Tennis does not change. 100% of Vic Braden's Tennis for the Future (1977) applies in 2020

[E46luver]

this is a very touching summary of the vic braden
the man who changed tennis forever
a true lifelong tennis addict

» The Tennis Legacy of Vic Braden

grantland.com

learning tennis is the same as it was in 1977. absolutely nothing has changed. the only thing that has changed is A B C D has become 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
that's it.

take a lesson and try a new technique and be prepared to get worse for a while. this is why people never improve. they give up after 5 minutes of going backwards. new strokes will feel uncomfortable and unnautral, even if they are better.

braden is teaching a topspin game in 1977. the only thing different from 1977 to 2019 was that rec players thought "net skimmers" were the ideal shot. pros wanted more net clearance, but amateurs thought skimming the net was the ideal shot.

keep the ball deep was rule #1 in 1977
turn early was rule #3 in 1977
"keep your head down" was taught, but seeing the ball hit strings was already disproved in 1977.

Braden says most points end in 4 balls or less. Focus on serve+1. In 1977.
Moonballer was a term used in 1977...and people couldn't deal with junker styles back then either.

Give the opponent one more ball was rule #2 in 1977

To quote the book
"This is what the dinker does so well. Here is one more ball. Here is one more ball.
He keeps throwing up "moonballs" while you sit back there with all your fancy moves, cracking off net skimmers.
The dinker has never hit a hard ball in his life ... until you get so frustrated you try to end the point with a fancy shot,
which of course goes into the net.
No one likes to play dinkers because they drive you crazy.
Why don't you stand up and play like a man?
But, dinkers win for good reasons.
They have mastered several basic physical laws and psychological ploys
which make them winners in the Ds, Cs, Bs and 2 rounds of the As in almost every tennis club around the world.
You may make jokes about the dinkers, and they may have few friends, but their living room shelves are lined with trophies.

1977.

$5 to show you that nothing in tennis has changed in 100 years.

Vic Braden's Tennis for the Future: Braden, Vic; Bruns, Bill: 9780316105101: Amazon.com: Books

Vic Braden's Tennis for the Future [Braden, Vic; Bruns, Bill] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Vic Braden's Tennis for the Future

www.amazon.com

 

[Raul_SJ]

This Braden book is even better.

 

[pencilcheck]

I would say the spin game changes everything, at the higher level, the dinker game is not as viable anymore because the ball will just fly away and is hard to control to land in.

 

[E46luver]

This Braden book is even better.

what are main differences?

 

[StringSnapper]

What are the top 10 rules?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

The biggest difference is the easy use of video to actually see what you're doing instead of trying to feel it during the swing or relying on a coach telling you.

 

[golden chicken]

I would say the spin game changes everything, at the higher level, the dinker game is not as viable anymore because the ball will just fly away and is hard to control to land in.

The modern term we'd recognize would be 'pusher' and it still works at all levels.

 

[golden chicken]

learning tennis is the same as it was in 1977. absolutely nothing has changed. the only thing that has changed is A B C D has become 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
that's it.

take a lesson and try a new technique and be prepared to get worse for a while. this is why people never improve. they give up after 5 minutes of going backwards. new strokes will feel uncomfortable and unnautral, even if they are better.

braden is teaching a topspin game in 1977. the only thing different from 1977 to 2019 was that rec players thought "net skimmers" were the ideal shot. pros wanted more net clearance, but amateurs thought skimming the net was the ideal shot.

keep the ball deep was rule #1 in 1977
turn early was rule #3 in 1977
"keep your head down" was taught, but seeing the ball hit strings was already disproved in 1977.

Braden says most points end in 4 balls or less. Focus on serve+1. In 1977.
Moonballer was a term used in 1977...and people couldn't deal with junker styles back then either.

Give the opponent one more ball was rule #2 in 1977

To quote the book
"This is what the dinker does so well. Here is one more ball. Here is one more ball.
He keeps throwing up "moonballs" while you sit back there with all your fancy moves, cracking off net skimmers.
The dinker has never hit a hard ball in his life ... until you get so frustrated you try to end the point with a fancy shot,
which of course goes into the net.
No one likes to play dinkers because they drive you crazy.
Why don't you stand up and play like a man?
But, dinkers win for good reasons.
They have mastered several basic physical laws and psychological ploys
which make them winners in the Ds, Cs, Bs and 2 rounds of the As in almost every tennis club around the world.
You may make jokes about the dinkers, and they may have few friends, but their living room shelves are lined with trophies.

1977.

$5 to show you that nothing in tennis has changed in 100 years.

Vic Braden's Tennis for the Future: Braden, Vic; Bruns, Bill: 9780316105101: Amazon.com: Books

Vic Braden's Tennis for the Future [Braden, Vic; Bruns, Bill] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Vic Braden's Tennis for the Future

www.amazon.com

Glad you're enjoying my suggestion.

 

[Keendog]

What are the top 10 rules?

Rule no 1 we dont talk about Braden club

 

[E46luver]

just to be clear Braden is not advocating dinking but he respects their low level ability to win
he is establishing that you need to be patient with your new strokes until they are reliable
that was just part of the introduction and now he will get into advanced technique to beat the dinker

 

[E46luver]

absolute genius ............decades ahead of this time

this is from the 1970s

Braden believed players couldn’t modify technique while playing matches. The desire to win was so strong that the mind would force the body into old habits, rather than trust new swings that were technically better but unfamiliar. To learn, students needed to remove themselves from competition and rewire their minds. He wanted students to hit as many as 900 balls in an hour.

 

[E46luver]

this is a very touching summary of the vic braden
the man who changed tennis forever

» The Tennis Legacy of Vic Braden

grantland.com

 

[sureshs]

Didn't he advocate only a loss serve toss? Is that still valid today?

 

[golden chicken]

Didn't he advocate only a loss serve toss? Is that still valid today?

He advocated hitting at the apex of the toss, so if that's "low" to you, then yes. But he backed it up with physics, saying the ball spends much more time in the area near where you want to make contact (a little before apex, at apex, or a little after) compared to a ball that is falling through the contact zone. That, in turn, increases your consistency, which is one of the things he advocated strongly.

 

[IowaGuy]

Didn't he advocate only a loss serve toss? Is that still valid today?

 

[JohnYandell]

This was probably Vic's worst idea--among a few. Very very few players ever did this. The ball dropping below the top is moving at a very slow speed. Sampras and Fed to mention two let it drop about 18 inches. But for most players even if they could hit at the top means rushing the rhythm and eliminates deep knee bend and body turn. Vic was a friend and a passionate person but was wrong about a lot of things in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 769694]

this is a very touching summary of the vic braden
the man who changed tennis forever
a true lifelong tennis addict

» The Tennis Legacy of Vic Braden

grantland.com

learning tennis is the same as it was in 1977. absolutely nothing has changed. the only thing that has changed is A B C D has become 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
that's it.

take a lesson and try a new technique and be prepared to get worse for a while. this is why people never improve. they give up after 5 minutes of going backwards. new strokes will feel uncomfortable and unnautral, even if they are better.

braden is teaching a topspin game in 1977. the only thing different from 1977 to 2019 was that rec players thought "net skimmers" were the ideal shot. pros wanted more net clearance, but amateurs thought skimming the net was the ideal shot.

keep the ball deep was rule #1 in 1977
turn early was rule #3 in 1977
"keep your head down" was taught, but seeing the ball hit strings was already disproved in 1977.

Braden says most points end in 4 balls or less. Focus on serve+1. In 1977.
Moonballer was a term used in 1977...and people couldn't deal with junker styles back then either.

Give the opponent one more ball was rule #2 in 1977

To quote the book
"This is what the dinker does so well. Here is one more ball. Here is one more ball.
He keeps throwing up "moonballs" while you sit back there with all your fancy moves, cracking off net skimmers.
The dinker has never hit a hard ball in his life ... until you get so frustrated you try to end the point with a fancy shot,
which of course goes into the net.
No one likes to play dinkers because they drive you crazy.
Why don't you stand up and play like a man?
But, dinkers win for good reasons.
They have mastered several basic physical laws and psychological ploys
which make them winners in the Ds, Cs, Bs and 2 rounds of the As in almost every tennis club around the world.
You may make jokes about the dinkers, and they may have few friends, but their living room shelves are lined with trophies.

1977.

$5 to show you that nothing in tennis has changed in 100 years.

Vic Braden's Tennis for the Future: Braden, Vic; Bruns, Bill: 9780316105101: Amazon.com: Books

Vic Braden's Tennis for the Future [Braden, Vic; Bruns, Bill] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Vic Braden's Tennis for the Future

www.amazon.com

Open patterns and poly have changed players ability to attack balls on the decline. Ball has three phases, rise-peak-decline you couldnt attack the decline in the past.

 

[sureshs]

He advocated hitting at the apex of the toss, so if that's "low" to you, then yes. But he backed it up with physics, saying the ball spends much more time in the area near where you want to make contact (a little before apex, at apex, or a little after) compared to a ball that is falling through the contact zone. That, in turn, increases your consistency, which is one of the things he advocated strongly.

His physics argument was that a higher toss results in 10 times more speed to deal with than a low toss, or something like that. His own serve was very mediocre in the videos I have seen. I don't think you can get much variety from that kind of serve, nor the kind of pace and spin seen today.

 

[sureshs]

I think it is still higher than what Vic advocated

 

[IowaGuy]

I think it is still higher than what Vic advocated

That's because Vic didn't have the vertical leap of Dog

 

[scotus]

I haven't heard about Dolgo for a while. Did he play the Aussie?

 

[IowaGuy]

This was probably Vic's worst idea--among a few. Very very few players ever did this. The ball dropping below the top is moving at a very slow speed. Sampras and Fed to mention two let it drop about 18 inches. But for most players even if they could hit at the top means rushing the rhythm and eliminates deep knee bend and body turn. Vic was a friend and a passionate person but was wrong about a lot of things in my opinion.

I think the timing is more critical when hitting at the apex like Dolgo. He starts his upward swinging motion while the ball is still traveling upwards, in order to time it at its apex! I have experimented with a quick serving motion/hitting at the apex, but can't get the timing down.

Dolgo has a very deep knee bend, so hitting at the apex certainly doesn't eliminate deep knee bend. I would say he bends just as deep as other good platform servers such as Sampras or Fed.

 

[Dartagnan64]

The low toss was a great idea with 65 sq in racquets in 1977. The slower the ball momentum at impact the more likely you are to hit on the sweet spot.
100 sq in frames and pinpoint stances changed the physics of the serve to allow for more windup. Consequently the toss needed to be higher. Platform stance servers still tend to toss lower on average since they're windup motion tends to be faster.

I grew up in a windy place, using wooden racquets and a platform stance. I've never had a high toss as a consequence. I also frame far fewer serves than my high tossing colleagues and almost never have a bad toss. So I don't think Braden's idea of the low toss is awful, it's just that tennis outgrew it with big frames.

 

[heninfan99]

We suffer from Whataboutism always pointing out the irregular, rare sample.
I think Braden had a set of technique guides to help get people up & playing tennis quickly to grow the sport.

I love Whataboutism, I used it this morning. Someone said to be a pro you had start at 6 -8 yrs old. I, of course, shouted out RIOS!

 

[sureshs]

The low toss was a great idea with 65 sq in racquets in 1977. The slower the ball momentum at impact the more likely you are to hit on the sweet spot.
100 sq in frames and pinpoint stances changed the physics of the serve to allow for more windup. Consequently the toss needed to be higher. Platform stance servers still tend to toss lower on average since they're windup motion tends to be faster.

I grew up in a windy place, using wooden racquets and a platform stance. I've never had a high toss as a consequence. I also frame far fewer serves than my high tossing colleagues and almost never have a bad toss. So I don't think Braden's idea of the low toss is awful, it's just that tennis outgrew it with big frames.

Makes a lot of sense.

 

[J011yroger]

We suffer from Whataboutism always pointing out the irregular, rare sample.
I think Braden had a set of technique guides to help get people up & playing tennis quickly to grow the sport.

I love Whataboutism, I used it this morning. Someone said to be a pro you had start at 6 -8 yrs old. I, of course, shouted out RIOS!

A lot of these late starter jabronis say they started playing at whatever age they began training full time. In reality they played tennis, soccer, blah blah blah for 5 years then decided to pick tennis.

I don't know if that's true for Rios, he might have touched a racquet for the first time at 11 but most who say they started at age X didn't.

J

 

[sureshs]

I actually had a half-day clinic with Vic years ago at a local resort with lunch and video analysis included. He told a number of cool stories while the assistant pros did the actual drills. One thing he told everyone was to hit low to high with topspin.

His main achievements were in two areas: introducing a lot of rec players to tennis by making it fun, and being one of the first to apply science to tennis.

Like that bald tennis journalist of the Boston Globe with funny pants (can't remember his name due to temporary amnesia), he was a small man with a big heart. Such people simply don't exist in the hateful environment of today.


PS: Bud Collins

 

[sureshs]

A lot of these late starter jabronis say they started playing at whatever age they began training full time. In reality they played tennis, soccer, blah blah blah for 5 years then decided to pick tennis.

I don't know if that's true for Rios, he might have touched a racquet for the first time at 11 but most who say they started at age X didn't.

J

At what age did you start playing tennis?

 

[J011yroger]

At what age did you start playing tennis?

4 or 5. 33 years of toil to suffer the ignominy of being rated 3.5 by the enlightened poasters of TW.

J

 

[Kevo]

I've experimented with hitting serves at the apex of the toss. It's certainly doable, but I found the same thing Iowa Guy did. The timing seems more critical in that scenario because you have to start swinging at the ball on it's way up. For me I think the best compromise is somewhere around 1-2 feet higher than the contact spot. Some people need a little more time with their motion and some a little less. Anything higher than that seems excessive to me, but there is certainly some wiggle room. One thing I really don't like seeing is people waiting on the ball to drop several feet or more from the apex of the toss. That seems to be prone to error and streakiness.

We did have one guy on our 4.0 USTA team back in the day that would hit the ball right as it got to the contact spot. Sometimes it seemed he hit it while it was still traveling upwards. I think he got quite a few free points on serve just from the surprise factor. Even after you saw it, sometimes it was still surprising.

 

[sureshs]

4 or 5. 33 years of toil to suffer the ignominy of being rated 3.5 by the enlightened poasters of TW.

J

I started at age 39 and look how far I have come today.

 

[sureshs]

 

[Keendog]

I think it is still higher than what Vic advocated

That is exactly what vic advocated, hitting the ball at the apex. While John says many players may be rushed by that it is better than the other extreme you see sharapova etc in an ultra high toss or alternatively, up together and pause in trophy which he explicitly said wasn't good. Kyrgios is another that does it

 

[Keendog]

I've experimented with hitting serves at the apex of the toss. It's certainly doable, but I found the same thing Iowa Guy did. The timing seems more critical in that scenario because you have to start swinging at the ball on it's way up. For me I think the best compromise is somewhere around 1-2 feet higher than the contact spot. Some people need a little more time with their motion and some a little less. Anything higher than that seems excessive to me, but there is certainly some wiggle room. One thing I really don't like seeing is people waiting on the ball to drop several feet or more from the apex of the toss. That seems to be prone to error and streakiness.

We did have one guy on our 4.0 USTA team back in the day that would hit the ball right as it got to the contact spot. Sometimes it seemed he hit it while it was still traveling upwards. I think he got quite a few free points on serve just from the surprise factor. Even after you saw it, sometimes it was still surprising.

I think if you watch Kyrgios his timing is basically start with weight on back foot and move forward from there, as opposed to most players start with weight on front then shift to back foot then front foot again

 

[sureshs]

You have to admit that serving while holding 3 balls is a lost art.

 

[E46luver]

. One thing he told everyone was to hit low to high with topspin.

yes book is saying to hit topspin topspin topspin.............in 1977

 

[Kevo]

You have to admit that serving while holding 3 balls is a lost art.

I've served with 4 balls in the hand and one on top before, but the extra bulk in the hand is distracting. It's great for drilling returns though as you can have someone hit a bunch of returns one right after the other.

 

[J011yroger]

I've served with 4 balls in the hand and one on top before, but the extra bulk in the hand is distracting. It's great for drilling returns though as you can have someone hit a bunch of returns one right after the other.

Most I can do is 7 but it's a little shaky.

I have 4 on video. I only do 6 or 7 playing with kids or 3.0-3.5 where I can just put it up anywhere and spin it in. Usually play dubs with 5 balls in my hand in playing lessons.

J

 

[5263]

this is a very touching summary of the vic braden
the man who changed tennis forever
a true lifelong tennis addict

» The Tennis Legacy of Vic Braden

grantland.com

learning tennis is the same as it was in 1977. absolutely nothing has changed. the only thing that has changed is A B C D has become 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
that's it.


Give the opponent one more ball was rule #2 in 1977

To quote the book
"This is what the dinker does so well. Here is one more ball. Here is one more ball.
He keeps throwing up "moonballs" while you sit back there with all your fancy moves, cracking off net skimmers.

Great guy and good friend, but he had a lot of misleading info that is dogma still taken as fact.

 

[Keendog]

Most I can do is 7 but it's a little shaky.

I have 4 on video. I only do 6 or 7 playing with kids or 3.0-3.5 where I can just put it up anywhere and spin it in. Usually play dubs with 5 balls in my hand in playing lessons.

J

I have two in my hands right now..

 

[Dartagnan64]

Great guy and good friend, but he had a lot of misleading info that is dogma still taken as fact.

I don't think it was misleading as much as ongoing science superseded his theories.

Sports science changes and evolves on the backs of pervious generations. Doesn't mean the old generation was "misleading". They just had inferior technology on which to base conclusions.

 

[5263]

I don't think it was misleading as much as ongoing science superseded his theories.

Sports science changes and evolves on the backs of pervious generations. Doesn't mean the old generation was "misleading". They just had inferior technology on which to base conclusions.

I just feel the information he gave out misled a generation or 2 of players.

 

[Chas Tennis]

The 1970s - when Braden wrote Tennis for the Future - was the era of "The Big Game", serve and volley. I read his book and others and did serve and volley through most of the 1980s. It worked well for me. But my efforts at serving were always capped by the Waiter's Tray technique. Of course, while ATP players were probably mostly doing the ISR serve correctly, it was not recognized or explained until the mid 1990s in tennis. This was not Braden's fault as it was somehow not known anywhere in the tennis world. But now when posters, ATP players, coaches and instructors explain tennis with great confidence, this time I'm looking at the high speed videos for myself .................

Serve & Volley Tennis

I believe that this is Vic Braden probably at the Coto Research Center in the 1970s or 1980s. He is probably setting up a high speed 16 mm film camera overhead to film a serve or forehand. Somewhere there may still exist high speed 16 mm films of Roscoe Tanner's great serving. Tanner had a very low toss, hit near peak, and was the dominant server of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Maybe Braden picked up the low toss from him? Several very strong servers have had very low tosses. Where are those Tanner films? Somewhere in CA?

The Sporting Life - Dynamic duo Vic Braden and Gideon Ariel - Ariel Dynamics

Ariel Dynamics, Inc. is a leading innovator and service provider in the fields of Athletics, Biomechanics, and Sports and Rehabilitative Medicine. It performs individual motion analysis studies, known as the Ariel Performance Analysis System (APAS), and manufactures computerized...

www.arielnet.com

Coto Research Center - A Unique Sports Research Center - Ariel Dynamics

Ariel Dynamics, Inc. is a leading innovator and service provider in the fields of Athletics, Biomechanics, and Sports and Rehabilitative Medicine. It performs individual motion analysis studies, known as the Ariel Performance Analysis System (APAS), and manufactures computerized...

www.arielnet.com

 

[heninfan99]

Has this accent type died out?
The way he says "hand" might be a Michigan thing???

 

[heninfan99]

If you want to impress us do this:

...but get the serve in

J

 

[Dartagnan64]

I just feel the information he gave out misled a generation or 2 of players.

Love to see some examples of people being misled. That's a strong statement to accuse a Hall of Fame coach of misleading people.

 

[sureshs]

Has this accent type died out?

Did you take a look at the tight short shorts and the mustache on those guys? No wonder they held all balls in one hand during serving - the hugging shorts did not have an inch room.

 

[3kids]

Great guy and good friend, but he had a lot of misleading info that is dogma still taken as fact.

@JohnYandell above considered the "low" toss to be not optimal. Would you care to enlighten us on 1 or 2 Braden teachings that you would consider misleading?
Thanks

 

[sureshs]

@JohnYandell above considered the "low" toss to be not optimal. Would you care to enlighten us on 1 or 2 Braden teachings that you would consider misleading?
Thanks

By now I know how the 5263 brain works, better than he knows it himself. Here is something he does not like:

When I was at Vic Braden’s tennis college Vic said that on my forehand I was not extending out to the target enough. He said with my brain makeup that was a common error. He also said that watching tennis on TV and video contributes to the error……Hmmmmm. How so, I thought?

Back to Vic Braden Week and My Forehand - Fatso Tennis

When I was at Vic Braden’s tennis college Vic said that on my forehand I was not extending out to the target enough. He said with my brain makeup that was a common error. He also said that watching tennis … Continue reading →

fatsotennis.com

 

[sureshs]

Here are another couple (usually Conti is recommended for volleys and E FH grip is now rarely used) in a book review, so I assume they are in the book:

Tennis 2000: Strokes, Strategy, and... book by Vic Braden

very good book, but has some dangers
By Thriftbooks.com User, October 15, 2001
On the volley, Braden advocates having a forehand grip and a backhand grip. Not having a single volley grip has some advantages, but is a very distinct minority view.On the forehand groundstroke, Braden advocates the Eastern grip, but nowadays this appears to be a slightly minority view. Most good players use a Semi-Western grip or at least a grip that is at least slightly to the West of an Eastern grip.But again, this is a very valuable book.