I wanted to start a new thread that focused on this topic away from the Stanford statistics:
Let's go to the videotape!
You can make a case for jumping into the shot with Del Potro here on a short ball:
But I think a more representative picture of him hitting a ball that he has all the time he needs to set up on is a neutral stance where he had enough time to step in
or here
I think the side view gives you the best chance to judge how much he is moving forward as he hits the ball. If you check open stance clips, there is even less forward movement.
But let's check someone who is more mobile like Federer. Unfortunately, we only have the rear view on the neutral stance, but notice the left foot through the contact zone.
Check a side view of an open stance and note the leg drive upward, but the still anchoring of the head and eyes
Here's one of Roger running into a short ball with a neutral stance and he is moving forward as he hits it, but he is not "jumping into the shot"
Another short ball that Roger has enough time to step into in front of the baseline. I think this is more representative of what he wants to do
Take Rafa on one of the few balls where he hits with a neutral stance in an attacking mode
Here's a good example of Rafa on a neutral stance short ball when he is clearly in the air hitting the ball and attacking, but I don't think he is "jumping into the shot"
Again, I think the following would be more representative of what Rafa wants to do
Look at how much he moved forward to attack this ball and yet he stabilizes himself before he hits the shot in this shot listed as an open stance short forehand. He's actually slowing down his forward movement to stabilize himself as he hits this shot; granted he is in the air and still moving forward, but the intention is to rotate about a semi-stable axis converting the force of his legs into power the racket can apply to the ball
And here is Djokovic. (Sorry, no neutral stance side views of Novak in Center Forehand)
Here's Novak in a side view on the attack on an open stance forehand
Here's Novak on a short ball he is attacking 2 yards inside the baseline. Please notice the stability of his head and how little the left foot moves forward as he hits the ball.
And here is a rear view of a short ball Novak had time, according to JY, to set up for in a neutral stance
Or best of all, take the ball striking (at least in the first 2 sets) in the recent Aussie final between Djokovic and Murray
Perhaps you prefer the first four sets of Wawrinka/Djokovic
It's not fair to put HS's daughter up here for comparison, but what she is trying to do is very different from the clear upward leg drive these players are using to give their shots power in these examples of the very best the game has produced in groundstroke mechanics. Del Potro was timed at nearly 120 mph on one of his forehands. But it was no "body fly" shot. At least not where he was generating speed with the linear speed he was gaining by jumping forward as he was hitting the ball. He may have been extending his legs and driving upward, but he was converting that power into ball velocity by rotating about a fulcrum as fixed as he could make it at the moment. The follow through may have taken him off the ground, but he was not "jumping". Not only is this "body fly" a fantasy, it is a dangerous fantasy because it leads the player down a path to failure. Perhaps HockeyScout is right and there is a whole new game out there ahead of us which I can't see, but I don't see any evidence that these fundamental laws of physics can be violated when the game gets really fast. That is what those final round matches in the Australian, French, Wimbledon and the US Open really show us. For the techniques to hold up under that extreme fire, they can't break the laws of physics. The human body is amazing and it can adapt and compensate and get away with a lot, but when the player on the other side of the net has the laws of physics on his side, you are in big trouble.
don
Let's go to the videotape!
You can make a case for jumping into the shot with Del Potro here on a short ball:
But I think a more representative picture of him hitting a ball that he has all the time he needs to set up on is a neutral stance where he had enough time to step in
or here
I think the side view gives you the best chance to judge how much he is moving forward as he hits the ball. If you check open stance clips, there is even less forward movement.
But let's check someone who is more mobile like Federer. Unfortunately, we only have the rear view on the neutral stance, but notice the left foot through the contact zone.
Check a side view of an open stance and note the leg drive upward, but the still anchoring of the head and eyes
Here's one of Roger running into a short ball with a neutral stance and he is moving forward as he hits it, but he is not "jumping into the shot"
Another short ball that Roger has enough time to step into in front of the baseline. I think this is more representative of what he wants to do
Take Rafa on one of the few balls where he hits with a neutral stance in an attacking mode
Here's a good example of Rafa on a neutral stance short ball when he is clearly in the air hitting the ball and attacking, but I don't think he is "jumping into the shot"
Again, I think the following would be more representative of what Rafa wants to do
Look at how much he moved forward to attack this ball and yet he stabilizes himself before he hits the shot in this shot listed as an open stance short forehand. He's actually slowing down his forward movement to stabilize himself as he hits this shot; granted he is in the air and still moving forward, but the intention is to rotate about a semi-stable axis converting the force of his legs into power the racket can apply to the ball
And here is Djokovic. (Sorry, no neutral stance side views of Novak in Center Forehand)
Here's Novak in a side view on the attack on an open stance forehand
Here's Novak on a short ball he is attacking 2 yards inside the baseline. Please notice the stability of his head and how little the left foot moves forward as he hits the ball.
And here is a rear view of a short ball Novak had time, according to JY, to set up for in a neutral stance
Or best of all, take the ball striking (at least in the first 2 sets) in the recent Aussie final between Djokovic and Murray
Perhaps you prefer the first four sets of Wawrinka/Djokovic
It's not fair to put HS's daughter up here for comparison, but what she is trying to do is very different from the clear upward leg drive these players are using to give their shots power in these examples of the very best the game has produced in groundstroke mechanics. Del Potro was timed at nearly 120 mph on one of his forehands. But it was no "body fly" shot. At least not where he was generating speed with the linear speed he was gaining by jumping forward as he was hitting the ball. He may have been extending his legs and driving upward, but he was converting that power into ball velocity by rotating about a fulcrum as fixed as he could make it at the moment. The follow through may have taken him off the ground, but he was not "jumping". Not only is this "body fly" a fantasy, it is a dangerous fantasy because it leads the player down a path to failure. Perhaps HockeyScout is right and there is a whole new game out there ahead of us which I can't see, but I don't see any evidence that these fundamental laws of physics can be violated when the game gets really fast. That is what those final round matches in the Australian, French, Wimbledon and the US Open really show us. For the techniques to hold up under that extreme fire, they can't break the laws of physics. The human body is amazing and it can adapt and compensate and get away with a lot, but when the player on the other side of the net has the laws of physics on his side, you are in big trouble.
don
Comment