The fast low bouncing version of the Bigservesofthands first serve

sureshs

Bionic Poster
So far I have only partially answered how I generate the racquet head speed in that I have only dealt with how I load my shoulder differently than how traditional servers do.

I will now describe the novelties in the release phase which make use of the increased shoulder loading effectively to generate more racquet head speed than in a traditional serve’s release.

In a traditional serve the ESR loading is mostly completed as soon as the leg drive and racquet drop occur. There is a small additional stretch that a small minority of servers add during shoulder raise phase. Forearm extension occurs after shoulder raise with the racquet mostly edge while it drives to the ball and then finally around half way between big L and contact whatever shoulder stretch that remains in the ISR muscles (which has not leaked out between racquet drop and elbow extension) is quickly released, the ESR muscles fire at the same time and the entire shoulder rotates the straight arm with the racquet held by the wrist at a 45 degrees. The amount of rotation is about 90 degrees.

Here is what the three versions of traditional serve’s release phase look like.

niQ4iAy.gif


In the case of my serve, the loading phase is much delayed and does not complete until after forearm raise and wrist lay back.

I load my shoulder initially with the front foot plant that is timed with my version of the racquet drop. The front foot plant puts a brake on the torso rotation initiated by the back foot and hips. This braking impulse is converted into a shoulder stretch in the first phase of shoulder loading.

In the second phase the front foot leg drive timed with the shoulder raise is fired which loads the shoulder even more.

The loading continues in the third phase as I raise my forearm and point its flat face to the back fence. This phase loads the forearm as well.

The loading continues some more in the third phase as I lay my wrist to the side and point the racquet face up with its tip pointing to the back fence right corner. This phase loads the forearm even more and adds a loaded wrist to the mix as well.

When I complete my loading phase the racquet is now in a position to let the shoulder rotate internally more than 180 degrees (my ball toss is well into the court and the wrist is laid back past horizontal) into contact using the same forearm to racquet angle of 45 degrees as the traditional serve.

Here is what the second, third and fourth loading phases and the release to contact of my serve looks like.

ZyT3t0X.gif


The release phase of my serve starts much later than traditional serves. During release, I am able to bring to bear more than twice the ISR acceleration of a traditional serve. I retain the forearm raise component of the traditional serve and am able to incorporate some of the ulnar deviation component of it as well into the internal shoulder rotation and wrist roll. Wrist flexion is not the major component of the racquet’s drive to contact. It is ISR, forearm pronation and wrist flexion in that order. So for the loss of a part of ulnar deviation, I bring to bear twice the ISR and forearm pronation and a much larger wrist flexion during release. So it is no wonder that the RHS I generate is higher with this motion than with the traditional motion. I am able to do both and this anomaly led me to dig deeper and figure out what exactly was going on.

Some doubts were raised in other threads on the RHS, I am able to generate using a face on approach by bringing in concepts of classical mechanics like the mass moment of inertia of a tennis racquet.

Below is a figure that describes the three MMOIs of a tennis racquet (lateral - the one involved in ulnar deviation, polar - the one which supposedly closes the face in a traditional serve and transverse which is the one involved in the approach to contact of a pure waiter’s tray serve). The argument seems to be that since it is much more easier to move the racquet laterally and to spin it along the polar axis than it is to rotate it transversely, much more RHS is generated by a traditional serve than a serve like mine which has a large transverse rotation component.

KtaOaGL.png


This argument has a number of fallacies

  1. In a traditional serve most of the RHS at release past big L is generated through ISR with the racquet at a 45 degree angle to the forearm. So it has the same transverse rotation component as my serve (but half as much) and this transverse component is the largest determiner of RHS in this serve.
  2. It ignores a two big determiners of final RHS which are the angular deviations involved (twice as much in my case) and the rotational power stored and released (which is much larger in my case).

So yes, I experience higher RHS and can explain why it happens and am able to use the insights gained to keep improving my serve.

I also am in the process of improving the traditional serve by incorporating components of my fast low bouncing serve to it. This allows for retaining the advantages of the traditional serve while injecting the benefits of my natural serve into it.

Fantastic!

I made an important realization here. In groundstrokes, swingweight comes into play. In edge-on serves, it is the spinweight.

I made the mistake of saying they will be the same. I think that holds only when the cross section of the racket is circular everywhere.

Nevertheless, are these two numbers much different?
 

Chas Tennis

G.O.A.T.
These are posts by tennis-ocd, 5263, LeeD questioning that the my wrist laid back approach can result in higher racquet head speeds in "100 mph serve" thread on various grounds.

The ping pong racket demo (above) was very interesting. It seemed to me that the slightest force of the hand during a tennis stroke would have easily stopped that rotation. But I don't understand very well.

As far as how things feel, you seem to be unusually aware of that, always consider also how the arm, especially the forearm, is being accelerated. Also, the time it takes nerve impulses to move from the hand to the brain is long compared to significant racket head movement.

As far as the 'wrist laid back' stretching muscles, I don't understand the arguments.

Could you discuss showing frame by frame with the frames of a high speed video with small motion blur. I'm never sure when reading a text description where exactly we are in the stroke?

It is hard to prove arguments that can't be brought down to measurement. Arguments are fun and may help understanding but proving things on the forum is pretty rare. One way to resolve arguments with a measurement is - if they can be clearly seen in a video. What about the racket mechanics?

Also, a way to make a good argument is to show the part of the tennis stroke that is affected by the mechanics of the argument.
 
Last edited:

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
Fantastic!

I made an important realization here. In groundstrokes, swingweight comes into play. In edge-on serves, it is the spinweight.

I made the mistake of saying they will be the same. I think that holds only when the cross section of the racket is circular everywhere.

Nevertheless, are these two numbers much different?
I think the mass moment of inertia numbers in transverse and spin axis are very close - probably within 10% of each other. However, my belief is that the body is *much* more sensitive to changes in inertia than weight. That is, people won't notice a 10% change in the weight of a racket or baseball bat when picked directly up from vertical but they will easily note a 10% difference in swing weight. It's why adding a few grams of tape to tip of racket has an unnoticeable change to racket weight but significant change to swing feel.

(And I feel air resistance presents a significant braking force to a high rhs swing when face on vs. edge on.)
 
Last edited:

sureshs

Bionic Poster
I think the mass moment of inertia numbers in transverse and spin axis are very close - probably within 10% of each other. However, my belief is that the body is *much* more sensitive to changes in inertia than weight. That is, people won't notice a 10% change in the weight of a racket or baseball bat when picked directly up from vertical but they will easily note a 10% difference in swing weight. It's why adding a few grams of tape to tip of racket has an unnoticeable change to racket weight but significant change to swing feel.

(And I feel air resistance presents a significant braking force to a high rhs swing when face on vs. edge on.)

Yes I also think the difference in spinweight vs swingweight is not important. It is overwhelmed by air resistance and the biomechanics (wrist flexion vs ulnar deviation)
 

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame

sureshs

Bionic Poster
http://www.tennis.com/gear/2012/09/gear-talk-wilsons-john-lyons-part-4/39435/#.Vz6rFGNYy-8

bssh seems to be drifting to this thread so I'll reply here..... find it interesting that he presents the above article in shrugging off @LeeD suggesting over the impact of air resistance. In article, Wilson rep states that string bed accounts for 55%! of racket air resistance. That is significant. No way you can get the same rhs overcoming that much additional resistance.

Yeah why do cyclists have those pointy helmets and aerodynamic frames and swimmers have those suits and caps and no hair on their bodies.
 

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
Yes I also think the difference in spinweight vs swingweight is not important. It is overwhelmed by air resistance and the biomechanics (wrist flexion vs ulnar deviation)
People swear by just a couple grams lead and the subtle change to swingweight. Ever try swinging a racket without strings? Even without strings, the difference in spin vs swing weights is still quite noticeable. Like swinging a sledge hammer sideways. One simply wouldn't think of doing it if wanting to peg the amusement park "strong man" bell.
 

RetroSpin

Hall of Fame
There was a question by Retrospin about how parametric acceleration comes into play.

If you look at the racquet MMOI picture above, as the racquet rotates with a mixture of transverse and polar rotation towards the racquet with the racquet aligned at 45 degrees to the extended forearm after ulnar deviation is completed, the racquet tip traces an arc toward the ball.

In the case of my serve with the wrist laid back, the arc is much larger.

I can bring parametric acceleration into play by pulling the butt cap towards the centre of the arc. This gives the following benefits

1. It accelerates the racquet head even further
2. It gives a larger "high point", where the racquet head is accelerating but not closing so fast. This gives me better control in timing the stroke, aiming for sweetspot etc.

In the traditional serve, I cannot bring parametric acceleration into play because the wrist is not laid back and obstructs any pulling and the arc is smaller giving much less time to bring it into play. I am working on some adjustments to make it possible in a traditional serve, but they are works in progress.

Yes thank you. Upon reflection it became clearer to me what you were doing, and I agree, parametric acceleration is definitely in play with your wrist move. This is a very interesting topic to me, as I have wondered if the conventional edge on orientation was really the most efficient. For a while I believe that Sam Groth used a variation of your laid back wrist, but further examination of some slow speed videos convinced me otherwise. I have noticed that some pro servers finish flat serves with the racquet face oriented towards the court rather than sideways, ie pronated, indicating perhaps that they achieved some parametric acceleration through impact.
 
The ping pong racket demo (above) was very interesting. It seemed to me that the slightest force of the hand during a tennis stroke would have easily stopped that rotation. But I don't understand very well.

As far as how things feel, you seem to be unusually aware of that, always consider also how the arm, especially the forearm, is being accelerated also. Also, the time it takes nerve impulses to move from the hand to the brain is long compared to significant racket head movement.

As far as the 'wrist laid back' stretching muscles, I don't understand the arguments.

Could you discuss showing frame by frame with the frames of a high speed video with small motion blur. I'm never sure when reading a text description where exactly we are in the stroke?

It is hard to prove arguments that can't be brought down to measurement. Arguments are fun and may help understanding but proving things on the forum is pretty rare. One way to resolve arguments with a measurement is - if they can be clearly seen in a video. What about the racket mechanics?

Also, a way to make a good argument is to show the part of the tennis stroke that is affected by the mechanics of the argument.

I will try to come up with visual examples. It takes time and effort.
 
http://www.tennis.com/gear/2012/09/gear-talk-wilsons-john-lyons-part-4/39435/#.Vz6rFGNYy-8

bssh seems to be drifting to this thread so I'll reply here..... find it interesting that he presents the above article in shrugging off @LeeD suggesting over the impact of air resistance. In article, Wilson rep states that string bed accounts for 55%! of racket air resistance. That is significant. No way you can get the same rhs overcoming that much additional resistance.

You seem to be completely unaware of the magnitude of forces at play here. 55% of a small number is still a small number.

A baseball pitcher in his cocked and loaded state develops about 100 Newton-meters of torque on the arm, which subjects the arm to the same amount of stress as if the pitcher had a 60-pound weight hanging from his hand in that position. For argument sake assume I am generating half that.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/adv...-fastball-tests-the-limits-of-the-human-body/

The racquet in question in that video is a Wilson Juice 100s a modern aerodynamic racquet which has an aerodynamic oval shape with shaped edges that has been aerodynamically optimized for open face swings along the ground like most modern rackets. The drag coefficient of this racquet even when strung would be very low. The racquet has open string pattern strung with 17 gauge smooth poly strings with a swing weight of 320g and a strung weight less than that. Even if this racquet was free falling face down and had achieved terminal velocity the aerodynamic forces acting on it would be less that 320g. We are not dealing with anything close to terminal velocities here.

As I posted before here is the swing path on release of a traditional swing

niQ4iAy.gif


This is what you are comparing my serve to. How much face do you see here and how much edge? What are the time scales?

Just like the traditional serve my serve has polar and and lateral components in addition to transverse. Mine has more of both transverse and polar components than the traditional serve. Nearly twice as much. After the half way point of the release in the traditional servers above, both the traditional serve and my serve look nearly the same. I bring to bear the 50-newton meter torque for twice as long overcoming similar air drag for a third of the time. Given that people seem to generate impressive RHS with traditional serves with swing paths that are same as mine for nearly half of their release arc, it should be clear that aerodynamics of the racquet does not have much of an impact when comparing the relative merits of these two service release motions.
 
Yes thank you. Upon reflection it became clearer to me what you were doing, and I agree, parametric acceleration is definitely in play with your wrist move. This is a very interesting topic to me, as I have wondered if the conventional edge on orientation was really the most efficient. For a while I believe that Sam Groth used a variation of your laid back wrist, but further examination of some slow speed videos convinced me otherwise. I have noticed that some pro servers finish flat serves with the racquet face oriented towards the court rather than sideways, ie pronated, indicating perhaps that they achieved some parametric acceleration through impact.

I see a much larger parametric acceleration effect in a forehand swing loop than in a serve. I hit with an extremely laid back wrist with a much more rapid change in butt cap direction after the two 180 degree flips. The string hiss at forehand release needs to be heard to be believed. It scares some people.
 
People swear by just a couple grams lead and the subtle change to swingweight. Ever try swinging a racket without strings? Even without strings, the difference in spin vs swing weights is still quite noticeable. Like swinging a sledge hammer sideways. One simply wouldn't think of doing it if wanting to peg the amusement park "strong man" bell.

That is a wrong analogy. You are dealing with a 320g racquet with a different weight distribution than a sledgehammer that try to get to contact with a large transverse rotational component which comes into play because your racquet is at a 45 degree angle to your forearm. Forearm extension and ulnar deviation are much smaller determiners of RHS. ISR with your extended arm with the racquet held at 45 to the forearm and the leverage and the angular momentum it generates is the primary determiner of RHS. You would not be able to perform these motions with a sledge hammer.
 

boramiNYC

Hall of Fame
OP, I think your arm is swinging from back to forward a lot faster than those traditional clips you show. You are not giving pronation much chance to do its thing to generate RHS. What do you think?
 

julian

Hall of Fame
I see a much larger parametric acceleration effect in a forehand swing loop than in a serve. I hit with an extremely laid back wrist with a much more rapid change in butt cap direction after the two 180 degree flips. The string hiss at forehand release needs to be heard to be believed. It scares some people.
Once more: you have to distinguish three different notions
1.parametric acceleration for golf
2. parametric acceleration for serve
3. parametric acceleration for forehand
Equations of motion are not exactly the same- the direction of gravity matters
On a top of it item 1 is a problem with a very limited constraints
 

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
That is a wrong analogy. You are dealing with a 320g racquet with a different weight distribution than a sledgehammer that try to get to contact with a large transverse rotational component which comes into play because your racquet is at a 45 degree angle to your forearm. Forearm extension and ulnar deviation are much smaller determiners of RHS. ISR with your extended arm with the racquet held at 45 to the forearm and the leverage and the angular momentum it generates is the primary determiner of RHS. You would not be able to perform these motions with a sledge hammer.
The point you are missing is one would swing in the plane of a disk if interested in conserving energy and maximizing momentum. True if swinging a sledgehammer or a pendulum on an old clock. You can't escape basic physics. Swinging face on inescapably increases air resistance and doesn't take advantage of ideal moi.
 
OP, I think your arm is swinging from back to forward a lot faster than those traditional clips you show. You are not giving pronation much chance to do its thing to generate RHS. What do you think?

The faster you release ISR into contact the more the RHS. I do release it fully at contact from a fully loaded shoulder in the clip posted before.

But you do bring up a good point. The swing path shown in the example above is more direct. This was shot over a year ago. The two adjustments that I have made to make this serve better is to incorporate more sideways approach to the ball and I usually toss a lot more into the court. Both these improve the margins of this serve.
 
The point you are missing is one would swing in the plane of a disk if interested in conserving energy and maximizing momentum. True if swinging a sledgehammer or a pendulum on an old clock. You can't escape basic physics. Swinging face on inescapably increases air resistance and doesn't take advantage of ideal moi.

But that is not what high level traditional servers do. They mostly rotate their shoulder internally with racquet held at 45 degrees to forearm after forearm extension and a minuscule ulnar deviation that you keep bringing up.
 
Last edited:

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
Most players watch pro serve vids and try to imitate. You watch yours and then try to find small glimpses of pros that somewhat replicate small aspects of what you do. It's a novel approach.

Forgive me for being skeptical. Yours is a very unartistic motion, significantly different that what most are trying to model. If attempting to prove the world round, you need to show some consistency -- first and second serves, ideally with real speeds. You say 136! I don't buy it. Serve has nice pop but is dropping into curtain.
 
you've got me with wrong guy... I don't even know what "minuscule ulnar deviation" is lol. Sounds like a small something

Ulnar deviation is the wrist motion that moves the racquet edge on towards the ball. You keep fixating on the MMOI along this axis. So I was just translating your argument to the specific limb motion involved.
 
Most players watch pro serve vids and try to imitate. You watch yours and then try to find small glimpses of pros that somewhat replicate small aspects of what you do. It's a novel approach.

Forgive me for being skeptical. Yours is a very unartistic motion, significantly different that what most are trying to model. If attempting to prove the world round, you need to show some consistency -- first and second serves, ideally with real speeds. You say 136! I don't buy it. Serve has nice pop but is dropping into curtain.

You are welcome to your opinion. If you are ever in Portland and want to hit let me know. Maybe you will change your mind.
 

Chas Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Ulnar deviation is the wrist motion that moves the racquet edge on towards the ball. You keep fixating on the MMOI along this axis. So I was just translating your argument to the specific limb motion involved.
Meant to say racquet held at 45 degrees to forearm. Edited post.

No. The forearm to racket angle changes very rapidly. It tends to have a characteristic angle at impact for the kick serve, 40 d.? and another angle, roughly 25 d.? for both the flat and slice serves at impact. Lots of variety and camera viewing angles are very important in estimating.

But how do you word things to describe a rapidly changing angle? I think that is very tough and would be difficult for readers to comprehend while reading - if it could be done. After reading people would get a little unclear about what they just read. If you look at a video and describe your views by words it is surprising how often you have to correct your views. I've been doing that for the last 5 years now.

I think your said that one of your serve techniques tends to have around a 45 d forearm-to-racket angle for a somewhat extended time. Correct?

There is a lot of interesting stuff in your posts but there is so much information it is very difficult to keep things straight.

How about a list of your current serves to start?
 
Last edited:
Most players watch pro serve vids and try to imitate. You watch yours and then try to find small glimpses of pros that somewhat replicate small aspects of what you do. It's a novel approach.

Forgive me for being skeptical. Yours is a very unartistic motion, significantly different that what most are trying to model. If attempting to prove the world round, you need to show some consistency -- first and second serves, ideally with real speeds. You say 136! I don't buy it. Serve has nice pop but is dropping into curtain.

Here is Dent's 148 mph serve at Wimbledon (still the fastest serve at Wimbledon). Look where it hits the curtain. Yes you can have a nice pop and have the ball hit low into the curtain.

ykyrrOB.gif
 
No. The forearm to racket angle changes very rapidly. It tends to have a characteristic angle at impact for the kick serve, 40 d.? and another angle, roughly 25 d.? for both the flat and slice serves at impact. Lots of variety and camera viewing angles are very important in estimating.

But how do you word things to describe a rapidly changing angle? I think that is very tough and would be difficult for readers to comprehend while reading - if it could be done. After reading people would get a little unclear about what they just read. If you look at a video and describe your views by words it is surprising how often you have to correct your views. I've been doing that for the last 5 years now.

I think your said that one of your serve techniques tends to have around a 45 d forearm-to-racket angle for a somewhat extended time. Correct?

There is a lot of interesting stuff in your posts but there is so much information it is very difficult to keep things straight.

How about a list of your current serves to start?

Yes you can only go by somewhat arbitrary check points for measuring these angles. They are indeed changing rapidly along the various axis. In my case I have consciously tried to figure out what is going on to prune out the inefficiencies and then try to amplify the core contributors.

Solving problems of this sort through modeling would require very powerful computational fluid dynamics tools, wind tunnel testing, high speed photography .... things that are not available to lay people like me. I am making do with what I have.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Apples and Oranges?
Dent is serving on grass, which skids and causes a low bounce.
YOU are serving on indoor courts, composition not determined. You can tell us if you want, or if you know.
 

julian

Hall of Fame
Yes you can only go by somewhat arbitrary check points for measuring these angles. They are indeed changing rapidly along the various axis. In my case I have consciously tried to figure out what is going on to prune out the inefficiencies and then try to amplify the core contributors.

Solving problems of this sort through modeling would require very powerful computational fluid dynamics tools, wind tunnel testing, high speed photography .... things that are not available to lay people like me. I am making do with what I have.
As you know Brian Gotdon/Rick Macci has a "system" for theseuoses
 

Chas Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Yes you can only go by somewhat arbitrary check points for measuring these angles. They are indeed changing rapidly along the various axis. In my case I have consciously tried to figure out what is going on to prune out the inefficiencies and then try to amplify the core contributors.

Solving problems of this sort through modeling would require very powerful computational fluid dynamics tools, wind tunnel testing, high speed photography .... things that are not available to lay people like me. I am making do with what I have.

My approach has been to start at impact and concentrate on the part of the serve and ground strokes leading to that. Goals are to work back to all contributing motions of the serve, one hand backhand and forehand. Try to mostly accept information that can be given credibility by high speed videos and quality research.

Interesting footwork questions come up and I may post a few videos and questions but don't want to speculate much. What the arm and racket do in the follow through? I avoid that time because it's after impact - low priority.

Tennis has some excellent researchers but there is a lot to study for the number of researchers. I guess the research funding is not high? I wonder what a tennis stadium roof costs?
 
Last edited:
Apples and Oranges?
Dent is serving on grass, which skids and causes a low bounce.
YOU are serving on indoor courts, composition not determined. You can tell us if you want, or if you know.

Here is Dent's fastest (147 mph) at the US Open on a gritty newly laid hardcourt

hl30cdl.gif


Still waist high to receiver and lower at the curtain.

Mine where you see it hitting the curtain were at Glendoveer Tennis Center. The courts are bald older style faster cement hard courts. Not been resurfaced for over 12 years. Very low bouncing and skiddy from all the wear.

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/475510

The same flats pop up more and bounce similar to Dent's on the newer gritty courts in the Portand Tennis Center bubble that were laid last year.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Here is Dent's fastest (147 mph) at the US Open on a gritty newly laid hardcourt

hl30cdl.gif


Still waist high to receiver and lower at the curtain.

Mine where you see it hitting the curtain were at Glendoveer Tennis Center. The courts are bald older style faster cement hard courts. Not been resurfaced for over 12 years. Very low bouncing and skiddy from all the wear.

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/475510

The same flats pop up more and bounce similar to Dent's on the newer gritty courts in the Portand Tennis Center bubble that were laid last year.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Are you sure that serve was 147? Looks plenty of time for the receiver, and looks like a slice serve also, looking at the racket swing path after contact.
 
Are you sure that serve was 147? Looks plenty of time for the receiver, and looks like a slice serve also, looking at the racket swing path after contact.

Yes look at the speed board on the top left. It changes from 123 for the previous serve to 147 after it registers the serve. Frame counting gives 145+ as well.
 
Last edited:

julian

Hall of Fame
Yes look at the speed board on the top left. It changes from 123 for the previous serve to 147 after it registers the serve. Frame counting gives 145+ as well.
Switching to a different subject
The major weakness of Sock is
his forehand return of serve
The return of serve resembles the forehand rally stroke
See the last French Open match between Nadal and Sock lost by Sock
 

RetroSpin

Hall of Fame
I see a much larger parametric acceleration effect in a forehand swing loop than in a serve. I hit with an extremely laid back wrist with a much more rapid change in butt cap direction after the two 180 degree flips. The string hiss at forehand release needs to be heard to be believed. It scares some people.

I didn't want to complicate matters by referring to FH parametric acceleration, but I think you are right about that. It turns out that the people who mocked Oscar Wegner for his advice to pull across at impact on the FH were dead wrong. Whether he knew it or not, he was telling people to use parametric acceleration.
 

shindemac

Hall of Fame
I didn't want to complicate matters by referring to FH parametric acceleration, but I think you are right about that. It turns out that the people who mocked Oscar Wegner for his advice to pull across at impact on the FH were dead wrong. Whether he knew it or not, he was telling people to use parametric acceleration.

I don't play rickets, so i cannot say how things are diff'rent and what works or and doesn't work. It is interesting if there are other ways to serve besides the throwing motion.
 
Here are slow motion frames from a badminton smash of more than 260 mph. I had to split it into two parts the racquet drop to shoulder raise part and the shoulder raise to the extension part since animated gifs cannot exceed 12 seconds and part of that budget is used up to start capture and then get the video going.

vr5n4wQ.gif


8hqS10i.gif


Badminton near baseline cross court smashes like these are comparable to tennis serves in terms of what a player is trying to achieve. You can clearly see edge on racquet drop racquet face opened well before big L, distinct wrist laid back to the side waiter tray at big L, open faced ISR heavy rotation to contact. Remember this is a 260 mph impact velocity smash.

Badminton racquets are strung much denser than tennis racquets, head size is comparable but their swing weight is much less when compared to tennis racquets. Their drag coefficients are petty close.

A badminton player is able to generate so much more RHS speed than a tennis player primarily because of the lower swing weight.

Object speed is the biggest determiner of air drag when comparing two objects with similar drag coefficients like a badminton and tennis racquet. A badminton racquet will encounter nearly four times the drag closer to impact when compared to a tennis racquet since the drag force encountered varies as the square of the flow velocity.

52694ea39410aa410b12afef2746d8a4.png


Even with this much higher air drags badminton players are able to hit smashes over 300 mph with a wrist laid back transverse rotation heavy closing approaches to the shuttle ****.

So swing weight is what matters most. My claim is air drag does not have a big impact for transverse rotation heavy approaches to the ball like mine, as can be inferred from a much faster badminton smash.

The badminton player in the animated gif above pulls the butt cap close to impact to inject some parametric acceleration. Not as much as is possible IMO.
 
Last edited:
Monfils hit one serve using bigservesofthands' serve foot work (pivoting around front foot) at 4:51


He hits 90 mph with that casual motion. The next serve with a fuller proper motion is actually slower. But order is restored and he then hits an near 130 mph one after that with the real full motion.
 

julian

Hall of Fame
Here are slow motion frames from a badminton smash of more than 260 mph.

vr5n4wQ.gif


8hqS10i.gif


Edge on racquet drop racquet face opened well before big L, distinct wrist laid back to the side waiter tray at big L, open faced ISR heavy rotation to contact.

Badminton racquets are strung much denser than tennis racquets, head size is comparable. So swing weight is what matters most (badminton racquets have much lesser swing weights), not aerodynamics even at double the speeds we are talking about to tennis serves. He pulls the butt cap to inject some parametric acceleration. Not as much as is possible IMO.[/
Here are slow motion frames from a badminton smash of more than 260 mph.

vr5n4wQ.gif


8hqS10i.gif


Edge on racquet drop racquet face opened well before big L, distinct wrist laid back to the side waiter tray at big L, open faced ISR heavy rotation to contact.

Badminton racquets are strung much denser than tennis racquets, head size is comparable. So swing weight is what matters most (badminton racquets have much lesser swing weights), not aerodynamics even at double the speeds we are talking about to tennis serves. He pulls the butt cap to inject some parametric acceleration. Not as much as is possible IMO.
your posts are extremallt
Here are slow motion frames from a badminton smash of more than 260 mph.

vr5n4wQ.gif


8hqS10i.gif


Edge on racquet drop racquet face opened well before big L, distinct wrist laid back to the side waiter tray at big L, open faced ISR heavy rotation to contact.

Badminton racquets are strung much denser than tennis racquets, head size is comparable. So swing weight is what matters most (badminton racquets have much lesser swing weights), not aerodynamics even at double the speeds we are talking about to tennis serves. He pulls the butt cap to inject some parametric acceleration. Not as much as is possible IMO.
your posts are impossible to read
Try to read your sentence starting with the word "so" to see whether you r own post
 
The one thing that is missing in tennis when compared to other sports that generate high impact speed like badminton, ice hockey and golf, is selectively adding flex to the shafts. Much more than the most flex tennis racquets that are out there.

Badminton, ice-hockey and golf players are not only able to load stretches onto their shoulders and arms during the loading phase but also add stretches to the shafts of their racquets/shafts/clubs during the loading phase of their strokes. They release these stretches in their drive to impact.

It would be interesting to see tennis racquets made that allow for this sort of loading. I am sure suitable materials are available given that badminton racquets, ice-hockey sticks and golf club shafts already are made this way.
 
Oh BTW, all elite badminton players fall back after hitting their smashes. Badminton smashes are some of the fastest forward/upward directional strokes produced by humans. The fact that they are able to put a brake on their forward momentum points to a much more efficient conversion of that momentum through the extremities and into the stroke.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
The one thing that is missing in tennis when compared to other sports that generate high impact speed like badminton, ice hockey and golf, is selectively adding flex to the shafts. Much more than the most flex tennis racquets that are out there.

Badminton, ice-hockey and golf players are not only able to load stretches onto their shoulders and arms during the loading phase but also add stretches to the shafts of their racquets/shafts/clubs during the loading phase of their strokes. They release these stretches in their drive to impact.

It would be interesting to see tennis racquets made that allow for this sort of loading. I am sure suitable materials are available given that badminton racquets, ice-hockey sticks and golf club shafts already are made this way.

Badminton racquets and gold clubs are thin. Ice hockey sticks and gold clubs are long. That allows for the flex to have effect. A tennis racquet designed to flex at the shaft to that degree would result in a very weak frame for most shots.

Table tennis paddles don't flex much at the throat, for example.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Tennis ball comes at different speeds, different locations, different spins, and different heights. All of which can effect how the ball bounces off your racket.
Returning a 100 mph stroke is not the same as you serving the ball.
 
Badminton racquets and gold clubs are thin. Ice hockey sticks and gold clubs are long. That allows for the flex to have effect. A tennis racquet designed to flex at the shaft to that degree would result in a very weak frame for most shots.

Table tennis paddles don't flex much at the throat, for example.

Tennis racquets will always be thicker and wider beamed and have thicker hoop sizes than badminton racquets since tennis balls are heavier than badminton shuttles.

My contention is a tennis frame that is strong enough to withstand tennis shots and still flexible enough to store energy during the loading phase of tennis strokes might be possible.

I am not advocating making tennis beams out of rubber here. More like graphene. Maybe these materials are too costly for normal people to afford yet.

The idea would be to make the racquet an extension of your arm. One way to mimic how the arm stores energy would be to have a very stiff core like our bones surrounded by more flexible outer layer to mimic our muscles which stretch.
 
Last edited:
Tennis ball comes at different speeds, different locations, different spins, and different heights. All of which can effect how the ball bounces off your racket.
Returning a 100 mph stroke is not the same as you serving the ball.

I would think that a flexible racquet would be more comfortable to return with and provide more dwell time.

I agree if the intent is to counter punch using the power your opponent gives you, it might not work well unless you inject your own power.

Since most forehands and backhands are trending towards slappy strokes like Sock's and Kyrgios' this would allow these type of forehands to be hit with even more power and spin, using these more flexy racquets.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
I would think that a flexible racquet would be more comfortable to return with and provide more dwell time.

I agree if the intent is to counter punch using the power your opponent gives you, it might not work well unless you inject your own power.

Since most forehands and backhands are trending towards slappy strokes like Sock's and Kyrgios' this would allow these type of forehands to be hit with even more power and spin, using these more flexy racquets.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Do you really play tennis?
You can just borrow or buy a soft racket, may I suggest the MGRadMid, at 56 flex? Hit with it for a week, then try a Pure Aero. Which is more accurate?
 
Top