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

[Dartagnan64]

@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

That being said, for most rec players with hand eye coordination difficulties, less practice time and limited leg bend and explosion, the low toss would be a good solution for many.

A lot of tennis teaching really depends on the audience. What works at the pro level doesn't necessarily work at the amateur level. Tennis is a different game in the pros.

 

[sureshs]

LOL this is tailor-made for 5263 - doesn't get any better than this.

Ideal Tennis Forehand Contact Point And 6 Drills To Master It | Feel Tennis

In order to make the most of your forehand technique in tennis, you need to find your ideal forehand contact point because only there will you be able to generate the most power with the least amount of effort. Hitting the ball at the optimal contact point whether on the forehand or the backhand...

www.feeltennis.net

poida
December 1, 2013
Hi Tomaz, thanks for your excellent followup! The key issues in this discussion seem to center around 1) over rotation and 2) extension through the ball. Oscar seems to be saying extention is not the way pros hit the ball vs. pulling across the ball to create spin and power using body rotation vs. linear forces. This is to me, both as a coach and player where tennis instruction has led to great confusion and conflicted learning. The Braden school and Wegner school do not see eye-to-eye on how to hit the FH let alone teach how to hit the ball on the FH. Then there is this whole idea of “the double bend” and fixed/locked wrist at contact. Seems that FH coaching is lost in a land of technical confusion LOL
I would love to get to the bottom of this and get clarity on this FH confusion once and for all.

Tomaz
December 2, 2013
If you look at the above videos, all three players have very long extensions through the contact the zone.
I believe the confusion starts because some coaches look at the pros in EXTREME match play situations where they need to adjust, where they are using maximum power and their extraordinary talent to produce shots under pressure.
Then they analyze this technique and want to teach beginners that way.
In my opinion, to see the foundation of all tennis technique, you need to look at the pros only when warming up – and that’s you can see above.

 

[Dartagnan64]

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.

The eastern grip was huge until polyester. And there are many senior players and women using it to great effect in rec leagues all over the world. Not sure Braden is wrong for a huge swath of the tennis population.

But I'd agree that having separate volley grips is too complicated in rapid fire situations. Switching grips from the baseline has value because you have time. From mid court in, time is reduced and its best to have one grip. But that's my opinion and not necessarily more valuable than Braden's.

 

[sureshs]

The eastern grip was huge until polyester. And there are many senior players and women using it to great effect in rec leagues all over the world. Not sure Braden is wrong for a huge swath of the tennis population.

But I'd agree that having separate volley grips is too complicated in rapid fire situations. Switching grips from the baseline has value because you have time. From mid court in, time is reduced and its best to have one grip. But that's my opinion and not necessarily more valuable than Braden's.

Maybe poly is the root cause for the change, but for me it was pretty simple. As I got better, parents started asking me to hit with their kids. The high-bouncing topspin they generated was something I had never seen before from the adults. To deal with it, I switched to a SW from an E and never went back.

 

[Trinity110]

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

J

I always say, "A lifetime to learn, an eternity to master."

 

[5263]

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

LoL, that is pretty funny. Who said watching tennis on Tv contributes to the error? Vic?
But yes, one of my last conversations with Vic (since he was getting a bit older at the time) was asking him if he was sure he wanted a big part of his legacy to be marred by claiming players should extend out the target line after impact.

 

[Kevo]

He also said that watching tennis on TV and video contributes to the error……Hmmmmm. How so, I thought?

That's funny. One of the older guys I play doubles with that used to coach and now does chair umpire duty likes to say whenever someone hits a really good shot, "Have you been watching TV tennis again?"

He also knows a lot of things that some of the big name coaches used to teach. Every now and then he gives us a history lesson.

 

[Kevo]

But yes, one of my last conversations with Vic (since he was getting a bit older at the time) was asking him if he was sure he wanted a big part of his legacy to be marred by claiming players should extend out the target line after impact.

I played with a guy at our church a few times who had those classic style strokes. He had a wonderfully controlled form with precise clean shots using that older technique. I think it holds up quite well for the most part, but you wouldn't see hit really shape the ball too much outside of the normal trajectory. It also didn't leave a lot of room for creativity, but he could have easily competed well up to 4.0 and probably 4.5 with his classic style. Might have been able to do even better if he could mix in some good slice, but he didn't do slice very much.

 

[5263]

I played with a guy at our church a few times who had those classic style strokes. He had a wonderfully controlled form with precise clean shots using that older technique. I think it holds up quite well for the most part, but you wouldn't see hit really shape the ball too much outside of the normal trajectory. It also didn't leave a lot of room for creativity, but he could have easily competed well up to 4.0 and probably 4.5 with his classic style. Might have been able to do even better if he could mix in some good slice, but he didn't do slice very much.

yes, that is about the norm to make it to 4.0 or even 4.5 if they have lots of talent.

 

[5263]

A lot of tennis teaching really depends on the audience. What works at the pro level doesn't necessarily work at the amateur level. Tennis is a different game in the pros.

Can you share more insight into the differences you perceive?

 

[sureshs]

LoL, that is pretty funny. Who said watching tennis on Tv contributes to the error? Vic?
But yes, one of my last conversations with Vic (since he was getting a bit older at the time) was asking him if he was sure he wanted a big part of his legacy to be marred by claiming players should extend out the target line after impact.

I think when he (or Tomas) says there is a lot of extension, they are adding: the swing path before impact + the length the racket moves in the milliseconds of impact (which could actually be 3 balls in a "can") + the length due to inertia from the forward component of the swing prior to impact, and not taking into account that the racket head starts moving sideways and upwards quite shortly after impact. I am not even sure how the racket can be deliberately made to extend forward because that implies that the player would have to intentionally push empty air forward (because the ball is gone!) by bending forward and almost falling over.

What they are cautioning against is probably the wristy whipping up action just before impact performed by some novices when trying to add topspin.

 

[sureshs]

A lot of tennis teaching really depends on the audience. What works at the pro level doesn't necessarily work at the amateur level. Tennis is a different game in the pros.

Not at all. Most of it is the same. The only difference is serve simplification: club players often cannot serve with both feet in the air which requires considerable leg push so they are OK with the back foot coming over, plus other hacks like reducing swing speed to get the second serve in (instead of: swing as fast but with spin), or simply getting the ball in with a somewhat open stance without sideways coiling and uncoiling. It is more like telling adults it is OK to walk a marathon if you cannot run it. It is not a special tailored teaching philosophy, but just some hacks to get the player going till he eventually improves (or doesn't).

OK one more thing. Some coaches tell adults to never try backhand topspin but just slice it. Even today, long after I have achieved mastery over the shot, I wonder if backhand slicing is more than enough to win all matches till 4.5 level (compared to ineffective topspin). It works for Stevie Johnson and Feliciano Lopez and Dr. Ivo (and Steffi).

 

[Trinity110]

Not at all. Most of it is the same. The only difference is serve simplification: club players often cannot serve with both feet in the air which requires considerable leg push so they are OK with the back foot coming over, plus other hacks like reducing swing speed to get the second serve in (instead of: swing as fast but with spin), or simply getting the ball in with a somewhat open stance without sideways coiling and uncoiling. It is more like telling adults it is OK to walk a marathon if you cannot run it. It is not a special tailored teaching philosophy, but just some hacks to get the player going till he eventually improves (or doesn't).

OK one more thing. Some coaches tell adults to never try backhand topspin but just slice it. Even today, long after I have achieved mastery over the shot, I wonder if backhand slicing is more than enough to win all matches till 4.5 level (compared to ineffective topspin). It works for Stevie Johnson and Feliciano Lopez and Dr. Ivo (and Steffi).

I hear you about the backhand topspin. I concentrated on developing that for the last four years or so, never deviating, and it is fairly decent now, not great. But in the last few months, I have started hitting some slices again, and they are sick! I paid no attention to the shot at all for four years yet now I hit them and lots of times the other guy just stares at it, and I think, "Who hit that?" It's a funny game.

 

[sureshs]

I hear you about the backhand topspin. I concentrated on developing that for the last four years or so, never deviating, and it is fairly decent now, not great. But in the last few months, I have started hitting some slices again, and they are sick! I paid no attention to the shot at all for four years yet now I hit them and lots of times the other guy just stares at it, and I think, "Who hit that?" It's a funny game.

I wanted to stop slicing so I forced myself to learn topspin, and I hit slices only when stretched wide or on very low or very high balls. Unlike pros who have done it all, I know my topspin BH will disappear if I start slicing exclusively for a few weeks. I feel morally superior to those hitting BH slices, so I persist even though I know that slice is more than enough or even better for winning club matches.

Also another thing: flat or topspin BH is better in doubles because the slice is often easily put away. You won't see slicing in pro doubles either.

 

[sureshs]

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

Is that your club pro? He has a nice serve. Do you takes lessons from him?

 

[Dartagnan64]

Can you share more insight into the differences you perceive?

Where in the pros do you see lobs as weapons? Rolled in Frying pan second serves? Bunting back to the middle as a strategy? Chop shotters?

Where in 3.0-4.0 rec tennis do you see 130 mph first serves and 100 mph second serves? Shot tolerance for 30 80-90 mph groundstrokes? Court coverage to return those 90 mph groundies?

Elite athletics is for elites and the rest of us just muddle through with our imperfect form. A rec player will win more games learning to moonball and lob than he ever will from attempting to develop a perfect 90 mph FH.

 

[J011yroger]

Is that your club pro? He has a nice serve. Do you takes lessons from him?

I taught him everything he knows.

J

 

[ptuanminh]

Where in the pros do you see lobs as weapons? Rolled in Frying pan second serves? Bunting back to the middle as a strategy? Chop shotters?

Where in 3.0-4.0 rec tennis do you see 130 mph first serves and 100 mph second serves? Shot tolerance for 30 80-90 mph groundstrokes? Court coverage to return those 90 mph groundies?

Elite athletics is for elites and the rest of us just muddle through with our imperfect form. A rec player will win more games learning to moonball and lob than he ever will from attempting to develop a perfect 90 mph FH.

Last time i checked, 130 mph serves and 90mph forehands work for both pro level and rec level tennis. Lobs will work for both too from time to time. Frying pan serves definitely don't work in rec level.

 

[heninfan99]

Last time i checked, 130 mph serves and 90mph forehands work for both pro level and rec level tennis. Lobs will work for both too from time to time. Frying pan serves definitely don't work in rec level.

Yep. Hingis had a wonderful lob and won many points with it.

 

[sureshs]

Where in 3.0-4.0 rec tennis do you see 130 mph first serves and 100 mph second serves? Shot tolerance for 30 80-90 mph groundstrokes? Court coverage to return those 90 mph groundies?

Are you confusing student ability with teaching technique? The question is whether the 40 mph forehand and the 90 mph forehand need to be taught differently. Answer is no.

 

[IowaGuy]

Are you confusing student ability with teaching technique? The question is whether the 40 mph forehand and the 90 mph forehand need to be taught differently. Answer is no.

Are you advocating teaching the ATP forehand to middle-aged beginners who have never picked up a tennis racket?

 

[sureshs]

Are you advocating teaching the ATP forehand to middle-aged beginners who have never picked up a tennis racket?

What forehand would you teach them instead? ATP forehand is nothing but topspin with shorter swing and laid back wrist and semi open/neutral stance and SW/W grip. Each of these elements (spin, swing, wrist, stance, grip) will later have to be adjusted by the student according to his abilities, along with adjustment skills for awkward positions. ATP forehand itself is a wide spectrum spanning various ATP and WTA players.

So you don't teach ATP forehand, you teach the above.

But back to the basic question: what would you teach instead? Conti or E grip? Long takeback behind the back? Fully closed stance with left foot jumping ahead in front of the right? Flat shot with minimal net clearance being the holy grail? Rigid wrist?

 

[5263]

Where in the pros do you see lobs as weapons? Rolled in Frying pan second serves? Bunting back to the middle as a strategy? Chop shotters?

Where in 3.0-4.0 rec tennis do you see 130 mph first serves and 100 mph second serves? Shot tolerance for 30 80-90 mph groundstrokes? Court coverage to return those 90 mph groundies?

Elite athletics is for elites and the rest of us just muddle through with our imperfect form. A rec player will win more games learning to moonball and lob than he ever will from attempting to develop a perfect 90 mph FH.

so what you seem to be talking about is the results of technique vs the discussion on the "how and why" of technique. There is no doubt that Pros get better results and that is a self fulfilling prophesy given how pros get where they are by results, but Imo this discussion is about using technique. Imo the same techniques when used properly, will help to maximize the results. Of course if you have a disability, you much compensate for that, but clean technique works well at all levels....but sure, you can get away with more compensations at the lower levels.

 

[J011yroger]

Are you advocating teaching the ATP forehand to middle-aged beginners who have never picked up a tennis racket?

Yes, I teach the ATP forehand to ages 11-80.

J

 

[5263]

Are you advocating teaching the ATP forehand to middle-aged beginners who have never picked up a tennis racket?

Pro modern strokes are the easiest way to play. The pros shots are so good, the can't afford to make it complicated to return the ball so they play in a very easy and simple way that is only hard if you have bad habits from before. New students of all ages roll right into it.

 

[Chas Tennis]

Pro modern strokes are the easiest way to play. The pros shots are so good, the can't afford to make it complicated to return the ball so they play in a very easy and simple way that is only hard if you have bad habits from before. New students of all ages roll right into it.

Agree in general. But pros have uppermost body turn on groundstrokes that includes trunk/spine twisting and that may be an issue for anyone with back issues including age related.

Watch the rapidity of the pros uppermost body when it turns forward. Looks as if the uppermost body turns roughly 90 degrees in a very quick forward turn. The total uppermost body rotation is a combination of trunk/spine twisting plus turning of the pelvis by the legs/hips.

It might be good to measure the ranges of motion for the pelvis and trunk/spine twist.

 

[5263]

Agree in general. But pros have uppermost body turn on groundstrokes that includes trunk/spine twisting and that may be an issue for anyone with back issues including age related.

Watch the rapidity of the pros uppermost body when it turns forward. Looks as if the uppermost body turns roughly 90 degrees in a very quick forward turn. The total uppermost body rotation is a combination of trunk/spine twisting plus turning of the pelvis by the legs/hips.

It might be good to measure the ranges of motion for the pelvis and trunk/spine twist.

sure, but again, you are just talking amplitude and not a change in technique.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

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

Perhaps it was a Gaelic thing (Scottish or Irish). I knew Vic's brother, Dan Braden. They were fairly close in age but Dan might have been slightly younger. Dan did NOT have Vic's accent at all. Dan & Vic might have both been born in Tennessee but lived much of their formative years in Michigan. Dan had told me that he had learned and played both tennis & badminton in MI. They had 5 or 6 siblings (brothers or mostly brothers, I think)

Dan & his wife, Charlotte, moved to Calif in the early 1960s. I met Dan in the early/mid 1970s. Perhaps his Gaelic / Michigan accent evolved into a West Coast accent by the time I met Dan. Or maybe Vic's accent was merely an affectation.

Dan, a lefty, was one of my first coaches in the early 1970s. I'm also a lefty and it was great having a lefty as one of my coaches in my early tennis development. He was the head coach at West Valley College (where I was going to school) in Saratoga, CA. WVC was the top community college team in NorCal for most of the 1980s. Dan sometimes took his team members to Vic's Tennis College (in SoCal?) for added training.

A heart attack in the early 90s put an end to his coaching (but not his teaching). Dan passed in 2000. I believe that he was close to 60 at the time. Vic passed away in 2014 at 85, I believe. Dan's wife, Charlotte, passed the year after.

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

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

Allie Riske was schooled Vic’s video tapes. [emoji471]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[IowaGuy]

What forehand would you teach them instead? ATP forehand is nothing but topspin with shorter swing and laid back wrist and semi open/neutral stance and SW/W grip. Each of these elements (spin, swing, wrist, stance, grip) will later have to be adjusted by the student according to his abilities, along with adjustment skills for awkward positions. ATP forehand itself is a wide spectrum spanning various ATP and WTA players.

So you don't teach ATP forehand, you teach the above.

But back to the basic question: what would you teach instead? Conti or E grip? Long takeback behind the back? Fully closed stance with left foot jumping ahead in front of the right? Flat shot with minimal net clearance being the holy grail? Rigid wrist?

Pro modern strokes are the easiest way to play. The pros shots are so good, the can't afford to make it complicated to return the ball so they play in a very easy and simple way that is only hard if you have bad habits from before. New students of all ages roll right into it.

Yes, I teach the ATP forehand to ages 11-80.

J

How quickly does a 50-year-old woman who has never picked up a racket, learn the ATP forehand?

 

[IowaGuy]

If the ATP forehand is so easy to learn, and is optimal, why do so many WTA players not use it? (I will point out that they have had thousands of hours of lessons, starting from a young age)

 

[J011yroger]

How quickly does a 50-year-old woman who has never picked up a racket, learn the ATP forehand?

About a month.

J

 

[J011yroger]

If the ATP forehand is so easy to learn, and is optimal, why do so many WTA players not use it? (I will point out that they have had thousands of hours of lessons, starting from a young age)

Because they weren't taught to.

J

 

[5263]

If the ATP forehand is so easy to learn, and is optimal, why do so many WTA players not use it? (I will point out that they have had thousands of hours of lessons, starting from a young age)

yes, but all of them started before the concept of the ATP swing became mainstream and even now, many suggest that it isn't for women. Even now, most instructors don't even know why to use it. A 50 yr old learns it in one lesson if they don't have previous habits and if they do, each player takes varying amounts of time to change an old habit despite their age.

 

[sureshs]

If the ATP forehand is so easy to learn, and is optimal, why do so many WTA players not use it? (I will point out that they have had thousands of hours of lessons, starting from a young age)

They have several of the same elements as the ATP forehand, but the short backswing needs a lot of strength to produce a big ball. Women who don't have the strength have settled for a bigger backswing. The incoming balls are also slower, so more time for a bigger takeback.

 

[comeback]

I have severe wrist issues and am trying to go from the ATP/WTA type swing to a Jimmy Connors forehand or 2 handed forehand and hopefully save my tennis playing days

 

[5263]

They have several of the same elements as the ATP forehand, but the short backswing needs a lot of strength to produce a big ball. Women who don't have the strength have settled for a bigger backswing. The incoming balls are also slower, so more time for a bigger takeback.

power is not generated by strength in a good modern swing like you should use with the ATP backswing....

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

I have severe wrist issues and am trying to go from the ATP/WTA type swing to a Jimmy Connors forehand or 2 handed forehand and hopefully save my tennis playing days

Oh no! What’s up with the wrist my friend? Best, BHBH


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

I think that Vic might have been teaching the backscratch on the serve back in the 1970s (he mentions it in the video below). I recall that his brother, Dan Braden, was teaching it back at that time. Dan pretty much kept up with Vic's ideas back then. But, in the 1990s (maybe even the 80s), Vic was highly critical of the backscratch instruction.

Revolutionary Tennis:

Step 12-4 stroke Serve

In the 1970s, both Vic and Dan were promoting the J toss for the serve. The J toss is not what many on TT seem to think it is. The "J" refers to the motion (path) of the tossing hand prior to its upward motion. It does not refer to the trajectory of the tossed ball. Of the modern elite servers, Andy Murray is one of the few who still implements a version of the J toss.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

@sureshs

...
But yes, one of my last conversations with Vic (since he was getting a bit older at the time) was asking him if he was sure he wanted a big part of his legacy to be marred by claiming players should extend out the target line after impact.

Is this what we are referring to?

Pete Sampras (circa 1980?)

 

[tteacher]

Interesting thread. The comments about the low toss seem contradictory. The speed of your serve boils down to racket head speed for 1/1000 of a second. A good kinetic chain and timing and optimizing everything for that split second is crucial. Hitting a relatively stationary target at the apex of the throw and reducing the length of your stroke to maximize speed increases the likelihood you will hit the target and everything will be synced correctly. Vic Braden spent a lot of time debunking misconceptions based on dogmatic teaching that ignored what video analysis showed about great servers. Squash and badminton players regularly produce much faster shots than any shots tennis players can generate using the same simple biomechanics Vic Braden taught. In modern high definition tv, you can observe many of the mechanics he taught when most people's exposure to top players was limited to lower-definition television and video and infrequent encounters at WTA and ATP events. Look at Raonic or Isner's serve or Kyrgios. Modern rackets have made his simple ideas even more relevant. Most recreational players can easily add 20 or 30 km/hr just by pronating their forearms while hitting the ball and making sure there is a large angle between their racket and forearm as a result of the racket lag instead of trying to strike the ball like a woodpecker when the reality is by the time you start leaning downward the ball is long gone and that forward motion most likely ends up dragging the ball into the net while rotating your shoulders like a pitcher produces far more power. Good balance and pronation is far more important for the majority of students and Braden produced great articles and videos about troubleshooting service problems and a lower toss encourages students to swing faster which is hard to argue against if you want a faster serve.

What we now know about plyometrics and loading a muscle to produce maximal forces is compatible with most of his ideas If he were still alive with access to high-speed video cameras and modern players I would love to see what insights he would distil from the footage. His critics should consider that he started coaching with wooden rackets and his ideas evolved with the technology and judging videos and shows he produced in the 70s and 80s doesn't give him the credit he deserves while many of the principles he taught have more than stood the test of time. There is now a lot less variation in tennis serve speeds because all players use pronation more efficiently at the top level and the biggest difference I can see in strong servers like Felix Auger-Alliasamme and Denis Shapovalov from when they struggled earlier on with consistency and now is they have shorter more consistent tosses and phenomenal racket head speed.

 

[Curious]

making sure there is a large angle between their racket and forearm as a result of the racket lag instead of trying to strike the ball like a woodpecker

Could you explain what point during the serve exactly are you referring to about that large angle?

 

[tteacher]

Could you explain what point during the serve exactly are you referring to about that large angle?

When you pronate your forearm the closer to a 90-degree angle between your forearm and racket the more racket head speed you will generate in the process. Your racket sweeps through a larger area/arc and for astronomy buffs this also correlates to a larger amount of energy in the same way Kepler's law applies. It also uses your hand as a pivot in terms of producing torque and angular momentum which can be converted into linear momentum for the ball while if you don't take advantage of that angle the pivot is either your elbow if you rotate your upper arm with a bent elbow or only your shoulder if you extend your arm straight without accelerating. Just rotating your upper arm and forearm can generate huge amounts of racket head speed compared to trying to accelerate your entire body to generate that speed. A baseball player can throw around 100mph without having a racket and a chance to use forearm rotation to generate speed and a tennis player can easily generate similar numbers using their racket and forearms. A quick demonstration is how you can make your strings whistle through the air only by rotating your forearm with a 90-degree angle between your forearm and racket but try generating a similar sound without rotating your forearm or with a smaller angle.

I wouldn't presume to coach above an intermediate level player on their serve but for a beginner player, I describe picturing their serve like throwing a spear where you lead with the butt of your racket and extend your elbow and reach for the ball while pronating as the last step in your serve. The course conductor where I took my coaching qualifications really simplified the serve for beginners with servers just pronating to point where they wanted the ball to go as the final motion and then backward chaining to lengthen the kinetic chain. I am sure there are more knowledgeable players and coaches lurking who if they slowed down their own mechanics could give input about how to incorporate arm extension and swing path for spin. In terms of physics once the head speed is generated it can be maintained with a relaxed/lose grip and swing which should also allow the impact of the ball to be absorbed by the momentum of your racket and reduce the shock on your shoulder, elbow and wrist. I can understand how the angle might be changed to allow you to reach higher to help clear the net.

With beginner players where I teach, I will often drive the ball through a slightly looser fence by just pronating my forearm and turning my hips and shoulders to show how much power can be generated just by pronation. The 'wrist lag' and forearm rotation produces a ton of power. I have also found a lot of my high school girls quickly developed a passable flat serve with a short toss and the pointing/pronation motion that is used in sports like squash and badminton where pronation is used for power instead of spin. That stronger/shorter flat serve was a good starting point for building a longer kinetic chain versus trying to teach them the weight transfer and shoulder hip rotation that added little power to very slow service motions that a high toss enabled. I find volleyball and baseball players have great overhand motions with good shoulder and hip rotation already and when they add the forearm pronation they can really add some sizzle to already fast serves.

Back to Vic Braden's description of mechanics he seemed to advocate a different toss motion where the ball was thrown more in the direction of the serve which might also reduce the shock to the arm slightly and encourage players to accelerate into contact, the D1 player who helped me with my serve advised me to throw a little farther into the court which helped me to accelerate more into the court and made my serve a little more powerful with a more fluid motion and less strain on my arm. Much of what players visualize as generating power is actually part of the follow-through and you are actually decelerating your arm while the ball is long gone after hitting the ball fully extended. Vic Braden offered a good error correction for the problem of servers dropping their shoulder and pulling the ball into the net by suggesting they keep their head facing upward like looking into their racket like a mirror rather than dropping their head and shoulders and looking into the net following the ball.

 

[Curious]

When you pronate your forearm the closer to a 90-degree angle between your forearm and racket the more racket head speed you will generate in the process. Your racket sweeps through a larger area/arc and for astronomy buffs this also correlates to a larger amount of energy in the same way Kepler's law applies. It also uses your hand as a pivot in terms of producing torque and angular momentum which can be converted into linear momentum for the ball while if you don't take advantage of that angle the pivot is either your elbow if you rotate your upper arm with a bent elbow or only your shoulder if you extend your arm straight without accelerating. Just rotating your upper arm and forearm can generate huge amounts of racket head speed compared to trying to accelerate your entire body to generate that speed. A baseball player can throw around 100mph without having a racket and a chance to use forearm rotation to generate speed and a tennis player can easily generate similar numbers using their racket and forearms. A quick demonstration is how you can make your strings whistle through the air only by rotating your forearm with a 90-degree angle between your forearm and racket but try generating a similar sound without rotating your forearm or with a smaller angle.

I wouldn't presume to coach above an intermediate level player on their serve but for a beginner player, I describe picturing their serve like throwing a spear where you lead with the butt of your racket and extend your elbow and reach for the ball while pronating as the last step in your serve. The course conductor where I took my coaching qualifications really simplified the serve for beginners with servers just pronating to point where they wanted the ball to go as the final motion and then backward chaining to lengthen the kinetic chain. I am sure there are more knowledgeable players and coaches lurking who if they slowed down their own mechanics could give input about how to incorporate arm extension and swing path for spin. In terms of physics once the head speed is generated it can be maintained with a relaxed/lose grip and swing which should also allow the impact of the ball to be absorbed by the momentum of your racket and reduce the shock on your shoulder, elbow and wrist. I can understand how the angle might be changed to allow you to reach higher to help clear the net.

With beginner players where I teach, I will often drive the ball through a slightly looser fence by just pronating my forearm and turning my hips and shoulders to show how much power can be generated just by pronation. The 'wrist lag' and forearm rotation produces a ton of power. I have also found a lot of my high school girls quickly developed a passable flat serve with a short toss and the pointing/pronation motion that is used in sports like squash and badminton where pronation is used for power instead of spin. That stronger/shorter flat serve was a good starting point for building a longer kinetic chain versus trying to teach them the weight transfer and shoulder hip rotation that added little power to very slow service motions that a high toss enabled. I find volleyball and baseball players have great overhand motions with good shoulder and hip rotation already and when they add the forearm pronation they can really add some sizzle to already fast serves.

Back to Vic Braden's description of mechanics he seemed to advocate a different toss motion where the ball was thrown more in the direction of the serve which might also reduce the shock to the arm slightly and encourage players to accelerate into contact, the D1 player who helped me with my serve advised me to throw a little farther into the court which helped me to accelerate more into the court and made my serve a little more powerful with a more fluid motion and less strain on my arm. Much of what players visualize as generating power is actually part of the follow-through and you are actually decelerating your arm while the ball is long gone after hitting the ball fully extended. Vic Braden offered a good error correction for the problem of servers dropping their shoulder and pulling the ball into the net by suggesting they keep their head facing upward like looking into their racket like a mirror rather than dropping their head and shoulders and looking into the net following the ball.

Good stuff. I agree on the bigger racket-forearm angle explanation.
Do you think a hammer grip would help achieve that angle instead of pistol grip?

 

[Bagumbawalla]

Even in Braden's day (as is true today) not every player played with the exact same strokes and style.
His book first came out when I just started to play tennis. I used his book as a starting point
to learn the basics and found it very helpful. I don't know if my game ever exactly resembled
the books instruction- and over the years changed a bit, here and there, as I read/learned more
about the game, ideas evolved, equipment evolved and I discovered my own preferences.

Thirty-some years later, I gave the book to a co-worker. His son was starting to play. He, too,
found it a helpful starting place- and from what I hear, has done well on his high school team.

 

[Fintft]

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

Nastase was great!