header
  • You have been logged out of the forums. Please logout of our main site then login again on our home page. You will be automatically logged into the forums again.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Underhand Serve

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • johnyandell
    started a topic The Underhand Serve

    The Underhand Serve

    Let's discuss Rocky Lang's article, "The Underhand Serve"

  • nytennisaddict
    replied
    Originally posted by johnyandell View Post
    DB, NY,
    It's fine to deviate in the thread and fine to come back to original topic. NY is a great new subscriber and contributor and I encourage that--for the long run.. Let's keep it all good.
    i'm cool calling a truce.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnyandell
    replied
    DB, NY,
    It's fine to deviate in the thread and fine to come back to original topic. NY is a great new subscriber and contributor and I encourage that--for the long run.. Let's keep it all good.

    Leave a comment:


  • nytennisaddict
    replied
    Originally posted by don_budge View Post


    Both you and Error apparently think that being insulting or condescending is appropriate behaviour on this forum. I don't think it is going to work in the long run. As far as being on topic here you are going to be a bit disappointed that discussions often deviate from the original premise. This is where it gets interesting. I am going to have a limited attention span for your underhand serve trevails. The owner of this website participated in the deviation that I speak of and it was the most interesting comment in the thread and it had absolutely nothing to do with underhand serves. Why don't you try being a wise guy with him...newyorktennisaddict?
    sure thing, don.

    Leave a comment:


  • don_budge
    replied
    Originally posted by nytennisaddict View Post
    for don_budge in case you couldn't navigate the [back] button.

    Both you and Error apparently think that being insulting or condescending is appropriate behaviour on this forum. I don't think it is going to work in the long run. As far as being on topic here you are going to be a bit disappointed that discussions often deviate from the original premise. This is where it gets interesting. I am going to have a limited attention span for your underhand serve trevails. The owner of this website participated in the deviation that I speak of and it was the most interesting comment in the thread and it had absolutely nothing to do with underhand serves. Why don't you try being a wise guy with him...newyorktennisaddict?

    Leave a comment:


  • nytennisaddict
    replied
    Originally posted by johnyandell View Post
    Let's discuss Rocky Lang's article, "The Underhand Serve"
    for don_budge in case you couldn't navigate the [back] button.

    Leave a comment:


  • nytennisaddict
    replied
    Originally posted by don_budge View Post

    Get back on topic? Do you have parameters for the rest of us participants?
    umm yeah, in the title... "underhand serve"... not racquet sizes or lengths, or wood vs. composite or whatever... underhand serve.

    Leave a comment:


  • nytennisaddict
    replied
    Originally posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Like everything else, the underhand serve needs to be practiced. If only sporadically used, the result will be dicey.
    true true.

    Leave a comment:


  • don_budge
    replied
    Originally posted by nytennisaddict View Post
    attempting to get back on topic...
    Get back on topic? Do you have parameters for the rest of us participants?

    Leave a comment:


  • gzhpcu
    replied
    Like everything else, the underhand serve needs to be practiced. If only sporadically used, the result will be dicey.

    Leave a comment:


  • nytennisaddict
    replied
    attempting to get back on topic... herbert recently just tried a underhand serve against coric (missed it)... in a long 12min game... (i think because coric was standing a bit further back to return)
    in general, i find that switching rhythm between an overhand serve to an underhand serve is challenging...
    in practice, i can hit several good underhand serves in a row, but i have to miss a few (or hit some sitters), before i find my range/rhythm.

    Leave a comment:


  • don_budge
    replied
    Originally posted by johnyandell View Post
    So the Tennis Channel did a study of Roger's backhand using shot spot data before and after the change to the larger racket. With the new racket he was making contact 2 feet closer to the net and also picked up something like 5-7 mph.
    The difference in the area of the racquet is about 9% and it seems to me that if he is meeting the ball that much earlier on the backhand side that is very significant seeing that is the "weaker" side. I got the distinct impression that he tweaked his grip to the stronger side as well. This would make sense as well...I have no doubts. It doesn't have to be a big change to make it that much more effective but if he is meeting the ball that much earlier he must be taking it on the rise much of the time. Very impressive stat.

    Most interesting is that I imagine that his whole game has been lifted by a similar margin. He is really pressing in on the baseline and playing inside of it much of the time. When you think about how he is actually dominating the game and 95 percent of the field now the racquet has had quite an impact on his career. If only he had made the switch when I first wrote about it. It was obvious to me that he was outgunned by his rivals and the switch was imperative.

    Whether it be tennis or golf the fundamental principle of the shots produced is the utilising the face of the racquet passing through the path of the ball. Seeing as only 7 square inches has had this much impact on his backhand it makes me wonder how he might have played with a wooden racquet. I see him with the Dunlop Maxply...all decked out in white.

    Leave a comment:


  • Error
    replied
    Originally posted by don_budge View Post
    [B]

    So if you connect the dots. If you can perhaps put yourself in Lendl's shoes...or McEnroe's...or Connors'...or Borg's...you just might be able to see how a discussion of underhand serves might lead to a discussion of other "underhanded" technique or strategy. If you really stretch your imagination you might just be able to understand how Michael Chang and Andre Agassi might be viewed as individuals who resort to taking undue advantage of their opponents. Borg quit rather than play with the oversized racquet. McEnroe was one of the last professionals to switch over in 1984. Connors oscillated back and forth...this guy was one of the toughest hombres in tennis history in spite of a rather "Momma's Boy" background. Ivan Lendl was just a super stud on the tour and he didn't switch until he was rather advanced in age in terms of his career...towards the end.

    The introduction and use of oversized racquets was certainly an underhanded ruling by the powers that be in the tennis world at the time. This was a time when respect for the game was at a rather high level but at the same time money was creating what it always creates. You've heard no doubt of the conflict of the soul "longing for love or the struggle for the legal tender" haven't you? Up until 1968 the Grand Slams were contested only by amateurs. They played for the love of the game. When those players that were brought up in those traditions carried over this idea of tennis etiquette for years afterwards the game went for the money. But in the end the game was sold out. This is what you have today. This isn't really tennis and it doesn't even really resemble the tennis the way it was meant to be played.

    Tennis metaphor's life in so many ways.
    I think you're the only person on the planet who thinks in this way. You keep talking about a bigger racket being some type of unfair advantage, a net gain, and refuse to understand that there are drawbacks as well, I've said it three times now, if larger rackets were a net gain with no drawbacks every pro would have switched to a 107" Prince. Larger heads and longer rackets lack control and maneuverability. If we accept your perspective than the bigger the head the more of an unfair advantage you have. So why don't we see 120" or 130" or 200" rackets on the pro tour?

    Leave a comment:


  • stroke
    replied
    Originally posted by stotty View Post

    That's really interesting. At tour level, that's a huge step up in performance.
    That is very interesting and I am not surprised at all, particularly the taking it 2 feet earlier. To me, no one has ever been able to take heavy balls on early with the one hander like Fed. Stan, Kohl, Gasquet, Stefanos, Thiem, all have great one handers(and to me a stronger backhand grip structure that Roger) but I think Roger's is the best simply because he can take it early(except on clay). Back to the racquet head size talk, I think the 100 or so head size(97-102) is pretty much ideal, that is why most of the pros use it. I remember watching a senior match one time with Andre vs Philippoussis and Andre broke his racquet and had to use one of Mark's racquets. It seemed to make no difference in his game. Another thing that was interesting about Mark's racquet vs Andre's. Mark played with a 93 I think with a much higher swingweight than Andre's Prince, and also a heavier total weight, and Andre just picked it up and did not miss a beat so to speak. Also, at one point in his career, I remember Andre playing with a 102 Head Instinct racquet, again no change to his game. I think he just preferred the 107 Prince. I also think players that have reached the very top of the game like Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, and Fed, are less likely to change sticks that the rest of the players. Andre chasing the endorsement money experimented more than most. Another interesting story I read one time about Andre, he was on a practice court and NadaI was close by practricing. Andre asked Nadal if he could hit with one of his Babolats. Nadal of course said sure and Agassi did so. Andre quickly hated that racquet saying he could not "crack an egg" with that thing. Novak plays with a 93-95 interestingly.
    Last edited by stroke; 04-12-2019, 08:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • stotty
    replied
    Originally posted by johnyandell View Post
    So the Tennis Channel did a study of Roger's backhand using shot spot data before and after the change to the larger racket. With the new racket he was making contact 2 feet closer to the net and also picked up something like 5-7 mph.
    That's really interesting. At tour level, that's a huge step up in performance.

    Leave a comment:

Who's Online

Collapse

There are currently 212 users online. 18 members and 194 guests.

Most users ever online was 404 at 11:39 PM on 09-11-2019.

Working...
X