In what timeframe the current serve forms/techniques will be challenged by alternatives?

  • Never

    Votes: 9 69.2%
  • 20 years

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 10 years

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • 5 years

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • 1 year

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • Total voters
    13

oserver

Professional
#1
Why forehand evolved to a totally different stroke both form wise and techniques wise in recent decades, but the serve is still kept mostly traditional?

I don't pretend to have the answers. I once asked an elite player during a presentation; then we had a conversation afterward. We kind of admitted the answers are still in the floating air. Anyone like to give some insight on this?
 
Last edited:
#5
The forehand did not evolve. It devolved. Why else do you think all the old-timers that know how to hit through the ball instead of flapping their wrists are dominating the ATP tour?
I think he means the serve from Sampras to fed hasn't evolved as much as the forehand. I think it's because of the improvements in tech, the bigger racquets and poly strings allow for bigger swings off of moving balls on the groundstrokes, while the serve is off of a controlled and basically stationary ball, so the smaller 80" heads could hit the same serve just fine, except maybe a little less spin. Just speculation.
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
#7
I think he means the serve from Sampras to fed hasn't evolved as much as the forehand. I think it's because of the improvements in tech, the bigger racquets and poly strings allow for bigger swings off of moving balls on the groundstrokes, while the serve is off of a controlled and basically stationary ball, so the smaller 80" heads could hit the same serve just fine, except maybe a little less spin. Just speculation.
One could probably make the argument that Pete's 85" ProStaff with nat gut (with him at the wheel) was the best serving machine ever invented :)

It might be faulty logic to think that the technology which makes groundstrokes better (poly strings and bigger rackets) also makes serves better.

After all, has the spin on any modern player's serve been measured any higher than that of Sampras' 2nd serve (5,000 rpm)? Or his combination of 120mph+ 1st serve with 2700 rpm spin?

Add this to the fact that Pete could basically paint the lines with both his 1st and 2nd serves, which could possibly be a result of the control from his smaller frame...

https://www.tennisplayer.net/public/tour_strokes/sampras_serve_racquetpath_samplearticle.html
 

FiReFTW

Hall of Fame
#8
The forehand did not evolve. It devolved. Why else do you think all the old-timers that know how to hit through the ball instead of flapping their wrists are dominating the ATP tour?
Theres one problem with ur theory tho, the "old-timers" that dominate the ATP tour don't hit traditional classic strokes but modern "flapping their wrists" forehands.



 
#9
when the racket head goes from 65 to 100 sq in, it's now much safer to hit across the ball to produce spin.

but the serve matters not as much, you have total control of the toss.. you should be able to hit thru it flat or brush across for spin without shanking.
 

oserver

Professional
#12
The forehand did not evolve. It devolved. Why else do you think all the old-timers that know how to hit through the ball instead of flapping their wrists are dominating the ATP tour?
"The forehand did not evolve. It devolved. " Forehand did more than evolve into the modern one. It was revolutionary. Both stance and grip opened, the way to use the wrist, elbow and arm all changed. Modern players hit some closed stance forehand sometime, but majority of forehand shots have been in open style with 3Os. To say it devolved to traditional style is too much a stretch.
 
#13
"The forehand did not evolve. It devolved. " Forehand did more than evolve into the modern one. It was revolutionary. Both stance and grip opened, the way to use the wrist, elbow and arm all changed. Modern players hit some closed stance forehand sometime, but majority of forehand shots have been in open style with 3Os. To say it devolved to traditional style is too much a stretch.
That is not what I meant. I mean that the more traditional hit-through-the-ball forehands of Lendl, Agassi, Courier, Sampras, Kafelnikov, Hewitt, and Safin (developed with more flexible thin-beamed frames) are technically superior compared to the lag-and-snap uppercut forehands that most of the current 20-something players use today (developed with stiffer frames and poly string).
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
#14
What are the possible ways for the serve to evolve to become more effective with today's equipment?

Open stance and forehand grip are not the answer - there is no evidence that they will work.

So if there is no way to evolve, how can it evolve?

The only doubt in my mind is the use of the wide-out short angled serve. Given that the returner must allow for the ball to bounce (note that the rules do NOT require standing behind the service line), it seems to me that it is theoretically possible to hit an angled serve every time which the returner, even in theory, cannot get to. Why not do it over and over again and make it the only first serve technique? I don't buy the "returner will get used to it" argument. You cannot get used to something which is physically impossible to do.
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
#15
That is not what I meant. I mean that the more traditional hit-through-the-ball forehands of Lendl, Agassi, Courier, Sampras, Kafelnikov, Hewitt, and Safin (developed with more flexible thin-beamed frames) are technically superior compared to the lag-and-snap uppercut forehands that most of the current 20-something players use today (developed with stiffer frames and poly string).
*** technically superior if using flexible thin-beamed frames and non-poly strings ***
 

oserver

Professional
#16
I think he means the serve from Sampras to fed hasn't evolved as much as the forehand. I think it's because of the improvements in tech, the bigger racquets and poly strings allow for bigger swings off of moving balls on the groundstrokes, while the serve is off of a controlled and basically stationary ball, so the smaller 80" heads could hit the same serve just fine, except maybe a little less spin. Just speculation.
"I think he means the serve from Sampras to fed hasn't evolved as much as the forehand." Totally agree with you. Forehand went through evolution form Bjorn Borg to Sampras but it went through revolution from Sampras to Federer. Forehand from Bjorn Borg to Sampras did not evolve as much as from Sampras to Federer. The easiest thing to see is the backswing looping used by both Borg and Sampras. Federer just used a pat a dog motion to reduce the start point of the acceleration to a zero speed. Federer's stance and grip were more open. He did much more cross body swing instead more forward, more linear hitting through the ball. He kept his wrist at or close to extension state but Borg and Sampras did more flexing of the wrist.



Enlarging the racket size with new material and new strings did not affect serve as much as the forehand. Beside serve's stationary nature and free toss/plenty time to setup, I think the pronation did a wonder for the serve to stay largely unchanged.

Pronation is a rotational way to keep it linear. What does this mean? For both forehand and serve, the overall strokes have a cross body motion. Since serve stances are closed stances, it made the linear hitting motion more dominant. Pronation kept the serve motion more linear to match the stance. It was a linear enhancer. So the pronation made a short reverse rotation from the larger cross body rotation. The system worked so well till today.

Now, things are changing. I spotted two elite players who switched their serve stance from closed stance to open stance. This is significant for three reasons: A. abandoning years of training in closed stance training is not an easy decision to make. B. The time frame of their switches looked pretty short. C. This big change did not impact their performance. Through their grip and serve techniques are still conventional, they are going to face this conflict - going forward with more open (grip, wrist and passive arm like that of forehand), or going back the their old way, keeping everything more closed. Staying where they are will be a mixed bag of linear/non-linear co-existence.

Also, as some people noticed, a few elite players are not following the pronation teaching anymore. Some WTA players don't do pronation as much now. This can lead to open grips (eastern forehand, semi-western).

Now the question is: will pronation change the serve once again? This time may be the large pronation (of the forehand) to reverse the small pronation (of the serve), in serves, yes, in serves.

I made a thread on this topic at -

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-slow-active-vs-passive.623146/#post-12567857
 

oserver

Professional
#17
What are the possible ways for the serve to evolve to become more effective with today's equipment?

Open stance and forehand grip are not the answer - there is no evidence that they will work.

So if there is no way to evolve, how can it evolve?

The only doubt in my mind is the use of the wide-out short angled serve. Given that the returner must allow for the ball to bounce (note that the rules do NOT require standing behind the service line), it seems to me that it is theoretically possible to hit an angled serve every time which the returner, even in theory, cannot get to. Why not do it over and over again and make it the only first serve technique? I don't buy the "returner will get used to it" argument. You cannot get used to something which is physically impossible to do.
"So if there is no way to evolve, how can it evolve?", good question! Let's think hard:D!

"Open stance and forehand grip are not the answer - there is no evidence that they will work." Haha, it worked for me, at 4.0 level. Who says it cannot go up to 4.5 or go down to 3.5?:p
 
Last edited:

sredna42

Professional
#18

Why forehand evolved to the modern style by serve remain to be tradistional
The forces of gravity apply themselves not only to all facets of the ball, hence its spherical nature, but also to its flight through the air after contact.
The Earth has a radius of approximately 3965 miles. ... Thus if a peak rises up 1844 feet at a distance of 10.0 miles or 52,800 feet, it will form an angle of 2 degrees with a theoretical flat horizon. The tan is 1844/52800=0.0349 or 2 degrees. The modern evolution of the forehand stroke has adapted unconsciously to conform with these forces, rather than resist them, the visual cue of this adaptation is clear to be seen in the ubiquitous closing of the racquet face exhibited by most, if not all, succesful modern players. The exceptions to this rule, in statistical terms, would be described as "outliers".


"Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own" Bruce Lee
 

oserver

Professional
#19
The forces of gravity apply themselves not only to all facets of the ball, hence its spherical nature, but also to its flight through the air after contact.
The Earth has a radius of approximately 3965 miles. ... Thus if a peak rises up 1844 feet at a distance of 10.0 miles or 52,800 feet, it will form an angle of 2 degrees with a theoretical flat horizon. The tan is 1844/52800=0.0349 or 2 degrees. The modern evolution of the forehand stroke has adapted unconsciously to conform with these forces, rather than resist them, the visual cue of this adaptation is clear to be seen in the ubiquitous closing of the racquet face exhibited by most, if not all, succesful modern players. The exceptions to this rule, in statistical terms, would be described as "outliers".


"Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own" Bruce Lee
So do you see the adaptation for serves too. Many people think serves are special. Whatever works for modern forehand cannot be adapted to serve.
 
Last edited:
#25
The forces of gravity apply themselves not only to all facets of the ball, hence its spherical nature, but also to its flight through the air after contact.
The Earth has a radius of approximately 3965 miles. ... Thus if a peak rises up 1844 feet at a distance of 10.0 miles or 52,800 feet, it will form an angle of 2 degrees with a theoretical flat horizon. The tan is 1844/52800=0.0349 or 2 degrees. The modern evolution of the forehand stroke has adapted unconsciously to conform with these forces, rather than resist them, the visual cue of this adaptation is clear to be seen in the ubiquitous closing of the racquet face exhibited by most, if not all, succesful modern players. The exceptions to this rule, in statistical terms, would be described as "outliers".


"Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own" Bruce Lee
You're assuming the earth is round and that gravity is not an acceleration upwards at 9.8m/s^2
 

sredna42

Professional
#26
You're assuming the earth is round and that gravity is not an acceleration upwards at 9.8m/s^2


It is no coincidence that the earth is circular, a tennis ball is circular, and oserver's discovery of the 360 serve is circular. They are all manifestations of the circular flow of energy, which is common to all levels of life, from the subatomic, the the cosmic. Most accepted tennis technique is flawed, as it interrupts the flow of energy. I am not surprised that the ignorant members of TTW are flat earth believing peasants who are too obtuse to see the greater picture that oserver has begun to unravel.

My masterdebator skills are wasted on you fools, I'm doing a 360 and walking away from this thread
 

oserver

Professional
#28
So many posters are 360 serve funs and and won't tolerate anything other than 3C serves.

If someone can do 360 serves with a closed stance, that will be real fun to watch. Anyone? I like to make some laughters too:D.
 
#29


It is no coincidence that the earth is circular, a tennis ball is circular, and oserver's discovery of the 360 serve is circular. They are all manifestations of the circular flow of energy, which is common to all levels of life, from the subatomic, the the cosmic. Most accepted tennis technique is flawed, as it interrupts the flow of energy. I am not surprised that the ignorant members of TTW are flat earth believing peasants who are too obtuse to see the greater picture that oserver has begun to unravel.

My masterdebator skills are wasted on you fools, I'm doing a 360 and walking away from this thread
Circular or spherical? Looks like you're still wasting away in 2 dimensions while I'm woke enough to see in 5 so nice try. Next thing that you're going to tell me is that I need to step through and punch my volleys like a T-rex.
 
#30
So many posters are 360 serve funs and and won't tolerate anything other than 3C serves.

If someone can do 360 serves with a closed stance, that will be real fun to watch. Anyone? I like to make some laughters too:D.
It's not that I don't tolerate it, I just don't want some new tennis player to log on here looking for some sage advice and be convinced that their technically flawed serve can be justified because someone else claims that an open stance semi-western grip serve is superior.

Whether or not you have felt a difference or have posted a video of you hitting open stance serves, the premise of your argument is either flawed or non-existent, and you also have a lack of empirical evidence. I'm all for discussion and dialogue but we have to observe where your argument is coming from in the first place before we can even consider your conclusion.
 

oserver

Professional
#31
I'm all for discussion and dialogue but we have to observe where your argument is coming from in the first place before we can even consider your conclusion.
Where my stuff comes from? I had a thread "Forehand Tennis Serve" and a paper in that name. The idea and practices were based on Federer's forehand, hence the name. I did not invented the passive arm forehand, nor hitting forehand with the wrist at extension state. Federer and others were the inventor(s). All I said is this - Federer's forehand forms and techniques can and should be applied to serve. I tried to do exactly the same, to my best ability as a 4.0 player.

People are picking my flaws in my serve without a context. Everyone has flaws, including Federer, otherwise he won't hire a coach, or practice everyday. In serve, his biggest flaw may be in his mind - whatever worked in my forehand cannot be used for serve:D?!
 
#32
Where my stuff comes from? I had a thread "Forehand Tennis Serve" and a paper in that name. The idea and practices were based on Federer's forehand, hence the name. I did not invented the passive arm forehand, nor hitting forehand with the wrist at extension state. Federer and others were the inventor(s). All I said is this - Federer's forehand forms and techniques can and should be applied to serve. I tried to do exactly the same, to my best ability as a 4.0 player.

People are picking my flaws in my serve without a context. Everyone has flaws, including Federer, otherwise he won't hire a coach, or practice everyday. In serve, his biggest flaw may be in his mind - whatever worked in my forehand cannot be used for serve:D?!
So your premise is that because something worked on your forehand so then it should also work on your serve?
 

oserver

Professional
#33
So your premise is that because something worked on your forehand so then it should also work on your serve?
Exactly! Translation -

Because something worked on Federer's forehand so then it should also work on Federer's serve?

Add one more thing - the overhead vs. non-overhead does not alter the cause and effect. God gave us very flexible wrist/elbow/shoulder joints so the overhead vs. non-overhead difference does not matter.
 
#34
Exactly! Translation -

Because something worked on Federer's forehand so then it should also work on Federer's serve?

Add one more thing - the overhead vs. non-overhead does not alter the cause and effect. God gave us very flexible wrist/elbow/shoulder joints so the overhead vs. non-overhead difference does not matter.
Because they're different. Sure you could argue analogous but nowhere near parallel. Would you throw a ball open stance or hammer a nail in open stance?
 

oserver

Professional
#35
Because they're different. Sure you could argue analogous but nowhere near parallel. Would you throw a ball open stance or hammer a nail in open stance?
I posted this on other thread already. Throwing a ball is totally different than hitting a tennis ball. In tennis, you have a racket in between. You cannot control when to release the ball, but you can when you throwing a ball - your fingers are physically in contact with the ball. So we don't have a parallel comparison here.
 
#36
I posted this on other thread already. Throwing a ball is totally different than hitting a tennis ball. In tennis, you have a racket in between. You cannot control when to release the ball, but you can when you throwing a ball - your fingers are physically in contact with the ball. So we don't have a parallel comparison here.
Then what is the parallel with the serve and the forehand if one operates on a horizontal axis and one operates on a vertical axis? Does the mechanics of a motion matter less than whether or not you're holding a racquet?
 
#38
I don't buy the "returner will get used to it" argument. You cannot get used to something which is physically impossible to do.
The returner can just change where they're standing on the court though. If you only hit it out wide, they can just stand out there and crush the ball back. You can stand wherever you want on the return. You can stand inside the baseline or outside. You can stand inside the singles court, in the alley, or outside the alley. The more the returner starts moving out wide, the better the serve has to be. That's why you don't see guys hitting that serve all the time; returners just start standing out there.
 

oserver

Professional
#39
Then what is the parallel with the serve and the forehand if one operates on a horizontal axis and one operates on a vertical axis? Does the mechanics of a motion matter less than whether or not you're holding a racquet?
Extending your arm out, either sitting or standing, do an extreme pronation then an extreme supination. The difference is more than 270 degree for me; maybe more for young guys like you.

Now, do you think the 270 degree cannot override the 90 degree difference between a vertical and horizontal arm?
 
#40
I posted this on other thread already. Throwing a ball is totally different than hitting a tennis ball. In tennis, you have a racket in between. You cannot control when to release the ball, but you can when you throwing a ball - your fingers are physically in contact with the ball. So we don't have a parallel comparison here.
I agree - I get miffed at these pros who preach that a serve is just like throwing a football. It's not. The hand position is roughly the same, etc. but the act is totally different, especially cognitively. With a football, your focus is out there, on the target. With a serve, your focus is on the ball and the impact zone, and you're hitting the ball with an object, not throwing it at a target. If you focus on the target, you'll be in Double Fault City. It's totally different, and pros love to charge beginners $75 an hour to tell them this "football" stuff.
 
Last edited:

oserver

Professional
#41
I agree - I get miffed at these pros who preach that a serve is just like throwing a football. It's not. The hand position is roughly the same, etc. but the act is totally different, especially cognitively. With a football, your focus is out there, on the target. With a serve, your focus is on the ball and the impact zone, and you're hitting the ball with an object, not throwing it at a target. It's totally different, and pros love to charge people $75 an hour to tell them this stuff.
Yes, I laugh (silently, however) whenever I hear some pros saying that. Because we are holding a racket, not the ball itself, tennis (or golf) is more like an art than other sports like baseball, football and basketball, etc. This is why a passive arm and keeping the wrist at extension state are so important for forehand, and for serve too, in my humble opinion.
 

BlueB

Hall of Fame
#42
Extending your arm out, either sitting or standing, do an extreme pronation then an extreme supination. The difference is more than 270 degree for me; maybe more for young guys like you.

Now, do you think the 270 degree cannot override the 90 degree difference between a vertical and horizontal arm?
I knew it, I knew it! 360 degrees pronation video coming up! Oserver with Lego wrists!

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
 

sredna42

Professional
#43
Circular or spherical? Looks like you're still wasting away in 2 dimensions while I'm woke enough to see in 5 so nice try. Next thing that you're going to tell me is that I need to step through and punch my volleys like a T-rex.
You vapid imbeciles understand nothing. I shall soon unveil to the world my dimensionless quantum mechanical tennis technique. I am a PhD in Homeopathic Mathematics at Leadway University, and far more educated than you buffoons.
How are some useful ways to imagine a particle without dimensions - like an electron - to spin?
How are some useful ways to imagine a particle with spin 1/2 to make a 360° turn without returning to it's original position (the wave function transforms as: Ψ→−Ψ" role="presentation">Ψ→−Ψ).
When spin is not a classical property of elementary particles, is it a purely relativistic property, a purely quantum-mechanical property or a mixture of both?

Unlimited power!
Soon I will be coaching Arantxa Rus and will transform her game, and turn her into a multi-slam GOAT champion of the WTA, once she lifts the restraining order on me.
 
#44
You vapid imbeciles understand nothing. I shall soon unveil to the world my dimensionless quantum mechanical tennis technique. I am a PhD in Homeopathic Mathematics at Leadway University, and far more educated than you buffoons.
How are some useful ways to imagine a particle without dimensions - like an electron - to spin?
How are some useful ways to imagine a particle with spin 1/2 to make a 360° turn without returning to it's original position (the wave function transforms as: Ψ→−Ψ" role="presentation">Ψ→−Ψ).
When spin is not a classical property of elementary particles, is it a purely relativistic property, a purely quantum-mechanical property or a mixture of both?

Unlimited power!
Soon I will be coaching Arantxa Rus and will transform her game, and turn her into a multi-slam GOAT champion of the WTA, once she lifts the restraining order on me.
Fool. Don't you know that elementary particles are composed of natural gut strings? Well I just derived polyester string theory which doubles quantum spin. I will defeat you all!!!
 
#45
Fool. Don't you know that elementary particles are composed of natural gut strings? Well I just derived polyester string theory which doubles quantum spin. I will defeat you all!!!
Does your theory account for a parrallel universe where a forehand serve is viable?

And does it support Hook's law where waiter tray serves are always out??

And what happens when everything loses tension an hour from now?
 
#46
Theres one problem with ur theory tho, the "old-timers" that dominate the ATP tour don't hit traditional classic strokes but modern "flapping their wrists" forehands.
Exactly! great answer and this is why having useful definitions is important. Clearly the best players have nearly always had modern Fhs, even though I don't agree with the "flapping the wrists" part. The modern Fh of one of the earliest instructors to teach the modern Fh was based on Santana back in the day, over 50 years ago.

My guess is the OP is confusing the issue of ATP Fh with it's swivel/flip, with the basic modern Fh category. The ATP Fh ( which is also a subset of the Modern Fh) was forced to evolve due to the big serves and also monster Fhs that had to be taken on the rise, thus forced better timing of the ATP Fh. Serves have evolved quite a bit Imo, but it is more subtle and all within the control of the server. Back in the day, Sampras 121 mph first serve was considered quite impressive, but that speed doesn't even merit mention these days now that more servers use the Power Slice serve.
 

oserver

Professional
#47
That is not what I meant. I mean that the more traditional hit-through-the-ball forehands of Lendl, Agassi, Courier, Sampras, Kafelnikov, Hewitt, and Safin (developed with more flexible thin-beamed frames) are technically superior compared to the lag-and-snap uppercut forehands that most of the current 20-something players use today (developed with stiffer frames and poly string).
Older timers like Lendl, Agassi, Courier, Sampras used 'hitting through the ball' techniques in a more linear fashion than current generation of players, including 20-something players. Inevitably, one has to do some wrist flexing with that linear momentum generation. Current generation of players generally don't do that anymore. The cross body swinging make it possible to keep the wrist at full extension state around the contact point. If young players try to go back to more linear, less angular fashion, they are not taking the benefits of the modern forehand represented by Federer's forehand. I also think they are not inventing some new wheel. There is a thread about the forehand devolved by those younger players. It looked to me this whole idea has been on the shaking ground.
 

Dragy

Professional
#48
@oserver (I don't know why I do this, lol), go simpler. Look into ways to kill high balls - on the fly or bouncers. They have both options - swinging volley, which might be chest-height or shoulder-height or over the shoulder, which gets darn close to your forehand serve idea. However, they prefer overhead smash most of the time. Why? Because it allows a better package of pace and contact height, shot angle, and can be performed extremely consistently, if the incoming ball gives room for setup. Moreover, overhead smash can be performed very fast, with shorter preparation than a FH swing. Actually, if the goal was hitting fastest ball possible of a standard bouncer (with no goal to land it in the opposite court), sidearm "smash" would possibly be best option. If we look at things this way, the only reason we hit groundies the way we do is control required to land the ball in (well, and inconsistent, varying, uncomfortable incoming balls, which, contrary to serve toss or slow floaters, do not allow us to perfectly setup and unleash into shot).

So, for the serve where setup is perfectly controlled, there is a best form, like there's a best form to run fast. Moreover, all sports' forms for performing tasks, simple, complex and compound, get challenged daily. There're tennis players, including talented juniors, who hit unconventional strokes, including serves. There're coaches that let them do whatever feels natural. There're even more rec players who developed and polished all possible variations of strokes. It's just that if you see a player with conventional service motion he will be so much more likely to hit decent serves than one with WT - even on mediocre amateur levels. And at higher levels WT servers just have harder and harder times surviving. If we look at pro level, inferior serve techniques most likely mark weak serves, especially considering second serves.
 
#49
@oserver (I don't know why I do this, lol), go simpler. Look into ways to kill high balls - on the fly or bouncers. They have both options - swinging volley, which might be chest-height or shoulder-height or over the shoulder, which gets darn close to your forehand serve idea. However, they prefer overhead smash most of the time. Why? Because it allows a better package of pace and contact height, shot angle, and can be performed extremely consistently, if the incoming ball gives room for setup. Moreover, overhead smash can be performed very fast, with shorter preparation than a FH swing. Actually, if the goal was hitting fastest ball possible of a standard bouncer (with no goal to land it in the opposite court), sidearm "smash" would possibly be best option. If we look at things this way, the only reason we hit groundies the way we do is control required to land the ball in (well, and inconsistent, varying, uncomfortable incoming balls, which, contrary to serve toss or slow floaters, do not allow us to perfectly setup and unleash into shot).

So, for the serve where setup is perfectly controlled, there is a best form, like there's a best form to run fast. Moreover, all sports' forms for performing tasks, simple, complex and compound, get challenged daily. There're tennis players, including talented juniors, who hit unconventional strokes, including serves. There're coaches that let them do whatever feels natural. There're even more rec players who developed and polished all possible variations of strokes. It's just that if you see a player with conventional service motion he will be so much more likely to hit decent serves than one with WT - even on mediocre amateur levels. And at higher levels WT servers just have harder and harder times surviving. If we look at pro level, inferior serve techniques most likely mark weak serves, especially considering second serves.
yes but oserver has 270 degree pronation/supination
wrist rotation
and by observation
has observed the forehand and serve to be in combination
strokes that require acceleration
and thus has had a revelation
through countless hours of dedication
comparing different iterations
using linkedin as a form of dictation
to relay to us this information
with little to no scientific citation
that the opens serve should be used across the nation
 

morten

Hall of Fame
#50
I can't belive no one has mentioned the obvious, todays higher bounce.. the courts are slower but bounce higher, even without topspin from poly. You cannot hit the same way then. I think the forehands from the past were actually better than todays, certainly looked better IMO
 
Top