Exclusive Slow Motion Videos Now Posted on YouTube

I just wanted to give all of you a head-up to check out the TennisSpeed Channel on YouTube (http://www.youtube.con.tennisspeed) because I've uploaded some interesting (super) slow motion clips of the top ATP pros from our huge slow motion video library.


Right now, there are clips of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Fernando Gonzales, Fernando Verdasco, and Ivo Karlovic (and many others to come) available for your viewing (and learning) pleasure.

If you're a regular visitor to the TennisCruz website, which is the best* tennis instructional website on the web, you've already seen samples of the kinds of slow motion footage in our vast library in some of the featured articles there.

(*For those of you who know my general opinion of online tennis instruction from previous posts, for me to come out and say the TennisCruz is the "best" online source for tennis instruction, you know that the site is something perhaps bordering on the extraordinary.

What's special about TennisCruz.com is its creator, Sergio Cruz (who was the personal coach of 4-time Grand Slam winner, Jim Courier). Sergio has been there and done that as both a player and coach in tennis, and everyone who loves the game is frankly incredibly fortunate to have someone of Sergio's knowledge and experience in the game sharing with his insight with everyone so freely.

Especially if you understand the closed, secret society that is high-performance tennis!)

And, if you're interested, the reason why we started collecting this footage is to increase our understanding and insight into the technique used by today's top players.

The clips posted on YouTube will show those players who we believe represent the "Gold Standard" when it comes to racket or court movement speed today (and in the foreseeable future).

Slow motion video (or "high speed video") has enabled us to seen a far richer, more complex and until now, mostly hidden universe that underlies the physical genius of the top players.

What we have seen in the movements of the top pros at 210 to 1200 fps ("frames per second") video has revealed new insights into the stroke (bio-)mechanics used by Federer, Nadal, and their colleauges. And these new insights have driven the development of our new biomechanical analysis tool (and service), called BVM or BioVideoMechanics (more on BVM in future posts).

BVM has enabled me to make a quantum leap in understanding of how players like Federer and Nadal move to produce "hall of fame" performance AND how to teach players to execute those very same techniques. The challenge in this process has beenn to figure out how to distill the most important discoveries from the fundamental complexity behind the Federer Forehand or the Roddick Serve--because their genius is in fact highly complex, far beyond the conventional oversimplifications and buzzwords that dominate tennis instruction today.

In coming posts, I'll show you some of the different ways that BVM can transform your game. If you're interested in finding out more about BVM and how it can help your game, send me an email at speedmaster[at]tennisspeed.com.

TTFN!

TennisSpeed's Top 5 Pro First Serves (1985-2009)

Remember how I said I would be posting more frequently and trying to promote more feedback and discussion?

Well, here's words put into action...

I've noticed that people like to respond to "best of/worst of" lists.

So in the hope of getting folks who read this blog into "response mode" around here, I present the first of my lists: the Top 5 first serves of the last 25 years.

I'll do a few lists over the coming weeks and months for all of the strokes of general interest (serve, forehand, backhand, etc.), for completeness.

One thing I wanted to know is: should I separate these list by gender (i.e. men and women) or just make a master list?

Maybe I won't separate them the first time around...

But, if you think I should provide a second series of Top 5 lists focusing only on the women, you need to let me know (hint, hint...)!

So, without much further ado...

Top 5 First Serves (1985-2009)

--in alphabetical order---

Boris Becker
Goran Ivanisevic
Andy Roddick
Pete Sampras
Michael Stich

All 5 serves blended unbelievable power, accuracy, spin, variety and disguise under pressure.

Honorable mention:

Roger Federer
Ivo Karlovic
Richard Krajicek
Greg Rusedski

These 4 guys are close, but fall short in one of the five categories above...

So, what do you think?

TTFN!

P.S. Let me know which online tennis instructional websites you would like to see reviewed here. Just leave a comment or email me!

The more things change...

The posts have been lagging, I know.

I've been at work on a number of projects behind the scenes that may all prove to be "game-changers" in the sense that the results of this work will, more than likely, fundamentally change the way we understand how to achieve ultimate performance in throwing and swinging sports.

As a bonus, this work may also finally provide a "bridge" that makes biomechanical analysis understandable and therefore, easily usable for all swinging and throwing athletes who want to increase their performance level.

In the coming weeks and months, I'll begin to reveal some of the incredible revelations and discoveries we have made through all of this ongoing "R & D" effort by the "Chain Gang" from the tennis world and beyond, so stay tuned!

In the meantime, I decided that I would post a column I wrote just about a year ago for my partner-in-chains' regular online column on www.aroundhawaii.com. After another season measuring the stroke speeds of collegiate and junior tennis competitiors, the article unfortunately, hasn't lost one bit of relevance.

Without further ado, here's that article:

133, 119, 97.

What do these three numbers have to do with the question posed in the title of this article?

The title of the article asks one of the fundamental questions that's constantly looming in the minds of American tennis fans and followers: who's coming up the US tennis ranks to become the next Pete, Andre, Jimmy, John, or Andy? In the glory days of American Tennis, I think that question was phrased more like "How many are coming up?" rather than "Do we have anyone coming?" as it appears today.

So what do the numbers 133, 119, and 97 have to do with developing prospective American tennis champions?

Well, these are the average serve speeds generated by the 4 men who reached the 2007 Wimbledon semifinals (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Gasquet) plus the last Amercian man standing, quarterfinalist Andy Roddick.

The average fastest serve speed of this "Final 5" was 133 MPH (Roddick's fastest serve on average was the highest among the 5 highest at 142 MPH). Their average first serve speed was 119 MPH, and their average second serve speed was clocked at 97 MPH.

What's the point I'm trying to make here? Before I get to that, let me introduce three more numbers...

107, 91, 74.

What do you think these numbers represent?

Well, these are same serve speed measurements (average fastest serve, average first serve, and average second serve speeds) for a sample of 20 NCAA Division I tennis players taken from teams ranked between #5 and #25 in the final national rankings for 2007.

These 20 players include a former NCAA D1 Singles Champion, 4 players who were selected as 2007 NCAA All-Americans, and 8 players who participated in the 2007 NCAA D1 Individual Championships.

The point is that there is a HUGE difference in the performance capability (as represented by serve speed) between today's top college tennis players and the top ATP pros.

The difference between the two levels is measurable, and in the case of serve speed, the difference is about 20 to 25 MPH for both first and second serves. Does having a powerful serve alone explain the difference between today's NCAA All-Americans and the top ATP players?

No, it goes way beyond the difference in serve speeds in that the top touring pros today are fundamentally physically (athletically) superior in virtually all physical aspects of tennis: serve speed, movement speed, groundstroke speed, speed endurance, etc. when you compare them to even the best college players. The difference between the best collegiate players and ATP pros basically extends to every physical attribute required to compete at the professional level today.

In the past, the difference between the performance level of an NCAA All-American was not very different from ATP players. Many of the past NCAA D1 Singles Champions, say up until the early to mid-1980s, could come straight off of campus and perform (and win) at the ATP level, say, as if they were already ranked among the world's best 80 to 100 pro players. Today, the typical NCAA All-American plays at a much lower level compared to his ATP brethren. From what I've observed in recent years, the top D1 players are playing at a level comparable to a pro player ranked somewhere between 400 and 700 in the ATP rankings.

For all of the casual tennis fans out there, what I mean is that in the past (before 1990), it was entirely possible that a top college player could walk off campus in summer and become immediately successful at the main tour level or even at the Grand Slam level. In contrast, today's top college players would be hard pressed to perform successfully in pro tennis' minor leagues known as the Challenger and Futures Circuits. Again, tennis has evolved to a much higher, much more athletic level in the past 20 years, and the difference between college tennis and pro tennis is clearly diverging very rapidly.


OK, now I have three more numbers to throw your way...

100, 91, 71.

These are the same serve speed averages (measured during live tournament matches) for a sample of 34 nationally-ranked (ranked anywhere from #11 to 1500 nationally), 18 and under junior boys.

The serve speed difference between the ATP pros and the "typical" US junior player is 30 mph, which is even greater than the difference between college players and the top ATP pros.

The serve speed difference between the top ATP pros and highly-ranked college players is around 20 MPH.

That is a huge difference in terms of performance.

However, if you compare the juniors to the college players, there is very little difference in serve speeds between the juniors and the college players.

This makes perfect sense because the top college teams recruit is primarily, if not exclusively from the available pool of junior players who have high national junior rankings. Therefore, you wouldn't expect a big performance difference between the nationally-ranked junior player and a college player.

What's interesting to me is that with all of the physical conditioning work that's typically done in the great majority of college tennis programs, and especially at the top college programs, why isn't there a greater difference in the serve speed performance between the juniors and the college players?

After being an insider to two top college tennis programs over the 2006-2007 season, the reason is pretty obvious. It's because, in terms of increasing racket speed (the physical basis of serve speed), conventional (football-centric) conditioning ideas and methods that are typically used to train even top college tennis players simply have no impact on racket speed, and therefore have no impact on serve speed.

For all of the hundreds of hours that most college tennis teams devote to lifting weights, pulling resistance bands, throwing medicine balls, and stretching over the course of every season, none of these exercises has ever been shown to increase their ability to serve or hit groundstrokes faster.

The majority of college players, coaches, and strength coaches THINK or PERCEIVE that they're hitting faster serves and groundstrokes as a result of all the off-court training they do, but when you actually MEASURE the actual stroke speeds (as I have done over the past season for 2 different teams), a very different picture emerges. And we'll explain and explore those differences next month.

Finally, let's end this article by showing you these three numbers:

133, 118, 98.

These numbers represent the serve speed profile of 3 of the 4 Junior Boys Semifinalists (Donald Young, Vlad Ignatic, and Greg Jones) at Wimbledon this year. Compare them to the pros in the main event...They're virtually the same as the Wimbledon Men's "Final 5" listed at the beginning of this article.

What's the take-home here? On one hand, who really knows if those 3 boys are actually going to become successful on the ATP Tour, much less champions at that level?

On the other hand, at least from a quantitative performance perspective, those 3 boys are at least capable of hitting serves at speeds comparable to that of the top pros, whereas the college guys and the average nationally-ranked junior player fall 20 to 30 MPH short of meeting that measurable, quantitative performance standard.

It's very much like saying that in order to have a reasonable chance of becoming a Major League Baseball pitcher, it helps to be able throw your fastball over 90+ MPH. Or, if you would like to become an Olympic Gold Medalist in the 100 meter dash, you have to be able to sprint 100 meters in under 9.9 seconds.

So, for those of you Donald Young ("DY") doubters and nay-sayers out there (by the way, DY won the boys' singles at Wimbledon), at least DY can bring the serve at the same level as the sports' current greats, so his potential for success at the pro level is not such a far-fetched idea after all.


See you next time...

TTFN!

The Power Revolution in Tennis - Part 3 (Behind the scenes of the Federer Forehand)

The last post in this series – The Power Revolution in Tennis – Part 2 (Defining the New Topspin) – I focused on the two main fundamentals of the “New Topspin” that’s employed by the stars of the sport today on the signature shot of power tennis – the power forehand. The first of these “modern fundamentals” is the closure of the racket face during all the phases of the stroke, and the second is the shallower overall swing path that enables today’s players to create a flatter, more penetrating shot trajectory without affecting their ability to generate sufficient topspin to maximize control over their shots.

No one player has leveraged these two crucial elements of the modern topspin forehand more than the 12-time Grand Slam singles champion who goes by the name of Roger Federer.

In this post, let’s take what’s perhaps a bit of a sideways journey into learning more about the story behind the development of what’s essentially the state of the art in tennis forehands these days, the Federer forehand.

The “greatness” of the Roger Federer forehand is nothing particularly novel from a technical standpoint. IMHO, the Federer forehand is not a “novel synthesis” of “classical and modern technical elements” as some want to interpret it (see Tennis Magazine – US, May 2008).

Arguably, every player’s stroke technique is essentially a synthesis of certain specific ideas, philosophies and movements. Did Roger come up with his personal synthesis on his own?

Not really. You’ve got to give credit where credit is due. Roger had help. (To find out who helped him develop his signature forehand, read on!)

Federer’s forehand represents a integration of technical elements from 3 particular former Grand Slam champions (who themselves won a total of 27 Grand Slam singles championships) to create the forehand he’s employed only since mid-2001, around the time he bounced one of his tennis idols, Pete Sampras from Wimbledon in a compelling 5-set clash at Wimbledon.

Before I reveal the “ancestral lineage” of the Federer forehand, it is interesting to note that it took Roger almost 3 years (maybe longer) to develop and employ the forehand the fans have come to revere and his peers have come to fear, envy and revile. If you have ever seen footage of Federer before 2001, you would have seen a very different forehand entirely. Roger’s forehand when he broke through at the Grand Slam level in the juniors (1998) and in his first 3 years as a pro (1998-2000) resembled the old Sampras forehand more than the one that’s driven him to 12 Grand Slam titles in a little over 5 calendar years.

Search for a YouTube video of a 1998 indoor match between Federer and Andre Agassi played in Roger’s hometown Basel Indoors, and you’d see a fast, but much flatter, and unpredictable forehand that Federer would execute by fanning the racket face open in the backswing and then closed as he accelerated to contact (a la Sampras in his early days on tour). When he “timed” the closure of the racket face correctly, the result was devastating. However, the reality was that for every sweet stroke that blasted past Andre, Roger would mistime the closing of the racket face 3 or 4 times and create shanks that handed Andre a ton of free points over the course of a two set defeat.

Basically, credit is due to Peter Lundgren, Roger’s original “sherpa” on the pro tour for helping him learn the skills to transition his classic, “Samprasian” flat forehand into the “SlamMaker” version of the past 5 years. What Lundgren was able to accomplish between 1996 and 2003 was to add the necessary modern refinements to Federer’s original Sampras-Becker-style forehand technique to increase the overall safety and consistency of his stroke.

Once Federer mastered the fundamentals of the modern Swedish topspin forehand, the rest, as they say, is history.

For you technical afficiandos, if you look carefully, and have a very good visual memory – Roger’s forehand today bears more than a close resemblance to the forehand stroke used by Mats Wilander during his salad days where he won 7 Grand Slam singles in a 6.5 year period between 1982 and 1988. Federer makes bigger movements than Wilander did – i.e. Roger makes a much larger rotation of his upper body and has much greater extension of his racket arm through the contact zone than Mats, but the general swing shape and underlying “philosophy” (maximum topspin to maximize safety and consistency) is essentially the same.

Until Federer mastered the principles of the Swedish-flavored, modern heavy topspin forehand: closed face at all points of the swing, combined with the powerful forearm rotation through the contact zone (the so-called “wiper”), his forehand was more of a liability than the “SlamMaker” we know today. Roger has always had the racket speed that few players in any generation possess, what he lacked until say, the end of 2001 to early 2002 was the ability to harness and control his natural racket explosiveness using the only practical means to harness and control that kind of power: the application of massive amounts of topspin… As well as express his natural “creativity” for varying his strokes by being able to more reliably control his ability to generate (top-)spin for every stroke.

From a technical standpoint, the “SlamMaker” has evolved from the techniques he originally adopted from his early tennis idols, Boris Becker (6 Slams) and Pete Sampras (14 Slams), combined with the Swedish refinements (based on the Wilander forehand which helped him win 7 Slams) set into place by Peter Lundgren. Do I have any knowledge of exactly when Lundgren began the work that eventually led to the emergence of the SlamMaker? No, I really don’t…

All I really know is that without the topspin maximization techniques brought by Lundgren, it’s pretty clear that the history and landscape of pro tennis over the past 5 years would be starkly different. Without the emergence of the SlamMaker, Lleyton Hewitt probably would have won close to 10 Slams himself by now and we’d be talking about the Hewitt-Nadal rivalry or era.

The only technical element that might represent a true “innovation” by Roger is his tendency to “break” the so-called “double-bend” or “double-confusion” (as my friend coined it) structure that the US teaching pro establishment has come to espouse as a so-called “modern stroke fundamental”.

The true function of this movement - breaking the “double bend” structure of his upper arm and forearm through the contact zone -is to enable Roger to fully release the stored energy – in the form of higher racket speed – he originally created by arranging his arms the way he does in his backswing.

If Federer were to retain the “double bend” structure through the contact zone, and then execute the “wiper” finish, he wouldn’t be able to use the natural acceleration and energy that results from allowing the forearm to accelerate and extend forward.

Effectively, the Federer forehand is a modified sidearm throwing movement that resembles that movement that’s used by a major league infielder when attempting to throw out a speedy runner on a ground ball. In order to get any kind of velocity on that sidearm throw across the diamond, the infielder must “break” the arm angles he created initially after picking up the grounder, and create the same arm “extension” as he releases the ball from his hand.

That “extension” of the arm at the release point of a throw or through the contact zone of a tennis forehand is critical for maximizing velocity (and spin, if you have the “closed face at all points of the stroke” part already down cold). Did Roger consciously "invent" this movement? I personally kinda doubt that. As far as I can tell, Roger's not the first to employ this type of movement as a part of his forehand. If you look closely at tennis techniques in the history of the sport, there have been other top players who used the same move (i.e. remember Jimmy Arias?).

So, what does that tell you about all those tennis players who are/were trained to maintain or “hold on” to the double-bend structure? What it tells me is that there are a lot of players out there who have the potential to really improve their forehands. What does that say about the coaches and pros who “trained” these players in the revered “double bend” technique?

Hey, draw your own conclusion about that…

TTFN!

The Power Revolution in Tennis - Part 2 (Defining the New Topspin)

In my last post, I began talking about the fundamental difference in the understanding of the proper use of topspin in today’s modern power tennis between US tennis and the rest of the successful tennis nations (i.e. Spain, France, Argentina, etc.).

The “rest of the tennis world” understands topspin as:

“Topspin” = “Control”.

Whereas, here in the US, the powers and coaches understand topspin as:

“Topspin” = “Slowing the ball down”.

Therefore, the “rest of the world” has been teaching their players how to maximize control at ever-increasing ball speeds that we see in today’s top-level tennis, and here in the US, we are developing players whose strokes become inconsistent, unstable and uncontrollable at those same speeds…

And you wonder why US tennis has trouble consistently producing legitimate (ATP) Top 100 prospects?

Who in the US pro tennis pipeline possesses the technical profile of a true Top 100, much less Top 50 ATP pro—i.e. a player with excellent foot speed, who can consistently hit first serves over 125 MPH, and has today’s super-heavy, high-speed topspin groundstrokes?

Well, at least there’s one US player who fits this profile and his name is Donald Young (ATP #98).

Is there anyone else?

The answer is not really… What we have is a tiny smattering of players who have one or two of the required attributes above, but it’s just not in the right combination to give me any reason to foresee a Top 30 or Top 50 future for them. Physical superiority cancels out all theory, and our “prospects” simply fall short on the physical and technical side of things these days.

For example, there are some US players who fulfill the 125+ MPH serve part, but not the heavy groundstroke part, nor the speedy footwork part (i.e. Isner, Delic, and Kendrick), and some who have the heavy groundstrokes but not the foot speed nor supersonic serve (i.e. Kuznetsov), etc. Is there an up-and-comer who at least has the foot speed/heavy topspin groundstroke profile other than Young? Maybe Jesse Levine, but he first needs to generate at least another 10 to 15 MPH on both his first and second serves.

So to close out this part of our discussion, is there anything we can do about the scarcity of legitimate US tennis prospects?

Well, having now met many of those in charge of US high-performance tennis, I’d say there’s not much anyone can do to change this situation really, unless we start hiring coaches and trainers from outside US tennis. The knowledge level of the principals of the US tennis establishment today is simply too dated and therefore inferior to be useful today or for the future. And since we haven’t yet perfected time travel, the only solution is to (reluctantly) admit that we lack modern tennis knowledge and begin hiring those outside experts from Spain, France and elsewhere.

You know that’s not going to happen anytime soon, so expect the prospect drought to continue.

Sorry about the slight drift off-topic, but the more I observe here in our fallen tennis nation, I feel more disappointed than encouraged ...

Back to the subject at hand, and let's continue our on-going conversation about the proper use of topspin…

So, the first thing you need to understand about topspin today, is that topspin is a(n) (technical) attribute that must be maximized in today’s high-performance tennis. Maximize topspin production on your groundstrokes (and serves, for that matter), and by definition, you are maximizing your ability to control your shots.

This fact is especially true given the ball speeds that top players today can consistently generate on their strokes. We have measured groundstroke speeds well over 100 MPH that are struck in the regular course of matchplay at the pro level, where the average rally speed is consistently in the mid-80 MPH range (it was in the low-to-mid 70s for the most part up to about 2002 or 2003). The only way to control the length and placement over such high-speed strokes, maybe the only way to keep the ball in play, is to maximize the amount of topspin applied to each stroke.

The topspin rates on today’s strokes are also higher than they’ve ever been as well, as topspin production increases in direct proportion with increasing overall racket and ball speeds, and especially given the techniques used by players today to strike their shots.

So, how do you strike the ball to maximize both straight-ahead ball speed and the topspin to control all that speed?

There are two crucial elements to today’s maximum topspin groundstrokes:

First, contact is made with a slightly closed racket face (anywhere from 3 to 10 degrees closed; and the racket face is closed throughout the entire forehand movement for most top ATP pros);

AND

Second, the overall swing path is considerable shallower (by almost 50% or more in many cases) than the swing path used in the past to generate heavy topspin.

The Federer forehand is representative of this “new topspin”, where he maintains a very closed racket face at all stages of his forehand stroke—from the backswing, through impact and during the follow-through—as well as swinging his racket on a path that is only about 30 degrees upward from start to finish such that rarely does his racket finish higher than his shoulder line. The result of this “swing geometry” is an extremely high-speed, high-spin stroke that flies through the air with the trajectory of a stroke with a much lower spin rate—i.e. the trajectory of what’s understood to be representative of a “flat” groundstroke.

Previous incarnations of the heavy topspin forehand involved both a far less extreme closure of the racket face (a perfectly perpendicular racket face was considered to be optimal), and a much steeper—anywhere from 45 to 60 degrees upward versus 30 degrees—overall swing path. What also needs to be mentioned here is that the racket speeds used in the past were also significantly slower than those used today, and the only way to hit groundstrokes that landed deep in the court with heavy topspin was to employ the “swing geometry” described above.

If you try to use the same swing geometry as the “classic” heavy topspin forehand to achieve today’s ball speeds (i.e. 85 to 95 MPH), I can almost guarantee you that every shot you hit using the “classic” geometry would fly well beyond the lines of the court. You cannot generate enough topspin with the “classic” topspin stroke mechanics to control the shot trajectory that results from making contact with such high racket speeds.

I have been a frustrated first-hand witness to this physical reality as one of my own players insists on relying on his “classic” heavy topspin forehand mechanics… Despite the fact that he can only put between 50 to 60% of his forehands into the court in a no-pressure, fed-ball drill when he tries to strike the ball over a certain speed using his current “classic” mechanics.

I concede that at this point, my conclusions about the differences between the “modern”, Federer-type swing and impact geometries or the “classic”, Borg/Lendl-type geometries, are based for the most part on anecdotal information, and not on discrete measurements of their actual “geometries” in terms of degrees and MPH. I have only limited measurement data of these attributes and let me say that even acquiring those measurements is a daunting (financial and “cultural”) challenge that involves pricey (to say the least) high-speed video and Doppler radar technologies.

However, I can say that I am very interested in getting this information because I think it has tremendous value in systematically teaching players the type of swing mechanics that will enable them to generate the kind of strokes that are required to be truly competitive at the pro level today and in the future. And, let me say that few of my colleagues and I have already launched an effort to collect this information, so stay tuned…

Let me close out this post by discussing my keen interest in, and dismay about the overall lack of interest on the part of the tennis coaches in the physics of tennis—especially when it comes to measuring the physical attributes of a tennis ball flying off of the string bed of a tennis racket swung by a live human being. There is no readily available information or, it seems, interest on the part of the vast majority of tennis coaches on knowing and understanding, much less teaching the proper launch and impact conditions of tennis strokes.

Contrast the apparent disinterest of the tennis crowd with tennis “ballistics” with the nearly obsessive-compulsive concern of the typical pro (and recreational)golfer with the launch conditions, swing geometries and impact physics of their 14 or more different clubs with their specific model of golf ball that they use during for competition. On the other hand, if someone is interested in performing at the “ultimate level”, isn’t it logical that they (the athlete him/herself) would be very uncomfortable and unsettled to hear from their coaches that a such detailed level of understanding of the very skills they need to have to be competitive with the best of the best is “unnecessary”.

Extreme as it sounds, I think it’s normal for a professional athlete and their coaches and trainers to know and understand as much as possible about the attributes of the skills required to produce a performance level that enables them to be truly competitive at the highest echelons of their chosen sport.

That the tennis crowd largely doesn’t care to know, or worse, believes that this level of understanding is somehow unnecessary to improving the skills of all players who enjoy this great sport is somehow disappointing and disillusioning. But given the reality that the vast majority of tennis knowledge circulating today is based solely on anecdotal information, why would anyone in tennis even bother to care about understanding the game using authentically objective information?

TTFN!

P.S. Note that I’ve omitted any mention of the “double-bend structure” that is commonly touted by so-called tennis experts as a fundamental element of their conception of the modern forehand…

Why is this?

It’s because, IMHO, the “double-bend structure” is a mechanical flaw that emerges naturally to compensate for less-than-optimal positioning relative to ball contact (and is itself justified and reinforced by another myth of “classic” tennis instruction that’s commonly used by the coaching establishment that usually comes out as “crowd the ball for more power”). Let’s put it this way, if you do possess authentic, Federer-ian forehand mechanics, you need to disrupt the double-bend structure to reproduce what Roger is actually doing.

I think my friend puts it best: “double-bend” = “double confusion”.

I mainly see the “double-bend structure” as another flawed variation on the modern forehand.

Anyway, we’ll return to this subject in a future post.

The Power Revolution in Tennis - Part 1

As I promised at the end of the “Radar Guns 101” post, I’m going to start getting into some of the “$64,000 questions” that come to mind when we hear the term “tennis speed”…

And, from my own observations of the American tennis scene over the past 2, rather, 15 years, the vast majority of these “key” questions regarding speed in tennis focus mainly on the question of how to produce high-speed strokes.

Of course, what seems to escape the notice of the vast majority of players, parents and coaches in the American tennis scene—even at the high-performance level—is the fact that high-speed strokes alone without high-speed court movement leads to limited success at the pro level.

When a player possesses both racket speed and foot speed, then the only real limit to a player’s success is whether or not they are willing to behave in a professional manner as possible. (Yes, if you’re wondering, I consider the attribute commonly known as “mental toughness” as being fundamental and integral to behaving as a true “professional”, whatever your actual profession may be).

So, without further ado, let’s open our discussion of him about the “power revolution” in tennis from a technical perspective…

If you ask me what the single greatest technical misconception that keeps American tennis behind the rest of the elite tennis world today, it’s our fundamental misconception about the proper use of topspin in today’s modern power tennis.

Essentially, the prevailing concept of “topspin” in US tennis still conjures memories of the slow, moonballing topspin of pro tennis that prevailed during the Tennis Boom of the mid-1970s, especially in the minds of today’s top American college and junior coaches. Of course, the game, as always, evolves as the years pass, and the looping, heavy topspin of the Borg era transformed itself into the heavy, penetrating topspin drives first mastered by former ATP #1, Ivan Lendl, and taken to its current pinnacle by current ATP #1, Roger Federer.

Somehow, the prevailing wisdom in American tennis today when it comes to topspin is that playing topspin needs to be minimized in the development of a high-performance player over the course of a player’s career, to be replaced by a faster, flatter and more aggressive stroking and tactical style—the so-called “Big Strike” or “First Strike” gamestyle that’s embraced by most top American pro, college and junior coaches.

The vast majority of American coaches—with their unshakable association of topspin with the slow, looping, moonballer topspin of the 70s—truly believe that while heavy topspin groundstrokes may be acceptable for the 12-and-under competitive player, it has no place in the repertoire of their vision of today’s high-performance player, male or especially, female.

In essence, if you were to ask an American coach what the purpose of topspin is, they will typically answer this way:

“The purpose of topspin is to slow the ball down to help players keep the ball in play.”

And that, folks, is the American bottom line when it comes to understanding the role of topspin in tennis:

“Topspin” = “Slowing the ball down”

With this equation in the mind of our coaches, it is not surprising that their students end up thinking that topspin has no place in the modern game. Kids aren’t dumb, if that is the message that’s being sent by their coaches (and reinforced by their parents), that’s how they're going to play.

Put yourself in the player's shoes... Why would anyone in a sport that’s trying to maximize speed want to learn a skill that’s understood by the “experts” as a means of “slowing” the ball down, not speeding it up?

No wonder a heavy topspin game that’s understood by the top pro coaches to be “standard operating procedure” (SOP) for pro success today, is such a hard idea to swallow in American tennis.

When you misunderstand a fundamental concept and then build entire philosophies (technical, tactical, developmental, etc.) based on a wholly flawed idea, well, it is no surprise that we aren’t very successful at developing viable pro tennis prospects.

If you’re into metaphors…

Because our coaches have a fundamentally flawed view of the role of topspin in the shaping the performance capability of today’s players, what ends up happening when we send our American college and junior prospects into battle at the pro level is the same as if...

An army would send soldiers to battle armed only with clubs and rocks when they know that their enemy has remote-controlled machine guns, missiles and bombs. You know what the outcome is going to be… The outcome is a given.

So, you might be wondering what the correct understanding of the role of topspin is for today’s competitive player? What do the other successful tennis nations of the world understand (i.e. Spain, France, Argentina, etc.) that we don’t’?

This is the “equation” that the successful tennis coaches and nations have in their mind:

“Topspin” = “Control”

In fact, taking the equation to the next logical level, those who want to maximize their ability to succeed in pro tennis have this equation in mind:

“Maximize Topspin” = “Maximize Control” (at high racket/ball speeds)

And for those of you (probably American by birth or tennis upbringing) who still don’t understand this tennis axiom, this is what you need to understand…

The only practical way to play high-speed shots (i.e. groundstrokes that travel over 90 MPH in flight) that land inside the lines with maximum consistency is to apply a ton of topspin to force the ball down toward the court faster. Without sufficient topspin to force the ball down to the court sooner (such that it falls inside the lines), increasing the ball speed alone causes the ball to fly further and most likely beyond the lines and out of play.

For all practical intents and purposes (because the ITF has no plans of changing the dimensions of the tennis court anytime soon, if ever), the only possible way to increase ball speed while maintaining (maximum) control over the ball flight is to maximize the amount of topspin to force that ball down to the court inside those lines.

Is the fog of false American game knowledge beginning to lift about now?

So, let's review...

Q: Want to generate more ball speed without sacrificing control?

A: Learn how to MAXIMIZE TOPSPIN PRODUCTION when swinging at high racket speeds.

Given this truth about topspin, do you now understand the fundamental reason why the Top 2 tennis players—as well every current Top 10 player—on Planet Earth have their games built upon a foundation of heavy topspin groundstrokes?

If you have a problem with this concept, you need to accept the fact that you won’t be able to consistently control your high-speed shots and you won’t put very many balls into play, inside the lines of the court. Competitive tennis success is still fundamentally rooted in consistency (of proper execution), so if you choose to play in a manner where—by definition—you will have trouble keeping the ball inside the lines in the court, your days as a tennis player, much less a competitive player will be short-lived.

Do you dream about a future in professional tennis? Then you need to have the correct understanding about topspin, or else your dream will forever remain just a dream.

So how do you maximize topspin on your groundstrokes?

We’ll start discussing those details in my next post…

Maybe it might be the basis of a new tennis future for some of you out there…

And, wouldn’t that be a great way to ring in 2008!

TTFN and Happy New Year!

P.S. If you’re interested in the “how to transition to pro tennis from college tennis” primer from Todd Martin mentioned in my last post, please email me (speedmaster [at] tennisspeed [dot] com) and I’ll send you a copy of my summary of his featured clinic at the 2007 ITA College Coaches Convention.

Finally, given the ever-growing number of so-called “tennis prodigies” that have emerged courtesy of YouTube (and some overly-ambitious parents), let me say that I’m as curious as the next coach and I already have a pretty good idea about the future prospects of each of those prodigies (see next month’s issue of US Tennis Magazine for a rundown on them) based solely on the concepts I’ve discussed in this post.

Can you guess who among those YouTube prodigies I think has a real shot at a pro future? I’ll reveal my predictions in a future post…

Radar Guns 101

In this post, we’ll move forward from our ongoing discussion of talking about stroke speeds (or the lack of stroke speed, as the case may be) at the various levels of US Tennis to talking about a more basic issue: how to properly measure your stroke speeds in the first place.

The first thing you need to do is to measure your stroke speeds accurately. To measure your stroke speeds accurately, you need to get your hands on a good quality radar gun and understand how to use it properly.

Over the past two years, I’ve had the opportunity to use a large variety of radar guns from every price point that’s currently available from the under-$100 “budget” guns (i.e. Bushnell Speedster II) to the $1,400+ high-end guns from JUGS and Stalker. What I’ve learned from using these guns is that as long as you’re willing to spend at around $200 to $300 for a mid-price radar gun, there isn’t a noticeable difference in performance among the various brands, or between guns from different (i.e. higher) price points.

The price for radar guns is more-or-less open ended, and the more you pay, the more features you can get (direct download of data to your laptop, software analysis for the downloaded data, etc.). But the features that are available in the mid-range guns are more than enough for the purpose of getting accurate stroke speed measurements.

In my experience, you will only run into problems if you go the “budget” route and buy the lower-end guns such as the SpeedTrac/SpeedChek (the little black radar box you place in front of the net) or the Bushnell Speedster guns. The SpeedTrac/SpeedChek has improved since its original introduction in the mid-1990s, but when I use the SpeedTrac/SpeedChek side-by-side with a trusted mid-range or high-end radar gun, there is way too much difference in the measurements between the SpeedTrac/SpeedChek and say, the typical mid-range radar gun for me to trust the readouts of the SpeedTrac/SpeedChek.

IHMO, say no to the SpeedTrac/SpeedChek in all its incarnations because who knows what it’s measuring.

Likewise, I haven’t had a good experience using either the Bushnell Speedster guns—either one, Speedster I or II. The problem for me with Speedster I was that it couldn’t measure speeds over about 105 MPH very accurately (which doesn't fly when you work with high level competitive players who can serve over 110 MPH) and of course, when I read the “fine print” of the Speedster I specs, sure enough, it said that the measurement range topped out at 105 to 110 MPH for tennis.

Speedster II supposedly possesses improved technology compared with its ancestor, but still doesn’t seem to measure speeds over 110 MPH with great consistency or accuracy.

Therefore… IMHO, say no to the Speedster as well until further notice.

So, what radar gun do I recommend that performs without going overboard with either price or features?

The radar gun that I’ve found that has the best combination of performance and price/value is a relatively new introduction to the radar gun market called the Tracer SRA-3000 radar gun manufactured by Sports Radar, Ltd. (Homosassa, FL).

In side-by-side measurements with my high-end Decatur radar gun and a friend’s brand-new JUGS R1005, the Tracer, Decatur and JUGS guns perform identically when it comes to accuracy and consistency. The biggest difference between these two radar guns is that the Tracer is cordless (it runs on 6 AAA batteries!), and is much lighter than the Decatur (my Decatur is corded to a rechargeable battery stored in its carrying case).

The other difference between the Tracer and the Decatur and JUGS guns is the price. You can get a Tracer for around $180 retail, whereas the Decatur and JUGS guns will run you a minimum of $700 retail (new). That’s around a $500 difference in price for a radar gun that performs to the level of the “luxury” guns.

The performance and value of the Tracer that I’ve experienced is the reason why we decided to offer it for sale on the TennisSpeed website. It performs at a high level for a great price. What more can you ask for from any product?

OK, so now you have some idea about what the various radar guns on the market offer… So now you may be wondering how to use that radar gun to measure your stroke speeds.

Using the radar gun to get accurate stroke speed measurements is straightforward enough…

1. Mount the radar gun on a tripod (make sure you have a tripod mount on your gun… The Tracer has one, does yours?) to ensure that the gun itself is consistently aligned for each measurement—this makes for the most consistent measurements.

2. To get the most accurate measurements on groundstrokes, place the radar gun behind the contact point and place the tripod in straight line behind the intended flight of the shot. Make sure to set the height of the radar gun at the intended contact height of the stroke (i.e. if you intend to make contact at waist height, make sure the gun is also set on the tripod at waist height).

Therefore, if you want to measure the speed of your down-the-line forehand, a simple way to check that you’ve placed the radar gun in a straight line directly behind the path of the shot is to point the radar gun toward the area of the court where the forehand will land (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Radar gun positioning for down-the-line forehand (gun positioned in a straight line behind the path of the shot).

3. To get the most accurate speed measurements for your serve, set the height of the gun as high as your tripod allows. Place the tripod behind you in the same line as your hitting shoulder. Similar to the speed measurement for your groundstrokes, align the radar gun itself in a straight line directly behind the intended flight of your serve to obtain the most accurate measurement (Figure 2).

So, if you want to measure the speed of your slice serve, a simple way to check that you’ve placed the radar gun in a straight line directly behind the path of the shot is to point the radar gun toward the area of the service box where the serve will land in the service box.

Figure 2. Radar gun positioning for slice serve (gun positioned in a straight line behind the path of the shot).

When you follow these 3 simple steps, measuring your stroke speeds becomes a breeze.

Maybe now you are wondering about which strokes should you be measuring…

I have been measuring maximal serve and groundstroke speeds for my players in the same way the WTA measures its players to create its “Power Index”. I have been measuring maximal (and average) forehand, backhand, first serve, second serve and overhead speeds (of balls hit into play, of course!) in both training and live matches.

I have also been measuring so-called “rally speeds” where I measure the ball speeds during “neutral” groundstroke rallies (neither player is in an attacking or defensive mode/position). The “rally speed” of a player tells me a lot about what tactical options are available to a given player. And yes, there is a great difference in rally speed when comparing the various levels of competitive tennis from juniors and high school varsity tennis to college and professional tennis.

The difference in “rally speed” is quite similar (among US players) to the differences in serve speed that we’ve been talking about at some length in recent posts. That is, there is about a 25 to 30 MPH difference in rally speed between juniors and professional players.

To sum it up, go get your hands on a decent radar gun and remove all of the myth and mystery from your game. Measure your stroke speeds and create your own “speed profile”: average speed of your fastest forehand, backhand, first serve, second serve and overhead. Now you have a way to compare yourself to other players with known speed profiles to see where you really stack up…

Then, measure your “rally speed”, and when you finally look at the numbers… It will be a number that probably won't be keeping Roger, Rafa and Andy awake at night.

Don’t be surprised when you find out that your speed profile is well, more like a “slow profile”. Get it?

Starting with my next post, we’ll be getting into what you all have been waiting for…

We’ll start talking about how to increase the speed of the various strokes from a technical and conditioning perspective. And I’ll begin talking to you about one of the special projects I’ve been working on recently that has truly blockbuster potential in changing the way tennis technique is taught by coaches and learned by players.

So stay tuned…

TTFN!

Message from the Top

Just a little post-US Open bonus...

Here's a quote directly from the top man himself, Roger Federer about what the keys to his best tennis really are:

"After winning the Dubai Open for the fourth time in 2007, Federer said: 'Previously I always thought it was just tactical and technique, but every match has become almost mental and physical – I try to push myself to move well. I try to push myself not to get upset and stay positive, and that's what my biggest improvement is over all these years. Under pressure I can see things very clearly.' "

(Quoted from: “From teenage tantrums to sublime success” by Thomas Stephens, April 26, 2007, online article at swissinfo.org)

What do Federer's words mean for you?

TOP PERFORMANCE BEGINS WITH OPTIMAL MOVEMENT...

Read his quote again carefully, Roger PUSHES HIMSELF TO MOVE WELL. When you move properly, the rest of your game will flow without too much conscious effort. So take the advice of one of the greatest-if not THE greatest-player in the history of the tennis to heart and immediately raise the level of your play by focusing on moving your best on court.

For more interesting facts and discussion about the Swiss tennis superstar, take a look at the Roger Federer tribute compiled by the official online information agency of the Swiss government, www.swissinfo.org.

TTFN!

Court Movement 103

In this post, we’ll continue our series on increasing the speed (and efficiency) of your court movement by having a brief discussion of how to hit efficiently while on the run.

First, let 's define what I mean by "hitting on the run"…

What I am talking about is situations during play where you have to move—sprint, that is—more than three or four steps before you can form a hitting stance to strike your shot. In general, we are talking about playing situations where you may be:

• Reacting to a shot where your opponent changes the direction of your return (e.g. your opponent hits your crosscourt return down the line or vice-versa)

• Retrieving shots that your opponent aggressively drives into the deep corners in response to your own soft or short returns

• Retrieving drop shots, drop volleys, or, if you are playing Federer, low, short slice shots that land in the service boxes when you are positioned well behind (> 5 feet) the baseline.

In these situations, you maybe forced to cover a very large distance (perhaps as much as the entire half of the court to return a drop shot, or the entire distance along the baseline from one doubles alley to the other to retrieve a well-struck forehand) in very short time in order to make any contact, much less effective contact, with the ball.

And, many times the total reaction time you have to make contact in those “emergency” situations won’t allow you to set up completely to make your shot… You might only have enough time to set one, rather than both feet in an improvised hitting stance from which to accelerate to ball contact.

Of course, the ideal way to “hit on the move” is to move fast enough to “win that race” with your opponent’s return and set up completely—i.e. set both feet firmly on the court—for a clean, controlled strike.

But, what if you can only move fast enough to achieve a “tie” in that race to the ball, where you will arrive only at the last possible moment to make an effective stroke? What then?

In that case, there are three critical moves you must make to hit effectively while on the dead run:

1) Make your initial steps to the ball as explosive as possible.

· First, lower your center of gravity using your split-step.

· Second, turn your hips and shoulders in the direction of the ball, and start moving toward the ball using the leg that’s closest to the ball (if you need to move to your right, “step out” with your right leg and vice-versa), and pump your arms powerfully in your initial move to the ball.

2) After you’re about halfway there, stop pumping your arms and immediately finish your backswing such that the only move you’ll make with your hands and upper body is to accelerate the racket forward to contact.

3) Swing forward very aggressively to contact a split second after you make your last step with your back foot.

You need to be very aggressive with your forward swing because you are fighting somewhat all of the momentum you’ve generated by moving explosively toward the ball. Effectively, your feet are propelling you in one direction, and you are trying to swing with your hands and arms against the direction of the momentum of your lower body by swinging to make (solid) contact with the ball. So you need to aggressively accelerate towards contact.

These are the three core moves you must make to hit effectively while on the run.

Now, you might ask the question: what do I do after finishing my stroke?

On what foot should I land after making contact? What’s the quickest way to begin my recovery for my opponent’s next return?

The answer to the former question is, quite frankly, “it depends”. There isn’t a single, optimal foot to finish on. The foot which you land on depends mainly on the type of shot you chose to execute on the run (i.e. a deep, hard drive, or a high and heavy looping return, or a sharp crosscourt angle return). You could land on either foot really… It's really a matter of personal "style".

Although I will point out to you that players who can consistently generate a sharp (fast) crosscourt angle return on the run tend to land on their front foot (see Federer, Roger and Sampras, Pete), while players who are adept at hitting high, heavy and deep topspin returns while on the run often land on their back foot first, with their front leg held in the air (see Nadal, Rafael).

Likewise, if you want to produce a return with a lower, “driving” trajectory (rather than a higher, more looping trajectory), landing on your front foot after contact has been the preferred method of accomplished tennis millionaires throughout the history of the sport.

(Hmmm… “Accomplished Tennis Millionaires” or “ATMs”… That acronym is a keeper. See the connection? “ATMs”, as in, receive tons of cash money in return by playing tennis in a certain way. :) )

The answer to the latter question is simply, “sit down” or “step out” on your back leg, and immediate push back toward the center of the court with the same leg. So, if you landed on your front foot, immediately after the front foot makes contact with the ground, use your back leg to stop and push hard back toward the center of the court. Likewise, if you landed on your back leg, immediately begin moving toward the center of the court using the same leg.

Notice that I am not trying to explain in any fine-grain detail about how to perform the exact movements required to make the initial moves toward the ball or how to recover. Other than telling you which leg (right or left) to use to initiate an efficient movement sequence, the fine details of how to execute an effective running shot (total number of steps, how big are the steps, how fast to pump the arms, the final speed needed to reach the ball to make contact, etc.), and how well you can execute your running shots may vary infinitely from situation to situation and from player to player because all of this is solely dependent on your own innate athletic ability.

AND, as athletic ability ranges so widely even among elite tennis players (i.e. the difference between Federer’s apparent ability to “glide” from shot to shot versus Roddick’s sometimes heavy-footed, “stomping” action), it’s virtually impossible to give a very detailed description, much less an “exact” description of the movement themselves beyond describing the optimal way to initiate the movement itself.

All that’s really possible is to describe the principles involved, and leave it to each player to execute the necessary movements in their own unique way. There is indeed a “science” to all athletic skills, but in the end, the execution of those skills ultimately represents the “artistry” of the player him/herself.

And that “artistry” is yet another element that explains why so many of us are so fascinated by this great sport.

So, to review the key principles of hitting effectively on the (full) run:

1) Make your initial steps to the ball as explosive as possible.

2) After you’re about halfway there, stop pumping your arms and immediately finish your backswing such that the only move you’ll make with your hands and upper body is to accelerate the racket forward to contact.

and,

3) Swing forward to contact a split second after you make your last step with your back foot.

TTFN!

P.S. For those of you that still have trouble grasping this idea of how speed is the defining element of tennis success, just look at the singles players who made the Final 4 at Flushing Meadow.

Final 4 Men: Federer, Djokovic, Davydenko, and Ferrer

Final 4 Women: Henin, Kuznetsova, Williams, and Chakvetadze

All 8 players possess the necessary foot and racket speed to either out-run their opponents or out-hit them.

What’s interesting among the group is that both the Men’s (Federer and Djokovic) and Women’s finalists (Henin and Kuznetsova) hit with the most spin from among the original group of 8…

What does this mean? The take-home message is that the 4 finalists not only generated the fastest strokes (from serves to groundstrokes), but they also maximized their control over their strokes through their higher spin production.

These 4 players achieved both maximum power (ball speed) and control of their strokes.

In other words, they get to "have their cake and eat it too"... Which , BTW, for those who may be keeping track , the "cake" that Roger gets to enjoy is worth, in real terms:

• 500 ATP ranking points (the maximum possible for winning a single tournament--compare that massive points windfall to the winner of an entry level pro singles tournament, who is typicially overjoyed to earn an astronomical 12 ranking points ), and

• $1.4 MILLION in prize money as the US Open singles champion (compare this amount to the $1,200 earned by the singles winner of a $10,000--that means 10K in total prize money, people--Futures tournament.)

As you can see, there's a lot of valuable "cake" out there for players to enjoy...