tradi’tion n. body of beliefs, facts, etc., handed down to generation to generation without being reduced to writing; the process of handing down.
I have this preoccupation with being "polite"...perhaps a victim of tennis etiquette. I originally posted in the "New Year's Serve" but once again checked myself on the basis of formalities and posted this in "Thoughts...". I don't care to step on bottle's toes...or anyone else's for that matter. I wonder what makes me tick? I know that I am not a nutcase. At least Frankie, my chocolate lab, assures me that I am not.
Such a relevant article with regards to the conversation we have been having about one handed slice backhands and the like, that more or less started with the Bernard Tomic thread. I must say...this conversation is so much more interesting to me than the ad nauseam discussions about topspin forehands and the technique that produces them. Isn't it wonderful to see Ken Rosewall and Roger Federer side by side stroking the tennis ball. To the author’s credit he actually touches on tactics...and the influence of technique on tactics. I don’t know...call me quirky.
“My favorite part of the whole Cruz article is where he describes how he and his buddy were at some courts and followed their ears to the best "clink" they heard, which was provided by Ken Rosewall's contact with a tennis ball. If people just pursued the best clink of which they are capable they might develop well! Let clink determine all, in other words, especially the details.”- bottle.
“In 1988 Jim Courier and I were entering an indoor facility where players were preparing for the Detroit ATP tournament.We could hear the resonant sounds of tennis balls being struck on dozens of courts but, we could not see the courts nor the players yet. A particularly clean sounding stroke attracted my attention and I said to Jim, "There is someone here that hits the ball cleaner then anyone else!"! We went to the court where this special resonance emanated from, and to our surprise...that someone was Ken Rosewall."-the author.
Interesting that you were attracted to this bit about the “clink”...I referred to the “ping of the string” in the 2011 US Open thread...just for funsies. For the life of me though...I cannot remember a 1988 ATP event in Detroit and I don't know of any site there that has "dozens" of courts...I am quite certain that I would remember that. It's before the fuzzies and the cobwebs started to form in my noodle. Perhaps there was a Senior event that may of even taken place at my club in Dearborn...The Fairlane Club. I find it curious if the author has not made a bit of a foggy memory issue here or perhaps he has "misspoken" ala Hilarious Hysterical Clinton. Misspoken was her way of admitting to being caught in a bold face lie. It's a euphemism...or not. Does it have any bearing on the article? Does truth have any bearing on anything anymore? Would it matter if he and Courier traipsing around some fictitious tennis club in the Motor City searching out some fabulous "clink" is only in his imagination to generate a basis for this article? Hmmm?
Anything done in the backswing should only serve to twist the rubber band that is the collaboration of your body, racquet and mind...the genetic makeup of your technique...it should only twist the rubber band so that there is no conscious effort required when you allow the rubber band to unwind “naturally”...of it’s own volition. tennis_chiro is absolutely right...dear old Kenny is not manipulating his forearm in the unwinding process, it is behaving on it’s own based on the physics of his winding up of his backswing.
The author makes some good valid points regards the differences in the Rosewall and Federer backhands but fails to ascertain the fundamental reason behind them. He makes the universal error these days in giving mankind too much credit in the “evolution” department with his “Evolution of the Game” synopsis comments. Mankind does not get much credit in the evolving department in the don_budge book on Anthropology and Mythology these days...it appears man is “devolving” in a rather pronounced spiral...right into the “mulch pile”. Is that too harsh? Not at all...man is too dependent on his devices and his oversized racquets. His yacking about the speed of the game and the court coverage is a lot of smoke...it’s the usual nonsense, it's only engineering and quite possibly drugs. It's only man's propensity to interfere with the nature of things. I think my post in the “Tomic” thread..."The bounce, the equipment and the ability to spin the ball...a sequel to Tilden", could of been substituted for his “Evolution of the Game” section...he may of summed things up nicely and very neatly with my help.
Perhaps it is boring for the reader to be constantly reminded that this is not evolution...it is engineering by definition. At no point does the author make any reference to the change in equipment unless his reference to “weapons of mass destruction” is an oblique reminder. The author is another victim of the “shock and awe” modern philosophy of man...it only serves to deceive which only serves for bigger lies to follow. It’s so insidious...that the sum of it all, is a disinformation society that practices indiscriminate warfare around the world. It‘s the Afghanistan thing. It’s all related...the cosmos ties it all together in it's own internet, before there was the internet, the "Jungian Collective Unconscious" the cosmos' own thread was/is entitled...”The Truth”. Rest assured it still exists even if it is buried in a huge pile disinformation...and sound bites and gigahertz.
Ahem...the frame that is missing in the Rosewall sequence is the frame between 5 and 6. Here we are left with only an approximation of where he is meeting the ball with his racquet. Where is the Yandellian VideoScope when you need it? The point here is that this point...”it” in the jargon of the don_budge world of tennis, that one moment in time and space where everything is perfect...may fluctuate to reflect the type of shot and the amount of spin that the old maestro Rosewall is producing.
Your observation and subsequent remark about his backhand “always looking the same but never described the same” is a beauty...and in your "bottle-esque" speak and manner, you have arrived at an important “truth”. It has all of the appearances of being the same, but it is the subtlety with which dear old Kenny will manipulate the swing to make the ball behave in subtle yet dramatic different fashions. It’s rather amazing how much he could do with underspin...by applying the same fundamentals to his variety of swings. We have lost so much in terms of subtlety. I certainly can understand how "shock and awe" and the playing with "weapons of mass destruction" are more appealing to the masses...based on our fascination with computer games, and virtual reality and virtual morality and the like.
I think that on the surface this is a pretty good article but if you dig a bit...there are some rather interesting discrepancies...which after all may only be summed up under the rather broad category of...”The Truth in Tennis”...and this article is a reflection in the world of Cruz.
The strength of it are in the pictures...and the comparison between good old Kenny Rosewall and the living proof...Roger Federer.

Leave a comment: