or 70 % od ATP pro serve pinpoint over platform?
Maybe it is actually 64%?

No, duzn't really matter all that much what the exact number is. But, what holds for a majority of pros, does not necessarily hold true for all rec players or even all ATP players. Some players, esp non-pros, can actually serve a bit faster with platform (cuz they are more stable / secure). Probably not a majority though.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Very helpful thanks. Just getting back into the game and I’m reconstructing my serve mechanics. Good to know what’s out there. My early view is a bit more pop with pinpoint but platform gives me one less thing to think about. Perhaps once I get into a natural flow I’ll give it a go!

Interesting thread on the Push vs Pull serve concepts from a few years ago that I had forgotten about. Worth taking a look at. Might be able to get sufficient pop w/o resorting to the PP stance. Here's a link to a video of Push vs Pull:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/push-vs-pull-serves.583423/#post-11009518

Thanks (and apologies) again to John Yandell of TennisPlayer.net and to Dr Ben Kibler.

 

[LeeD]

If you got way too much power and no control, try platform.
OTOH, most of us lack surplus power, so we're seeking more power with pinpoint.

 

[NikeVaporx]

If you got way too much power and no control, try platform.
OTOH, most of us lack surplus power, so we're seeking more power with pinpoint.

I think this is me. Plenty of power, but lack control. I’d say 75%+ of my first serves don’t get returned, but only about 25% of them go in. I’ll stick with platform. If at some point I can get my %s really high I’ll go for more power/glory. Thanks all!

 

[Crocodile]

For a lot of recreational and competitive players I tend to recommend a platform serve because I feel it’s a simpler more economic action. There is one less body movement to worry about. This allows you to focus more on ball toss consistency which is more important for most plays anyway. You can have the best pinpoint action but if your bell toss is inconsistent your serve it’s not worth a cracker.
The pinpoint serve I tend to recommended to lighter more elastic body structures that can do the action time after time well into the third set without fatigue,

 

[austintennis2005]

Don't know for certain. Had heard many times that a large majority of top WTA players prefer PP. For ATP players, a smaller majority... somewhat less than 2/3 but greater than 60%.

I recall that pressure (force) plate studies performed in the 1990s revealed that PP, on average, produced a greater ground reaction force. But the GRF difference between PP and Platform stances measured was relatively minor.

While many servers can generate greater racket head speed / power with a PP stance, this is not the case for all. Some pro and many rec players are more stable (balanced) with the Platform and actually serve faster with their implementation of that stance.

Sampras, with his modestly-powered 85 sq" racket would hit his 1st serves in the 120-130 mph range. However, Pete was getting an incredible amt of RHS on his serves... 1st serves often around 3000 rpm and

Does this mean that Pete never hit a “flat” serve, only a topspin or slice?

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Does this mean that Pete never hit a “flat” serve, only a topspin or slice?

Not exactly. A US Open spin study in the late 1990s had his average 1st serve speed at 120 mph with an avg spin about 2700 rpm. His spin range for those serves was 2100 to 4260 rpm. A serve at 120+ mph at the low end of this spin range would have a decent amount of spin but would be fairly flat since it has a fairly high speed-to-spin ratio.

Contrast that with another server's 2100 rpm serve that was hit at 80 or 90 mph. Such a serve would have a lower speed-to-spin ratio and would, therefore, have quite a bit more bend in its trajectory = not very flat.

US Open Spin Study

 

[Dragy]

Not exactly. A US Open spin study in the late 1990s had his average 1st serve speed at 120 mph with an avg spin about 2700 rpm. His spin range for those serves was 2100 to 4260 rpm. A serve at 120+ mph at the low end of this spin range would have a decent amount of spin but would be fairly flat since it has a fairly high speed-to-spin ratio.

Contrast that with another server's 2100 rpm serve that was hit at 80 or 90 mph. Such a serve would have a lower speed-to-spin ratio and would, therefore, have quite a bit more bend in its trajectory = not very flat.

US Open Spin Study

Curios if Pete never went for max-pace heaters in competition? Like below 1000 rpm? If so, unbelievable discipline. 2100, imho, is noticeable spin, and he likely was aware he's hitting with spin on those ones.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Curios if Pete never went for max-pace heaters in competition? Like below 1000 rpm? If so, unbelievable discipline. 2100, imho, is noticeable spin, and he likely was aware he's hitting with spin on those ones.

As I recall, the spin study took its data from the US Open around '97 or '98. So, at that point, Pete had been on the pro tour for nearly a decade. Don't know if he ever hit serves with a low spin rate of 1000 rpm but, perhaps, he did hit somewhat flatter serves earlier in his career Not certain if he hit much faster than 130 mph tho. Keep in mind that he was using 1980s & 90s string and racket (85 sq") technology. There were taller players who were hitting serves a bit faster.

From the data shown it in that study, only Michael Chang hit with a low spin rate of 1000 rpm for ATP players. However his average serve speed was only one 112 mph. And the avg spin rate on his 1st serve was 1667.

Tim Henman hit 120 mph pretty flat but even his flattest serve here was over 1400 rpm and his avg was nearly 1550. But, as I recall, the sample size for Tim H was pretty small -- only two or three serves, I believe. The tall server in this study, Mark P, had a bit higher speed average of 123 mph. I'm a fairly certain that he would hit faster than 130 mph more often than Pete, Tim or the others. Notice that his lowest spin rate here was 1765 rpm and his avg was about 2300.

I will go into more detail regarding your question in my next post later today.

EDIT: Note that most of the ATP players shown in the link I provided had a 2nd serve spin average well over 4600 rpm. So, in comparison, 2100 rpm would be fairly flat.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Curios if Pete never went for max-pace heaters in competition? Like below 1000 rpm? If so, unbelievable discipline. 2100, imho, is noticeable spin, and he likely was aware he's hitting with spin on those ones.

Agassi and others have indicated that serves of Sampras felt "heavier" than that of other servers. There were a few others in the 90s who could serve faster but it seemed that no one had Pete's combination of speed plus generous spin that felt unusually "heavy" the racket of returners. Sampras could generate a considerable amount of RHS and probably figured early on what kind of serves were particularly effective.

Some time ago, Jeff Salzenstein studied & emulated the serves of Sampras. I believe that Yandell provided him with a good deal of HD video of Sampras' serve for this. Jeff developed a better serve toward the latter part of his ATP career (and afterward) than he had at Stanford or during his 20s on the tour.

Jeff apparently discovered the secret of the heavy serve. But I recall that he had indicated that the "heavy" serve appear to have an upper speed limit. That is, if he wanted to serve faster, he had to sacrifice heaviness for speed. I seem to recall that Pete might have hit his heaviest serves around the range of 115 mph up to 125 or 130 mph. I believe that Jeff discovered the same thing, more or less, for his own implementation of the heavy serve.