The fast low bouncing version of the Bigservesofthands first serve

J011yroger said:
20180513_090033.jpg


J
Click to expand...
bigservesofthands said:
This is a classic cricket fast bowler follow through. I was experimenting with using it at the time of those serves. Allows for large amount of RHS to be generated through leg trunk rotation and somersaulting while allowing all that torque to be safely released without injury.

Here is the follow through of one of the fastest bowlers in cricket Brett Lee.

giphy.gif


For a trained practitioner there is no recovery penalty. In cricket the bowler has to react to an incoming ball much quicker than in tennis. The batsmen can hit the ball straight back at you from a much shorter distance. I have taken many return catches off of my own bowling in cricket.
Click to expand...

I responded to this a long time ago (during the previous go around). See quoted response in the main thread.

See the freeze frame of the follow through of a fast bowler in cricket and compare it to what you snap-shotted. Hope you can grok the recovery and reflexes involved. I have taken dozens of catches like this during my playing career in my youth.

giphy.gif


Anyways I don't use this follow through anymore other than as a resting mechanism. I have discovered much more efficient methods. Much better than the current tuck arm in front of the body method in vogue in modern tennis. Lots of minds will be blown once it is revealed ;-). A lot of why did nobody think of this before type of responses too, I am guessing :-).
 
Chas Tennis said:
I think that serve is probably a slice serve. See also the black marker on the ball and estimate the spin axis direction.

I can't tell if the ball is in contact with the strings from that camera view. The ball has a velocity component toward the camera (poorly shown) and a component to the right (well shown). For example, similar uncertainty, if a pencil is pointed directly toward you can you see how long the pencil is?
Click to expand...

Not sure how deeply you have studied the ball bed interaction (and using what tools and what effects).

Here is what I see without any processing.

Frame with first contact with a slight deviation of of fifth main close to top of W

ZnvIUfN.png


Second frame: You can see very clear deviation of sixth main and the beginning of a significant pocket formation.

ZTWoasj.png


Third frame: You can see the pocket sliding downwards and to the left as the racket moves upwards and to the right and more main strings are involved.

Jv4T6R4.png


Fourth frame: The pocket is releasing and ball is sliding downwards and towards the left and contact now starts at the seventh main and lesser degree of contact going up to the tenth main

ExeM0b7.png


Dividing post into two for readability and to avoid posting limits.
 
Fifth frame in contact: Ball flattened and sliding past the tenth main

b8EZ7gg.png


Sixth frame in contact: Still sliding. Can see deviations in main strings near bottom right of ball and the start of a secondary pocket of much smaller magnitude

3fHW9r7.png


Seventh frame in contact: pocket moved a downwards and weakened

oGwhyWp.png



Eighth frame: Ball ejected from string bed. No deviations in any main strings. Ball has accelerated a considerable distance in a single frame.

LtfHX1j.png
 
mcs1970 said:
Stefan Edberg's main weapon was the kick serve. He used 85 in racquets for the most part, if I'm not wrong. If you're saying that amateurs are better off serving kick serves with bigger head racquets, that's one thing. However, to categorically state that you cannot hit effective modern kick serves with old style racquets with small heads doesn't seem correct.
Click to expand...

It was a different era. Quantum of effects (RHS, RPM, ball speed, amount of kick, types of ball ...) were very much weaker. He did well for his time and the technology that was available then. It is a much different game now. And now PoMo and PoPoMo take it to another level in terms of effects that are observed which is what I experience and I am sure other players will experience in the coming decade.
 
Once again, you need a different angle to accurately assess the contact. I believe that by the 5th frame the ball has likely already left the string bed and after that you are analyzing just the after-effects of the contact. But from this angle it is pointless.
 
bigservesofthands said:
It was a different era. Quantum of effects (RHS, RPM, ball speed, amount of kick, types of ball ...) were very much weaker. He did well for his time and the technology that was available then. It is a much different game now. And now PoMo and PoPoMo take it to another level in terms of effects that are observed which is what I experience and I am sure other players will experience in the coming decade.
Click to expand...

Please post a higher kick than Edberg.

Thanks.

J
 
bigservesofthands said:
It was a different era. Quantum of effects (RHS, RPM, ball speed, amount of kick, types of ball ...) were very much weaker. He did well for his time and the technology that was available then. It is a much different game now. And now PoMo and PoPoMo take it to another level in terms of effects that are observed which is what I experience and I am sure other players will experience in the coming decade.
Click to expand...
Can you hit a kick serve using the Pomo technique?
It seems to be good for flat and maybe flat/slice, slight top/slic.
 
bigservesofthands said:
Fifth frame in contact: Ball flattened and sliding past the tenth main

b8EZ7gg.png


Sixth frame in contact: Still sliding. Can see deviations in main strings near bottom right of ball and the start of a secondary pocket of much smaller magnitude

3fHW9r7.png


Seventh frame in contact: pocket moved a downwards and weakened

oGwhyWp.png



Eighth frame: Ball ejected from string bed. No deviations in any main strings. Ball has accelerated a considerable distance in a single frame.

LtfHX1j.png
Click to expand...


Dude, the ball is not in contact in any of these frames.
 
rogerroger917 said:
I never even understood pomo
Click to expand...

So basically, POMO (Post Modern) is a kill shot that can be hit off traditional and modern rally balls hit by older women and/or Roger Federer (because Fed only has Modern strokes). It involves increasing racket head speed to hit winners. If hit correctly, your opponent will simply give up and walk off the court as their rally ball is no longer feasible to hit. In a sense, they are then forced to either go post modern themselves or simply lose, as hitting anything but a winner will result in a PoMo kill shot aka a winner.

Here is an example of a PoMo Shot (starts at 2:34 and ends at 2:53)*:


Now PoPoMo (Post-Post Modern) is the counter to PoMo. PoPoMo is based on offensive dinks and drop shots which have little to no bounce or simples dies when touched by the opponents racket. When a PoMo kill shot is hit, you hit a PoPoMo offensive dink and simply end the point there. If the ball doesn't bounce your opponents can't return it and if they take it out of the air, the ball just dies and drops. This is why PoPoMo is so next level. If you can master this shot, you will never lose a match.

Here is an example of the PoPoMo shot*:

*Please note since we are still in the modern era of tennis, there is no live footage of PoMo and PoPoMo strokes outside of BSSH's few videos. So I could only find footage from the Japanese anime, Prince of Tennis.
 
Haha.... lmao. I think popomo is brilliant if it is how you describe it. Maybe the scientific muscle discussed by him allow the dead ball shot.

Maybe he will clarify. But he posted it is still a secret.
Doc Hollidae said:
So basically, POMO (Post Modern) is a kill shot that can be hit off traditional and modern rally balls hit by older women and/or Roger Federer (because Fed only has Modern strokes). It involves increasing racket head speed to hit winners. If hit correctly, your opponent will simply give up and walk off the court as their rally ball is no longer feasible to hit. In a sense, they are then forced to either go post modern themselves or simply lose, as hitting anything but a winner will result in a PoMo kill shot aka a winner.

Here is an example of a PoMo Shot (starts at 2:34 and ends at 2:53)*:


Now PoPoMo (Post-Post Modern) is the counter to PoMo. PoPoMo is based on offensive dinks and drop shots which have little to no bounce or simples dies when touched by the opponents racket. When a PoMo kill shot is hit, you hit a PoPoMo offensive dink and simply end the point there. If the ball doesn't bounce your opponents can't return it and if they take it out of the air, the ball just dies and drops. This is why PoPoMo is so next level. If you can master this shot, you will never lose a match.

Here is an example of the PoPoMo shot*:

*Please note since we are still in the modern era of tennis, there is no live footage of PoMo and PoPoMo strokes outside of BSSH's few videos. So I could only find footage from the Japanese anime, Prince of Tennis.
Click to expand...
 
Wander said:
BSSH talks a lot of unsubstantiated crap like balls pocketing multiple times during high top spin strokes and this hokum about the ball sliding and rolling on the stringbed for 10-15cm. Of course this is not actually true.

The problem is that oftentimes his weird theories are mixed with real scientific stuff, and he seems very serious about studying tennis strokes. But his perception of what's going on at contact point is suspect at best.
Click to expand...

Wander said:
Once again, you need a different angle to accurately assess the contact. I believe that by the 5th frame the ball has likely already left the string bed and after that you are analyzing just the after-effects of the contact. But from this angle it is pointless.
Click to expand...

Tennisanity said:
Dude, the ball is not in contact in any of these frames.
Click to expand...

You need to work on your video interpretation skills and @Wander stop casting aspertions. Looks like anything but the most obvious angle won't suffice for you.

Ok here goes. I present Golubev's fairly flat serve. So nowhere close to the oblique approach of Raonic's strike.

giphy.gif


Notice where the initial contact is, where it embeds, how far it rolls and from where the ball is ejected from the string bed? These are single frame forwards at the same steady rate.

Kick and twist serves, higher RHS, lower tensions, open stringing patterns .... exaggerate this effect even more.

If you have any critical thinking skills extrapolate what you see above to the Raonic serve, especially pay attention to the final ejection of the ball.
 
bigservesofthands said:
You need to work on your video interpretation skills and @Wander stop casting aspertions. Looks like anything but the most obvious angle won't suffice for you.

Ok here goes. I present Golubev's fairly flat serve. So nowhere close to the oblique approach of Raonic's strike.

giphy.gif


Notice where the initial contact is, where it embeds, how far it rolls and from where the ball is ejected from the string bed? These are single frame forwards at the same steady rate.

Kick and twist serves, higher RHS, lower tensions, open stringing patterns .... exaggerate this effect even more.

If you have any critical thinking skills extrapolate what you see above to the Raonic serve, especially pay attention to the final ejection of the ball.
Click to expand...

1) I am certain in the frame when the ball first shows distortion that first contact occurred before or while that frame was exposed.

2) I can't interpret the later frames to know when separation first occurred.

3) I believe as a first estimate that contact lasts for about 3-5 milliseconds. What was the frame rate? Best to always actually see evidence that takes no interpretation.

4) At 240 fps there are 4.2 milliseconds between frames. (exposure time 1/10 millisecond). I don't recall ever seeing the ball on the strings for two frames for serves but can't say that with high confidence. Because I have not seen the ball on the strings in two frames 4.2 milliseconds apart, the 5 milliseconds estimate is probably longer than the contact time.

5) The ball is distorting and oscillates to squish a second time out in front of the racket well separated. It proves that seeing a flattened side on the ball toward the racket does not indicate that the strings are in contact.

6) The motion blur on the front and back edges of the ball can be compared to the motion blur on the top and bottom (sharp) edges of the ball. Motion blur is caused by a combination of forward velocity and the velocity of the ball oscillations. First estimate max motion blur roughly 1 cm.

Do you have the link to the video?

What criteria did you use to indicate separation?

What frame shows that contact is no longer present?

Is there a way to extract the images from a GIF?
 
Last edited:
bigservesofthands said:
You need to work on your video interpretation skills and @Wander stop casting aspertions. Looks like anything but the most obvious angle won't suffice for you.

Ok here goes. I present Golubev's fairly flat serve. So nowhere close to the oblique approach of Raonic's strike.

giphy.gif


Notice where the initial contact is, where it embeds, how far it rolls and from where the ball is ejected from the string bed? These are single frame forwards at the same steady rate.

Kick and twist serves, higher RHS, lower tensions, open stringing patterns .... exaggerate this effect even more.

If you have any critical thinking skills extrapolate what you see above to the Raonic serve, especially pay attention to the final ejection of the ball.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of parallax?
 
Doc Hollidae said:
Post modern is old news. Post Post Modern is the latest and greatest.
Click to expand...
Yes I know. So much so it has developed the ability to break a human wrist. But since PoMo was the forerunner to PoPoMo, without it we might have been spared this entire debacle.

bigservesofthands said:
Looks like anything but the most obvious angle won't suffice for you.
Click to expand...
Not that an Argumentum ad populum is necessarily a valid path to the truth; but I am curious as to how many people on here (including experts on video analysis) would it take before you were prepared to concede that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accurately determine any of your claims from the provided animation? There are already several individuals. Or is there even anything at all that would convince you that you were mistaken in your interpretation? Because it seems to me you are only providing lip service to the scientific method you seem to value so highly. For instance, when @Chas Tennis provides a different analysis, you dismiss him outright with a patronising response. As if anyone who disagrees with your current position is just plain wrong, irrespective of their argument or evidence.

Or perhaps, more to the point, is there even a single person viewing this thread who is in agreement with BSSH regarding his pocketing, sliding, string movement, ball ejection analysis from posts 202 and 203?
 
Last edited:
Digital Atheist said:
Yes I know. So much so it has developed the ability to break a human wrist. But since PoMo was the forerunner to PoPoMo, without it we might have been spared this entire debacle.


Not that an Argumentum ad populum is necessarily a valid path to the truth; but I am curious as to how many people on here (including experts on video analysis) would it take before you were prepared to concede that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accurately determine any of your claims from the provided animation? There are already several individuals. Or is there even anything at all that would convince you that you were mistaken in your interpretation? Because it seems to me you are only providing lip service to the scientific method you seem to value so highly. For instance, when @Chas Tennis provides a different analysis, you dismiss him outright with a patronising response. As if anyone who disagrees with your current position is just plain wrong, irrespective of their argument or evidence.

Or perhaps, more to the point, is there even a single person viewing this thread who is in agreement with BSSH regarding his pocketing, sliding, string movement, ball ejection analysis from posts 202 and 203?
Click to expand...
Just a matter of time before Tennis is ruined by popomo

https://www.reference.com/science/m...-1bcef73aaa0018cb?qo=contentSimilarQuestions#
 
Chas Tennis said:
1) I am certain in the frame when the ball first shows distortion that first contact occurred before or while that frame was exposed.

2) I can't interpret the later frames to know when separation first occurred.

3) I believe as a first estimate that contact lasts for about 3-5 milliseconds. What was the frame rate? Best to always actually see evidence that takes no interpretation.

4) At 240 fps there are 4.2 milliseconds between frames. (exposure time 1/10 millisecond). I don't recall ever seeing the ball on the strings for two frames for serves but can't say that with high confidence. Because I have not seen the ball on the strings in two frames 4.2 milliseconds apart, the 5 milliseconds estimate is probably longer than the contact time.

5) The ball is distorting and oscillates to squish a second time out in front of the racket well separated.

6) The motion blur on the front and back edges of the ball can be compared to the motion blur on the top and bottom (sharp) edges of the ball. Motion blur is caused by a combination of forward velocity and the velocity of the ball oscillations. First estimate max motion blur roughly 1 cm.

Do you have the link to the video?

What criteria did you use to indicate separation?

What frame shows that contact is no longer present?

Is there a way to extract the images from a GIF?
Click to expand...

This is what I see

Frame 1: Right before contact

Ybfd8qx.jpg


Frame 2: First frame that shows contact

NSxW0j1.jpg


Frame 3: Ball gets embedded deeper in string bed

KF6lQkc.jpg


Frame 4: Even deeper. The whole string bed is concave at this point

AhesgaQ.jpg


Breaking post up to avoid message post size limits.
 
Frame 5: Ball rolling while un-squishing on string bed. The string bed itself is releasing from its maximal concave distortion

bzgNDoq.jpg


Frame 6: Ball still un-squishing and rolling. Its bottom is still squished and still resting on string bed which is now close to flat from its original concave shape. The bottom of the ball conforms the flat string bed it is in contact with. It has rolled a considerable distance from where it initially made contact with the string bed.

YIBgPJG.jpg


Frame 7: The string bed is assuming a convex shape and pushing the ball out. The ball is past un-squished and has now assumed an elongated shape. A small amount of the base of the ball is still in contact with the string bed. This is the last of the ball's contact with the bed. Notice how far it has rolled.

coWjwgY.jpg


Frame 8: Ball is fully ejected and is accelerating away. Notice the daylight between the ball and the string bed.

pjzW7JQ.jpg


One can see that most of the ball is below the rim of the racquet in the frames where the ball is in contact. Take a ball and put on the bed and view it from this angle. Also take into account a bulging string bed pushing the ball out. There is no way that the ball is not in contact while it is rolling.
 
Digital Atheist said:
Yes I know. So much so it has developed the ability to break a human wrist. But since PoMo was the forerunner to PoPoMo, without it we might have been spared this entire debacle.


Not that an Argumentum ad populum is necessarily a valid path to the truth; but I am curious as to how many people on here (including experts on video analysis) would it take before you were prepared to concede that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accurately determine any of your claims from the provided animation? There are already several individuals. Or is there even anything at all that would convince you that you were mistaken in your interpretation? Because it seems to me you are only providing lip service to the scientific method you seem to value so highly. For instance, when @Chas Tennis provides a different analysis, you dismiss him outright with a patronising response. As if anyone who disagrees with your current position is just plain wrong, irrespective of their argument or evidence.

Or perhaps, more to the point, is there even a single person viewing this thread who is in agreement with BSSH regarding his pocketing, sliding, string movement, ball ejection analysis from posts 202 and 203?
Click to expand...

I was "patronizing" @Wander and @Tennisanity for their condescension and one line responses that did not provide any reasoning or analysis. I have a lot of respect for @Chas . He puts in the effort to check my work and provide valuable feedback.

I am not sure what you are adding to the discussion.
 
bigservesofthands said:
Parallax actually makes the ball ejection appear nearer at this angle than what it actually is when viewed head on. So if you are arguing that the ball did not roll much then bringing parallax into the discussion weakens your argument.
Click to expand...

The point is, where you claim the ball is in contact with the string bed, it is not. If you looked at it from a different angle you would see that.
 
bigservesofthands said:
Frame 5: Ball rolling while un-squishing on string bed. The string bed itself is releasing from its maximal concave distortion

bzgNDoq.jpg


Frame 6: Ball still un-squishing and rolling. Its bottom is still squished and still resting on string bed which is now close to flat from its original concave shape. The bottom of the ball conforms the flat string bed it is in contact with. It has rolled a considerable distance from where it initially made contact with the string bed.

YIBgPJG.jpg


Frame 7: The string bed is assuming a convex shape and pushing the ball out. The ball is past un-squished and has now assumed an elongated shape. A small amount of the base of the ball is still in contact with the string bed. This is the last of the ball's contact with the bed. Notice how far it has rolled.

coWjwgY.jpg


Frame 8: Ball is fully ejected and is accelerating away. Notice the daylight between the ball and the string bed.

pjzW7JQ.jpg


One can see that most of the ball is below the rim of the racquet in the frames where the ball is in contact. Take a ball and put on the bed and view it from this angle. Also take into account a bulging string bed pushing the ball out. There is no way that the ball is not in contact while it is rolling.
Click to expand...

I can't tell if #5, 6 or 7 are in contact or not.

The camera shows the height and where the ball image is side-to-side in the frame. The camera does not show the dimension toward or away from the camera very well. Throw in some motion blur and it is difficult to interpret.
 
Chas Tennis said:
I can't tell if #5, 6 or 7 are in contact or not.

The camera shows the height and where the ball image is side-to-side in the frame. The camera does not show the dimension toward or away from the camera very well. Throw in some motion blur and it is difficult to interpret.
Click to expand...

You initially said "5) The ball is distorting and oscillates to squish a second time out in front of the racket well separated." and now that you say "I can't tell if #5, 6 or 7 are in contact or not." I presume your initial statement is not your current opinion and you can't tell if the distortions and oscillations are occurring in contact with the the string bed or not.

The angle at which the contact was shot I think is a good compromise that shows what is happening on the string bed while allowing for a reasonable interpretation of bad bed separation. If the angle was changed to be fully side on then the rim would obscure the string bed for part of the contact and we would have no way of seeing the motion of ball on the string bed.

What the latest technology allows now is higher resolutions (4k) and lesser motion blur. It would cost around 3K dollars to answer the question definitively by renting a phantom flex 4K camera and its operator (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...-Flex-4K-Kit-Cineflex-Elite-w-RED-Epic-Dragon) or wait for this technology to show up in a consumer grade camera or a phone in a few years. I have waited 2 years. I am convinced based on what I saw in the clips that are available now. It might take 2 more to convince you.
 
bigservesofthands said:
You initially said "5) The ball is distorting and oscillates to squish a second time out in front of the racket well separated." and now that you say "I can't tell if #5, 6 or 7 are in contact or not." I presume your initial statement is not your current opinion and you can't tell if the distortions and oscillations are occurring in contact with the the string bed or not.
................................................................
Click to expand...

Your posts (#227 & 228) with blown up numbered frames were posted after my post (#219). My comments were in a list of miscellaneous things that I was observing that might be useful for figuring out what was happening. I was referring to the GIF in your post #217 (quoted)-

"5) The ball is distorting and oscillates to squish a second time out in front of the racket well separated."

The last frame of the GIF shows an egg shaped ball (points up & down) well separated from the racket edges. It proves that seeing a flattened side on the ball toward the racket does not indicate that the strings are in contact.

Let's delete above......

The forward acceleration of the center of mass of the ball stops after string contact forces drop below the opposing aerodynamic forces on the ball. Maybe that could be used to track the ball back into the surface and learn something. ?

1) With the ball distortions the location of the center of mass of the ball may be hard to estimate.
2) There are also motion blur effects that mean that parts of the ball actually moved during the time that the light was collected. Compare the top & bottom edges of the ball with little motion blur effects to the front and back edges with a cm or so of motion blur.
3) Another problem is that you need a fixed reference in the frame to measure positions from, the tree leaves and branches are probably not good because the lighting does not show them distinctly.
4) A forth problem to check are the limitations of the camera. ? With a Global shutter that the Phantom uses those false artifacts could be very small. Was this a Phantom video? With a rolling shutter used in most lower priced cameras the effects can be very large ('Jello Effect').

What was the frame rate and contact time?
 
Last edited:
Doc Hollidae said:
So basically, POMO (Post Modern) is a kill shot that can be hit off traditional and modern rally balls hit by older women and/or Roger Federer (because Fed only has Modern strokes). It involves increasing racket head speed to hit winners. If hit correctly, your opponent will simply give up and walk off the court as their rally ball is no longer feasible to hit. In a sense, they are then forced to either go post modern themselves or simply lose, as hitting anything but a winner will result in a PoMo kill shot aka a winner.

Here is an example of a PoMo Shot (starts at 2:34 and ends at 2:53)*:


Now PoPoMo (Post-Post Modern) is the counter to PoMo. PoPoMo is based on offensive dinks and drop shots which have little to no bounce or simples dies when touched by the opponents racket. When a PoMo kill shot is hit, you hit a PoPoMo offensive dink and simply end the point there. If the ball doesn't bounce your opponents can't return it and if they take it out of the air, the ball just dies and drops. This is why PoPoMo is so next level. If you can master this shot, you will never lose a match.

Here is an example of the PoPoMo shot*:

*Please note since we are still in the modern era of tennis, there is no live footage of PoMo and PoPoMo strokes outside of BSSH's few videos. So I could only find footage from the Japanese anime, Prince of Tennis.
Click to expand...

You didn't search hard enough. Here is some live footage.
Boomerang Snake

Higuma Otoshi

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Low bouncing serve
Replies
18
Views
3K
HuusHould
H
T
Shoulder over shoulder in serving kind of like bowling in cricket?
Replies
16
Views
2K
nyta2
N
atp2015
Serve innovation
Replies
23
Views
2K
Fintft
Fintft
H
  • Poll Poll
The service motion is most similar too...
Replies
13
Views
2K
r2473
r2473
H
How fast is the serve if the ball...
Replies
27
Views
2K
shindemac
S
Back
Top