Interactive Stroke Analysis Roscoe Tanner's Serve

[stotty]

I know a coach who teaches all his students to hit the ball at the apex because he does. He teaches it with skill and many of his students master the low toss well. It cuts out a lot of the common errors by "sheer speed of execution" i.e. dropped elbow, kinks...problems like this are less likely to happen because there simply isn't time for them!

I would say around 75% of his students execute an excellent serve like this. Maybe the reason more pros don't serve like this is because coaches don't teach the hit-at-the-apex serve....mainly because they don't know how to teach it. This could be a key issue in the matter!

I am not saying a low toss is necessarily better than a higher one but there is one thing I have notice about the students of the afore mentioned coach who all hit at the apex. They serve plenty of aces. The low ball toss makes it harder for the returner to pick where it's going.

[gzhpcu]

Here I am calling an old thread back to life....

I came across this Vic Braden - Roscoe Tanner video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42STJ...eature=related

Vic is saying you get more power if you are not in the air on impact with the serve.

John? Brian?

[arnz]

Who is this guy? I cant find any clips on him on the internet, anybody have videos of him playing an actual match? I like this serve motion a lot for some reason. I think it would be fun to try it out, anyone have any advice to me before I try to emulate it? Quick delivery, great pace, I like it.

Most search results on him I got relate to his criminal history...lol

[crvw]

Hmmm...Tanner looks a lot like Tilden

I am coming very late to this discussion (dissection/controversy/therapy), but just a couple observations:

1. I notice that Bill Tilden's ball toss is also "low" and that he hits the ball right at the apex, just like Tanner. (Pardon me if this was mentioned earlier and I missed it.)

2. I personally have used the Sampras model and the Tanner model at different times over my 20+ year tennis career. I have had zero injuries resulting from either technique. The Sampras model seems more consistent, offers better disquise, and seems to generate more kick on my second serve. The Tanner model absolutely generates more pace-- about 10mph for me. (I have verified this empirically with a radar gun many times.) The pace can also be translated into spin, but I perceive the margin of error for a clean hit is narrower than in the Sampras model. (But when I saw Tanner in person, my impression was that he did indeed create a huge amount of spin on his second serve.) The Tanner model is also more tiring over a long match.

3. I agree with what others have posted-- Tanner was the most impressive server I have seen, including the modern bombers.

Just my 2 cents.

Charles
Atlanta, GA

[lukman41985]

Saw Blake play on TV and he stands pretty open too, though that's not so much the case in his stroke archive clips.

[johnyandell]

Yes Nadal has a narrow platform, but I'm not sure he has as much push as Roddick. I got the term "Spanish Way" from a talk Luis Mediero did at the USPTA a couple of years ago. He is the head of the Spanish equivalent of USPTA.

The Spanish players don't all serve alike but most of them start open with the front foot at about a 45 degree angle to the baseline. (Look at Moya for example.)

[stroke]

Thanks for your thoughtful response John to questions brought up here in this thread on the Tanner serve. I have not seen Donald Young's serve, but I would be quite interested since you think he does incoporate a quick motion/lower toss with more body action. You mentioned the Spanish teachings on the serve, which you said that Nadal employs. This is the first time I have heard this referance, the Spanish role model for the serve. I think I have an idea as to what you are refering to with the open stance, but doesn't Nadal use a somewhat of a feet close together platform, in a closed stance, during his serve? He kind of does what you mentioned in you piece on the Roddick serve, as to what we could possibly employ, or experiment with, from the Roddick serve model, which is bring one's feet closer together in the starting stance, in order to try to push off both feet as one goes after the toss. I beleive you also mentioned in this piece that your colleague, Scott Murphy, had had some success with this experiment.

[johnyandell]

Gman et al,

OK let's get a couple of things clear. First I am no throwing anything in the garbage.

The only reason we are even having this dialogue is because I took the trouble to put Roscoe's serve up and create a new section of the site for this to happen. And I think Roscoe's worth discussing because his serve has grown to legendary status.

And I think this discussion has been overall quite productive and that we also need to keep it civil--are you listening CL? If I seemed too dismisssive, then I apologize, but I've looked at these same issues many times over the years. I thought let's take another look and honestly try to see if it's all the same as it appeared, and I think that's the case.

There is no doubt that Roscoe had tremendous racket head speed and you can see that in his motion. There are plenty of people that think the low toss is it for racket head speed, but I'm not one of them. Everyone is free to their own opinion in this great country of ours, but please respect mine as I respect your right to disagree.


I think it is better to get ball speed and racket head speed from the whole body, to use the entire kinetic system. It's clear Roscoe does not use his legs or his torso the way other players do. He relies on that really quick motion and the low toss.

To me this makes him a poor model and very difficult to emulate. Whether I can hit that serve or not ( I can ) or teach that serve ( I could ) is irrelevant. I can hit my grounstrokes with super extreme grips as well. It's just a judgment every player and teacher has to make for themselves.

Please note: This does not mean that I think everyone should have a sky high toss either. You want the toss just high enough to get done what you are trying to do and feel good and smooth and confident doing it. The high toss has no inherent value--it just sets the interval or rhythm.

So I actually agree that 6 inches to 2 feet above contact is about the range. Might be more like 2 and 1/2 feet at the top. Pete is about 2 feet we found, a bit higher than Roger who is probably a little higher than McEnroe.

To me those guys are examples of gorgeous smooth motions that use the legs and the torso. Again it's my preference and I think easier on the arm and more consistent, although for most players these elements shouldn't be as extreme.

The other issue to clear up here is the spin. I have no doubt--as I think I already said--that Tanner could spin the hell out of the ball. ANY 130 MPH serve is going to bounce up pretty darn high. BUT what I do know from our filming and research is that the amount of topspin is directly proportional to the ball position. You can't hit topspin if the racket isn't rising. If the racket tip is straight up and down, it's not rising. If your toss is quite far to the side, the racket tip will point more upward and this is the way Roscoe does it. Doesn't mean he couldn't hit a vicious slice. It's just a different type of ball.

And yes a significant additional increment of topspin is an accidental benefit of the high toss as Howard (and Phil!) point out.

Which brings us to Nadal. I appreciate the plaudits regarding my videography--I wish I had high speed video of all players in all situations and we could just pull them up and compare. It's more than possible that Nadal's toss was lower at Wimbledon, and that could be the reason for his better serving. Again if that is really the case for him, great. And with his motion, that's about the only way he could increase his velocity.

He's an example of the Spanish serve model in which the players are trained to stand open with the feet and the shoulders. This means less body turn and less knee bend, although I think Nadal actually does amazingly well on these elements considering how he starts. Note also that his contact point is also in fairly close to his body--more so than Tanner, so he probably does have more topspin.

So yes--if you lower the toss you will have more racket head speed. If you can keep everything else the same and have a little quicker motion great! But don't do it and sacrifice the other elements.
It's hard and probably impossible to have it all in one motion! Have you guys seen Donald Young's serve??
Super low toss, but tries to have the huge turn and deep knee bend at the same time. I'll put some video of it up in a couple of months as well.

[gzhpcu]

I came across this article by Howard Brody, on the benefits a high toss, and hitting the ball as it falls:

Medicine and Science: Serve

Many players hit their serve when the ball they toss up reaches its peak. If instead, the player were to toss the ball up about 8 inches (20 cm) above the eventual impact point and hit the ball as it was falling, topspin would automatically be added to the ball, with no additional effort by the server. It would not be a lot of topspin (about 10 revolutions/second), but enough to open up the window and allow more serves to go in.
If you are already hitting the ball at a height of 9 feet or more and not hitting it very hard (about 120 mph or 193 km/h), this extra spin will open the window by about 29% since the window is already large. If you try to hit the serve very hard (150 mph and you succeed) you will have a small acceptance window, but the 10 rps of topspin will help you to get an extra 41% of your serves in.

Any thoughts John?

[GMann]

Following up on both John Yandell's and Stroke's most recent posts, I think Stroke and I have raised an important and very timely point regarding Nadal's improved serve at Wimbledon this year. The videotapes that I have examined clearly show a lower toss that improved his serve as it sped up his racket speed as well as increased his accuracy. I think the lower toss actually makes the timing easier because you don't have to wait forever which makes the swing much harder to time. Since John is probably the top tennis videographer in the world, I challenge him to examine the change in height of Nadal's toss at Wimbledon this year vs. last year or even 6 months ago. So far John's silence on this point is deafening.

Also, what the lower toss did to Nadal's serve in such a short period of time is something we can all learn from so long as long as it's done correctly. I don't advocate a toss as low as Tanner's necessarily, but some of the most amazing servers of all time (Tanner, Curren, Roddick, Ivo) used a toss that was much lower than your beloved Pete Sampras's.

Again, my point is that we shouldn't give up at least trying to understand how to hit a great serve using the lower toss (perhaps six inches to two feet above the apex) vs. the higher toss. I believe it can pay huge dividends if we can figure out how it's done. I understand that John believes that this is hard to do and I respect that he is acknowledging that difficulty, the only thing I object to is an attitude that dismisses the idea as only possible for the gifted and something that should be thrown in the trash heap. In other words, if you can't hit the lower tossed serve and can't teach it then I agree that you shouldn't hit it and and shoudn't teach it; however, don't give up on the quest to figure it out and throw the idea in the trash can.

[stroke]

I feel like GMann had some very good points regarding the Tanner serve. His point about racquet head speed, and the resulting spin and speed, was spot on in my opinion. I also feel that Roscoe's serve, in his prime, with today's equipment, would be one of the very best serves in tennis, a true weapon. I have to agree to disagree with John concerning the topspin component of Roscoe's serve. I have a tape of Roscoe's 1977 win in the Australian Open, vs Vilas, and his 2nd serve, clearly to me, was jumping off the court, because of the topspin action on the ball. Lefty, it is clear to me, after reading the many posts of you and GMann, who can contribute thoughtful posts to this board, and who can't. GMann knows his stuff in my opinion. GMann is also correct about Nadal. Rafael has lowered his toss somewhat and his serve has become more of a weapon. Wimbledon made that clear, his serving stats were better than they have ever been.

[gzhpcu]

Tanner's serve does not suck. He served up to 149 mph with a wooden racket. What I agree with, is that his fast windup is difficult for most players, and his minimal toss probably also had him serving at times not at his full height. You get better timing with a higher toss and a more relaxed windup initially.

[johnyandell]

By the way I think Crazy Lefty is being a bit TOO harsh--but then look at his name...

Obviulsy Roscoe had a great serve for his day--the question in question is whether it has any application for most players.

[Ziplewges]

Sick.

[johnyandell]

Gmann,

That's an impassioned post, and it's fine that we disagree. I read thru what you wrote and I think we will have to do just that, agree to disagree.

There's no doubt Roscoe had the racket head speed. My comment on spin was, I believe, that he couldn't produce the topspin element like Pete or even Roger due to the ball position of his toss. I would agree he could spin the hell out of the ball, it would just be predominantly sidespin.

Yes he starts square, but almost every good server either starts turned away or turns away past 90 degrees. It's the same with the legs--the whole thing happens so fast there is no time for a deep knee bend.

For what it's worth my friend Paul Lubbers who directs the high performance coaching program at the USTA thinks that Goran's quick motion with less body and legs probably caused or contributed to the destruction of his shoulder.

I tend to agree that the more components of the kinetic chain a server uses, the better. Roddick's toss is somewhat lower than Pete's but it's nothing like Roscoe's. He has a deep knee bend as well and more turn than Roscoe--and yes he is fastest in and out as Rick points out. Rick is a good example of very succesful coach with an incredible track record who believes in the low toss more than I.

Over the years I've seen successful players at all levels with the low toss, quick motion. I'm not saying don't use it or that it can't work. Vic has been a tireless advocate for this version, on the cover of the tennis magazines etc.

My opinion though is that percentage wise very few players have the twitchy speed to do this--even at the world class level. And I don't think the reasoning is circular. Top players are ruthless--as soon as one develops something that seems to give an edge many more will instantly copy it. if they can make it work. In this sense, Roscoe and Pete are actually similar. Not too many people could make that huge body turn work like Pete, and it's the same for the low toss.

Having had dozens of players with low toses come across my court--including some top 100 players--and having seen that more turn, more knee bend, further left ball position is something that usually works much much better, I'll stay with my view.

If it's working for you or another player I would never don't do it--but I also wouldn't say that I think it's the best option.