Roddick Too Bulky For His Own Good?

[lordmanji]

im going to speculate that roddick has lost zip on his groundstrokes because he has bulked up too much in his upper body. the muscles get in the way of each other and so there is less flexibility/elasticity that he can use to whip through the ball like a federer. up until 04, he was still lean like a federer or a gulbis or nishikori but since 05 he has bulked up too much and so his groundstrokes have lost alot of their pace.

obviously this isnt true for his serve though. but i think he's lost alot of movement as well. he used to be more bouncy and quicker. now he regularly has outright winners hit against him by guys like tipsarevic and mueller. if you want a reference for any of what im talking about, im watching his 2001 final versus schalken in washington (legg mason). also look at other guys who had bulky upper bodies and not known for their movement like agassi.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

I posted a thread on this a few months ago.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=170945

Yea, if you look at some of the old highlights, he definetly doesn't move as well or hit as hard as he used to.

 

[pow]

im going to speculate that roddick has lost zip on his groundstrokes because he has bulked up too much in his upper body. the muscles get in the way of each other and so there is less flexibility/elasticity that he can use to whip through the ball like a federer. up until 04, he was still lean like a federer or a gulbis or nishikori but since 05 he has bulked up too much and so his groundstrokes have lost alot of their pace.

obviously this isnt true for his serve though. but i think he's lost alot of movement as well. he used to be more bouncy and quicker. now he regularly has outright winners hit against him by guys like tipsarevic and mueller. if you want a reference for any of what im talking about, im watching his 2001 final versus schalken in washington (legg mason). also look at other guys who had bulky upper bodies and not known for their movement like agassi.

Yeah I agree, all the mass is making it hard to run around without fatigue from having to fight the inertia from running shots down in that body. He has many highlights against Federer where he stumbles and falls from trying to stop or change direction too quickly.

 

[lordmanji]

Yeah I agree, all the mass is making it hard to run around without fatigue from having to fight the inertia from running shots down in that body. He has many highlights against Federer where he stumbles and falls from trying to stop or change direction too quickly.

i doubt andy has any clue to why he's having such a hard time reaching balls. he probably still thinks he's pre-04/05 andy who was able to reach those balls and kill them with his forehand. now he does a lot of hitting off his backfoot after scrambling to get to the ball. his movement really does look just more strenuous than it used to. i think he should fire his trainer doug spreen.

a couple more thoughts from watching the 01 washington final:

commentators just said andy (lean version) is hitting the ball with more zip than agassi (bulky version).

my own observation is that andy is only slightly hitting the ball less loopy than he does now but that in 01 he was hitting it with way much more zip through the court.

his backhand wasnt that bad. like his 01 forehand, it has more zip then. but he cant take it down the line like he can now (although he still doesnt when hes tight).

henin in 06 or 07 said that she reduced her strength training because she didnt want to get too bulky and also to reduce chance of injury. itd be interesting to investigate if she lost any pace on her groundstrokes but from what i remember she didnt lose any. still, its a female body which is more lean than a man's like roddicks.

 

[Nanshiki]

No one ever lost in tennis from having too much muscle...

Being overweight is another story.

 

[pow]

No one ever lost in tennis from having too much muscle...

Being overweight is another story.

More muscle = more weight to move around, that's the problem. Too much muscle also can cut down on a player's flexibility.

 

[theprophe]

i guess thats why all Men's gymnasts have much less muscle then tennis players

 

[lordmanji]

i guess thats why all Men's gymnasts have much less muscle then tennis players

a whole host of athletes strive to be leaner than muscular for movement: boxers (non heavyweight), swimmers, as you said gymnasts, basketball, and tennis.

the sports where they bulk up are ones where theyre hit or just dont have to move alot like baseball, golf, football, nascar, ice hockey.

 

[WildVolley]

I'm going to side with the critics of your theory. I don't think that upper body mass has slowed down Roddick's stroke. Extra weight may definitely make it more difficult to change directions on the run, but I'd want to see evidence that this also has occurred.

 

[lordmanji]

I'm going to side with the critics of your theory. I don't think that upper body mass has slowed down Roddick's stroke. Extra weight may definitely make it more difficult to change directions on the run, but I'd want to see evidence that this also has occurred.

thats the only noticeable difference in his game imo. unless he changed or modified his racket (doubt it) or strings somehow. perhaps his grip?

but just by watching him swing, especially on approach shots, it looks like often he has to get out of the way of his own body. and if his movements impaired, that logically gives him less time to setup so hes hitting off his backfoot more instead of really propelling himself into the court after a hit like he used to be able to do.

 

[David L]

thats the only noticeable difference in his game imo. unless he changed or modified his racket (doubt it) or strings somehow. perhaps his grip?

but just by watching him swing, especially on approach shots, it looks like often he has to get out of the way of his own body. and if his movements impaired, that logically gives him less time to setup so hes hitting off his backfoot more instead of really propelling himself into the court after a hit like he used to be able to do.

Have you thought it might also have something to do with more and more opponents just hitting bigger and being more aggressive from the baseline. Time is a luxury in competitive sport. The whole point is to make it as difficult as possible for your opponent to play.

 

[rommil]

During the Kid's day, Djokovic was during his impersonation of Roddick and Roddick told Djokovic he needs a bigger butt to do his impersonation.

 

[grimmbomb21]

a whole host of athletes strive to be leaner than muscular for movement: boxers (non heavyweight), swimmers, as you said gymnasts, basketball, and tennis.

the sports where they bulk up are ones where theyre hit or just dont have to move alot like baseball, golf, football, nascar, ice hockey.

See a lot of bulky golfers and nascar drivers?

 

[pow]

i guess thats why all Men's gymnasts have much less muscle then tennis players

You get what you train for... but of course, you already knew that? :-?

 

[lordmanji]

See a lot of bulky golfers and nascar drivers?

okay you made me say it: fat.

 

[Nanshiki]

More muscle = more weight to move around, that's the problem. Too much muscle also can cut down on a player's flexibility.

Muscle moves muscle. I suppose being super-buff might hurt on a clay court or grass, but it's not going to slow you down on hard, where you have all the traction you could possibly want.

I think you're seriously underestimating the human body if you think muscles limit flexibility. Sure, if you spend all your time pumping and never doing flexibility training. Besides, this is tennis, not gymnastics.

 

[superstition]

Too much bulk does limit flexibility and movement. There's a reason why tennis players don't generally look like Berrer and why someone like Djokovic will beat someone who looks like Berrer.

 

[xtrakewl]

wut about nadal?
he got lot of muscle

 

[LES]

wut about nadal?
he got lot of muscle

Exactly, Roddick's probably just slower cause he's older.

 

[WildVolley]

I think that Roddick has actually changed the stroke path on his forehand and is hitting more topspin. That increases his consistency but makes his shot more open to attack.

He doesn't look a lot more bulked to me in any case. How much has his body weight changed over the years?

 

[lordmanji]

wut about nadal?
he got lot of muscle

even tho nadal has a lot of muscle, it seems more proportioned than roddick who is definitely huskier. also, compare the older versions of roddick and nadal to their current more muscular versions. nadal with the new muscle hits better than ever while roddick has regressed. i think its a case of roddick's inherent body type working against him. different strokes for different folks you know.

 

[superman1]

Roddick looked pretty quick against Gulbis. Movement is not his problem. Too much muscle is not his problem. He's definitely one of the bigger and stronger guys out there, but it is not a hindrance. It's not really a benefit either - his serve was just as big when he was skinnier. Whenever he has problems getting enough pace on his shots, it's all in his head. He has clearly shown in some points that he CAN still hit as hard as anyone, he just doesn't do it a lot.

 

[coloskier]

More muscle = more weight to move around, that's the problem. Too much muscle also can cut down on a player's flexibility.

Tell that to Nadal. He is much more bulky than Roddick.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Tell that to Nadal. He is much more bulky than Roddick.

But Nadal is built more like a running back. Roddick is more like a safety or smaller linebacker.

 

[Deleted member 25923]

I beg to differ with a lot in this thread, Roddick is bulkier than Nadal.

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Roddick,+Andy&player2=nadal

A full 7 lbs!

 

[quest01]

Roddick needs that added muscle weight to generate power on his serve. If he lost weight, his serve in turn would suffer.

 

[ElSuegro]

He plays Gonzalez Tuesday. Maybe he can avenge Blake's loss at the Olympics for America.

 

[Stchamps]

even tho nadal has a lot of muscle, it seems more proportioned than roddick who is definitely huskier. also, compare the older versions of roddick and nadal to their current more muscular versions. nadal with the new muscle hits better than ever while roddick has regressed. i think its a case of roddick's inherent body type working against him. different strokes for different folks you know.

Nadal's muscles are so not proportioned. He has gigantic legs and butt. His left arm is cut but not really that big. His right arm is even smaller. He has virtually no chest.

He's basically kind of got a tennis body, like how Michael Phelps has a swimmers body.

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Roddick needs that added muscle weight to generate power on his serve. If he lost weight, his serve in turn would suffer.

Really? That's why his serve was just as booming in 2001 when he was probably 165-175 lbs?

 

[ThugNasty]

Okay guys if you havent noticed it, roddick is a fatass. He totally has a gut. If you look at nadal he has just as much muscle or even more muscle than roddick but isnt carrying around a gut like roddick

 

[Nanshiki]

Eh, I'd say he's got an extra 10 pounds, at max. Definitely not a fatass but you can see he's had a few brewskies lately.

 

[topknocker]

been waiting for this

i once seen a college tennis player, and no one else like him since. he looked like a bodybuilder. he was about 6ft tall and could move fast! he was a good player but nothing great. the fact that he could move fast is what amazed me. he was much quicker than the person he was playing, and he was a normal build.

 

[pow]

Tell that to Nadal. He is much more bulky than Roddick.

He's not bulkier, he does have a strong left arm, it's incredibly ripped with lean muscle. From their body frames, I'd dare venture to say that Roddick probably can hit the bench press harder than Nadal.

Muscle moves muscle. I suppose being super-buff might hurt on a clay court or grass, but it's not going to slow you down on hard, where you have all the traction you could possibly want.

I think you're seriously underestimating the human body if you think muscles limit flexibility. Sure, if you spend all your time pumping and never doing flexibility training. Besides, this is tennis, not gymnastics.

I'm not underestimating the human body here, excess bulk muscle will limit flexibility... a lot of body builders lose the ability to scratch their own backs. That's a simple example of this. Another reason why you won't see too many football player builds in tennis.
Another factor that I think will hurt Roddick's movement is inertia like I stated before. He has more mass in his body so it will be more difficult to quickly change directions as his mass will clumsily push him in the previous direction he was going, kind of like slamming on the brakes while driving a big SUV vs. a small car.

 

[Nanshiki]

You're also forgetting that they're on steroids (muscles outgrow the tendons they're attached to) and spend all their time pumping iron instead of stretching.

I understand that inertia can keep you from changing directions, but in this case you can overpower it with muscle and traction... and the difference between someone who weighs 160 and 190 really isn't that significant, IMO (as long as it's muscle, not fat).

 

[127mph]

roddick chose tennis over baseball. i think he would have been pretty good at baseball, cause baseball players have lumberjack bodies not tennis players.

 

[NamRanger]

He added more muscle to prevent injury. If he didn't strengthen his body so much, do you SERIOUSLY think he would not have had more injuries by now with the amount of balls he hits? I mean geez, he's probably the biggest defensive counter puncher outside of Nadal.


He's able to hit huge, but Federer pretty much mentally scarred him for life.

 

[pow]

You're also forgetting that they're on steroids (muscles outgrow the tendons they're attached to) and spend all their time pumping iron instead of stretching.

I understand that inertia can keep you from changing directions, but in this case you can overpower it with muscle and traction... and the difference between someone who weighs 160 and 190 really isn't that significant, IMO (as long as it's muscle, not fat).

160lbs and 190lbs is a big difference, (I actually think Roddick looks more than 190, but I'll go along with it) especially on a human running full speed left and right while trying to stop on a dime and change directions with only two Babolat outsoles on the ground. Braking force is HIGHLY affected by weight.

For me to illustrate my point:
In physics I learned, imagine you have two trucks, one of them exactly twice the weight of the other... If both trucks were traveling at the same speed, how much energy would it take to stop them both in the same distance? Intuitively we'd think that the truck that is 2x heavier would need 2x the energy to stop it, but in actuality, it would take 4X the energy!
There's a squared in the equation after mass...

I recalled this from my high school physics class and I confirmed it a few minutes ago...
http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Physics/PhyNet/Mechanics/Energy/braking_algebra.htm

 

[Nanshiki]

It's affected by weight but I personally don't think the difference in practical terms is that significant if you scale up the power and traction.

Also, stopping distance is primarily effected by tires... if you have enough traction, you can stop a truck on a dime (although the driver will be crushed into a fine pink must).

 

[pow]

It's affected by weight but I personally don't think the difference in practical terms is that significant if you scale up the power and traction.

Also, stopping distance is primarily effected by tires... if you have enough traction, you can stop a truck on a dime (although the driver will be crushed into a fine pink must).

The point I was illustrating in my previous post is that the energy required for stopping is SIGNIFICANTLY affected by mass which goes back to my point about inertia preventing Roddick from having the greatest movement.

The point I was illustrating is that additional mass makes the energy required to stop multiply EXPONENTIALLY... which is really big! Traction can only do so much when you have inertia pushing the other way which is why it's so difficult to stop a train in emergency situations despite all of the traction and stopping power that a train possesses. No amount of traction can safely stop him on the dead run, he'll squeak his outsoles uncontrollably and fall over as his upper body has not stopped yet but his shoes has... It's like hitting the brakes and stopping at a screeching halt from 80 to 0, Roddick's upper body will fly forward like a driver who isn't wearing a seatbeat. (On the dead run, it'd have relatively the same effect since there is nothing like a seatbelt to stop his upper body once his lower body has caught enough ground.)

When you are a world class athlete competing with the best of the best, physics is definitely something you want to have on your side. In addition to the mass, Roddick is quite tall, his center of gravity being as high as it is coupled with all of that mass; I am never surprised when he stumbles after failing to reach a passing shot.

I applaud Roddick for his heart and determination though, he definitely puts it all out there whenever he plays. Like I said before though, more mass is detrimental to the movement needed in tennis. I hope I've given enough simple examples to make this clear for you.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

I think Roddick needs to hit the hills like he used to do with Gilbert. The speed is the main thing he should focus on. That and not getting too far behind the baseline.

 

[Nanshiki]

The point I was illustrating in my previous post is that the energy required for stopping is SIGNIFICANTLY affected by mass which goes back to my point about inertia preventing Roddick from having the greatest movement.

The point I was illustrating is that additional mass makes the energy required to stop multiply EXPONENTIALLY... which is really big! Traction can only do so much when you have inertia pushing the other way which is why it's so difficult to stop a train in emergency situations despite all of the traction and stopping power that a train possesses. No amount of traction can safely stop him on the dead run, he'll squeak his outsoles uncontrollably and fall over as his upper body has not stopped yet but his shoes has... It's like hitting the brakes and stopping at a screeching halt from 80 to 0, Roddick's upper body will fly forward like a driver who isn't wearing a seatbeat. (On the dead run, it'd have relatively the same effect since there is nothing like a seatbelt to stop his upper body once his lower body has caught enough ground.)

When you are a world class athlete competing with the best of the best, physics is definitely something you want to have on your side. In addition to the mass, Roddick is quite tall, his center of gravity being as high as it is coupled with all of that mass; I am never surprised when he stumbles after failing to reach a passing shot.

I applaud Roddick for his heart and determination though, he definitely puts it all out there whenever he plays. Like I said before though, more mass is detrimental to the movement needed in tennis. I hope I've given enough simple examples to make this clear for you.

I understand the physics just fine, but what I'm trying to say is that using extreme examples like stopping a freight train or a truck might work fine in a classroom, but they don't always apply in the real world when you're talking about people.

You're treating them like they're vehicles instead of human beings with legs and feet.

So, I don't think there's any pragmatic significant difference between World Class Athlete A who is 6'0 tall and weighs 185, or World Class Athlete B is is 5'8 and 160, assuming you're on a hard court (where you will never be short of traction unless it's wet).

Significant meaning a human can tell the difference relatively easily. The difference that wins matches on a consistent basis.

It's a different matter when you're on clay, for example, since you have less traction and therefore cannot use your proportionately stronger muscles to move your proportionately heavier body as quickly.

If you jump from 150 to 250, then obviously the little guy will run circles around the big guy.

 

[pow]

I understand the physics just fine, but what I'm trying to say is that using extreme examples like stopping a freight train or a truck might work fine in a classroom, but they don't always apply in the real world when you're talking about people.

You're treating them like they're vehicles instead of human beings with legs and feet.

So, I don't think there's any pragmatic significant difference between World Class Athlete A who is 6'0 tall and weighs 185, or World Class Athlete B is is 5'8 and 160, assuming you're on a hard court (where you will never be short of traction unless it's wet).

Significant meaning a human can tell the difference relatively easily. The difference that wins matches on a consistent basis.

It's a different matter when you're on clay, for example, since you have less traction and therefore cannot use your proportionately stronger muscles to move your proportionately heavier body as quickly.

If you jump from 150 to 250, then obviously the little guy will run circles around the big guy.

No No! I was using the truck and car examples in my attempt to make the physics easy to understand and picture in your head. Although they are "extreme" examples, they relate just fine to running and stopping on the court.
The bottom line is, physics is physics, it applies to everything from the truck to the tennis court, it's the same thing...
Needing 4x the energy to stop something with twice the mass is not going to only apply to trucks... it's a physics equation. That's about as concrete as it can get. I don't know how else I can better explain my point than with physics! It's actually something that we can quantify and prove! It's not subjective like what gauge string someone would want to use.
Clay court / wet or not / Roddick is going to be plagued by the same inertia wherever he goes!

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

He added more muscle to prevent injury. If he didn't strengthen his body so much, do you SERIOUSLY think he would not have had more injuries by now with the amount of balls he hits? I mean geez, he's probably the biggest defensive counter puncher outside of Nadal.


He's able to hit huge, but Federer pretty much mentally scarred him for life.

Didn't he just miss the FO b/c of injury? And pull out of Cinci w/ an injury?

 

[Otherside]

the headline says it all! bulky is not a good thing NO ONE benefits from being bulky! Not a bodybuilder, not roddick! Today athletes know better through science.
Roddick has less mass than Nadal and monfils but he's nowhere they're BF%.

Of course he's a worse player if he is bulky. If he would have added fat free mass he would have been better, simple as that.

 

[lordmanji]

Didn't he just miss the FO b/c of injury? And pull out of Cinci w/ an injury?

john mcenroe mentioned recently cilic, since he is tall and lanky, needed to put on muscle in order to prevent injury. and at the other end you have justine henin who cut back on strength training because she thought it might cause injury to her body.

obviously roddick has had injuries this year with his shoulder, neck and foot. but i think roddick has gone too far in the muscular side of the equation. he needs to lose some mass. (this is acknowledging that as you grow older you get bulkier. the human male body doesnt mature until your mid-twenties so its not all cuz roddick's lifting weights. nevertheless, he needs to lose the mass).

and lets not forget that the "skinny" guys like cilic, gulbis etc hit the ball harder than roddick. roddick has imo become a counter puncher like chang.

 

[Rickenbacker4003]

Roddick isn't bulky, he just lacks footspeed.