Sampras BH...
Bob Whisper
Whisper
> ...was hit with perfect form.
Yes, technically correct & perfect.
Compare to the spastic bumrooters who have all manner of contorted
double-handed grips on kingsize rackets - ridiculous..... clown-like.
Gordon Cameron
I don't recall Connors, Evert, or Borg using "kingsize" rackets, and a
2 handed grip on a tennis racket need be no more "contorted" than on a
baseball bat or a golf club.
Dave Hazelwood
Put a "wooden" racquet in the hands of Sampras and you wouldn't be able
to tell the difference between he and a spastic.
Sampras needed that crutch. Borg did not.
Habib
Whisper wrote:
> Bob Whisper wrote:
> > ...was hit with perfect form.
>
>
>
> Yes, technically correct & perfect.
Not even close. His follow-through alone is one awkward-looking piece
of work.
Carey
ergonomic correctness, which led to
the high number of errors off that side.
Carey
Safin's, Mecir's; Andrei Chesnokov had maybe the most fluid two-hander
I can recall.
Sawfish
Yes, it's true. But the vast majority look like men working on a
chain gang.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shit <------------------------------------------------------------> Shinola
"Which is which?" --Sawfish
Whisper
Whisper
lol - nuts...
Arietta
wasn't as pretty as, say Edberg or even Federer.
Whisper
I'm trying to imagine how it could be more 'technically perfect' & am
drawing a blank...
http://s56.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=09PAPN1SJ2D0N1KX328KIP6U8S
Vari L. Cinicke
Why don't people know that Sampras never missed a backhand he didn't
mean to? With his classical style and utter mastery of the stroke, he
could select from several different perfect _mishits_ off that side to
confuse the enemy. Wide shot down the line, crosscourt into umpire's
chair, passing shot into the backfence! All done with pure form and
exquisite touch! ;-)
--
Cheers,
vc
Vari L. Cinicke
THat proves beyond a reasonable doubt that every backhand Sampras ever
hit was perfection itself. Thank you for clearing that up. If only you
can now convince the rest of the tennis world and Andre Agassi who seem
to think that there was a chink in Pete's arsenal on the backhand side!
Then we will be all set!
--
Cheers,
vc
*skriptis
"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:443ab95a$0$6778$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
this is remarkable..really. faboulous backhand.
terrific rafter and sampras in that final...
to bad rafter never won W, he desreved it..
Bob Whisper
Thanks hubby.Thanks for being so supportive! Big kisses mwaaaaahhhhhh!
Vari L. Cinicke
> Pete had great backhand and was quite adroit with it, but his form
> wasn't as pretty as, say Edberg or even Federer.
>
Pete was a top notch player and if you picked the player with the best
stroke of his times, you would be guaranteed to pick Pete on the serve,
the running forehand and the overhead for its quality and showboating.
You would never pick Pete for the backhand.
--
Cheers,
vc
*skriptis
"Vari L. Cinicke" <cin...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3vz_f.5441$YT1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
i do not participate...in this.
but the fact that his backhand wasn't goat by itself doesn't mean it isnt
tier I rang..or tier II.
not an average. certainly not bad shot
Habib
Whisper wrote:
> I'm trying to imagine how it could be more 'technically perfect' & am
> drawing a blank...
That's because 1) you posted one of the prettiest backhands he ever
hit, and 2) you have shown very little propensity analyzing tennis as a
whole, never even mind the finer points, in which you've shown yourself
to challenge Groundaxe in lack of knowledge.
Easily 90% of the backhands he hit, his follow through didn't open his
arm up enough, he kept his elbow bent at contact and during the
follow-through, and he raised himself up too much through the shot,
often sending it long.
The fact that you can't recognize this speaks to 2 things - first, that
you're a Sampras fan-fucker of the highest order and refuse to see any
faults in his game, and second, that you are, to put it bluntly, stupid
and ignorant when it comes to analysis of the game.
*skriptis
sampras had all amazing shots.
he had no weaknesess.
of course..it doesn't mean his all of his shots were the same. backhand was
the lousiest.
there were better backhand in history.
but not that many..
blande...@hotmail.com
I wonder if rst could devise a "Frankenstein" type player, if that
player would actually beat Sampras? I tend to think that Sampras' BH
worked perfectly within the scheme of his overall game, and I enjoyed
watching him hit it. It was quite versatile and a real monster shot
when he uncorked--which was often.
Vari L. Cinicke
Not saying it was bad at all. It used to be better earlier in his
career. Once he dialed in his S-V game, I thought his bh went south a
little, maybe from disuse.
It is a question of attacking the weakest link in the chain -- doesn't
mean that the chain itself was not strong as hell.
--
Cheers,
vc
blande...@hotmail.com
Well there you go then.
Vari L. Cinicke
You are approaching against Pete. Do you hit it to his backhand more
often than his forehand or not?
All his opponents did.
Doesn't mean that his backhand sucked. Just not anywhere near as good as
his forehand.
--
Cheers,
vc
Vari L. Cinicke
You know that I am just objecting to the hero-worship and elevation to
perfection that Pete's backhand has been undergoing the past 10 days.
It was weaker than that when he was playing, for goodness' sake!
--
Cheers,
vc
Carey
half-volley, which he hit
with textbook form: that meant the shot very seldom broke down- as
opposed to his backhand,
which had the (relative) inconsistency and variability caused by stroke
production defects well listed
above.
GregRupedski
"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:cdlk32lgadq4pvn40...@4ax.com...
At least twice that I've seen, Sampras played in exhibitions with a wood
racquet and showed himself very capable. Ask Mcenroe. Sampras hit a 124mph
ace past him with wood.
GregRupedski
"Carey" <carey...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144689805.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> He also hit it with the elbow quite bent at contact, contrary to
> ergonomic correctness, which led to
> the high number of errors off that side.
ROFL. "ergonomic correctness!"....it's great to hear from a genuine
biomechanist!
GregRupedski
"*skriptis" <upisi_m...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:e1egfq$d97$1...@news1.carnet.hr...
Quite true Skriptis. It is interesting to see the Sampras bashers above
actually say that it was 1.poor and 2.biomechanically poor.
To that end, they should take it up with Landsorp, who is acknowledged by
many to be the absolute dean of classic, powerfully driven groundstrokes. He
is the one who developed Sampras' ground game.
For the record, Pete's backhand did change slightly, not because of "disuse"
(another Vari suggested idiocy, (rolls eyes)) but because Tim Gullickson,
encouraged hitting heavy topspin off that side. It is debatable whether this
change was ultimately positive or negative, both had strengths and
weaknesses.
GregRupedski
Sure. Just like Federer....but then...you don't say these things about
Federer's backhand....LOL.
For a decade and a half, the best groundstrokers on the planet, relentlessly
attacked the Sampras backhand any and every way they could, there were times
when it looked like Courier could only hit his groundies to one place, the
backhand corner! Sampras walked away with 14 slams, even those who don't
know a thing about biomechanics(apparently a lot of posters!) can understand
that.
Manuel Munoz
Great fun reading this...
Don't ask me why but it reminds me the famous "ministry of silly walk"
Maybe the way you choose to demonstrate your sense of humour...
You should consider dubbing audio of a video (yet to be edited)
including many great mishits from the most famous players.
I'm sure the result would be as funny as sensible.
At last watching best players ever (note to whispersclones: not only
pete's silly shots) doing mistakes as we do.
So young players (10/11) wouldn't start crying as they miss a shot,
despite leading the match 6/0 5/1...
Keep up the pace like this!
Manolo
---
Antivirus avast! : message Sortant sain.
Base de donnees virale (VPS) : 0615-0, 08/04/2006
Analyse le : 11/04/2006 01:13:23
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Vari L. Cinicke
You are very peculiar. Yes, Federer's forehand is better than his
backhand. Happy now?
You do know that Sampras used to run around his backhand a lot and tempt
his opponent to go for the open court so he could hit his running
forehand, don't you? On fast courts, that was a great play. Didn't work
nearly as well on red clay.
Is "biomechanics" a loaded term for you? It seems to trigger frenetic
responses from you. Perhaps you want to take up the biomechanical battle
with whoever started that.
--
Cheers,
vc
Dave Hazelwood
Borgs was better. Way way better.
Dave Hazelwood
That's because he played 25 more slams than Borg to win just 3 more and
the competition during the Sampras era was weak. If Sampras had to play a
Mac or a Lendl day in and day out he would have been lucky to win 6 or 7
slams.
bob
news:1144668313....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> ...was hit with perfect form. In fact, Sampras is THE perfect male form.
that BH was beautiful..fred perry knew it immediately.
bob
bob
"Dave Hazelwood" <the_big...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:cdlk32lgadq4pvn40...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:42:09 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>Bob Whisper wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Compare to the spastic bumrooters who have all manner of contorted
>>double-handed grips on kingsize rackets - ridiculous..... clown-like.
>
>
> Put a "wooden" racquet in the hands of Sampras and you wouldn't be able
> to tell the difference between he and a spastic.
>
perfect form never needs a crutch--wood or graphite.
bob
bob
> Whisper wrote:
>> Habib wrote:
>>
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob Whisper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ...was hit with perfect form.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, technically correct & perfect.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not even close. His follow-through alone is one awkward-looking piece
>>> of work.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://s37.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0KE30H91BAMN508TG7UMZG2MLO
>
>
>
>
> I'm trying to imagine how it could be more 'technically perfect' & am
> drawing a blank...
>
fred perry knew a bit about tennis and he said the same...
bob
Carey
Are you sure it was Lansdorp who 'developed' Sampras's groundies?
Thought it was
Peter Fischer..
bob
"GregRupedski" <datac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CgB_f.534$7a.69@pd7tw1no...
i believe bud collins did a piece yrs ago on the speed of serves with modern
ultralights vs the old wood and the moral of the story (per bud) was that
guys who grew up with and were used to wood hit almost as fast with it as
the young guys with graphite/etc..in fact the new rackets affected
groundstrokes and spin more than serve or something to that
nature.............
bob
GregRupedski
>
> Is "biomechanics" a loaded term for you? It seems to trigger frenetic
> responses from you. Perhaps you want to take up the biomechanical battle
> with whoever started that.
Yes, it is my coaching speciality as well as an area in which I study
formally/academically. It is irritating to see it butchered on a regular
basis and it's troubling that a lot of tennis myths are created this way.
Further, I feel badly for rec players who may be misguided into a lot of
wasted time and effort by erroneous ideas.
Carey
world-class junior tennis players,
do you opine that Sampras's backhand did not have the technical
problems mentioned earlier
in this thread? That it was essentially perfect, the equal or better of
say Edberg's?
Madhavan
Sampras had a very good bh for most of his career, but near the end of
his career,
it was very hit or miss. For eg. the Federer match where his backhand
return was absolutely terrible that day. Luckily for him, he got it
working again in the USO 02 final
when he really needed it.
Aesthetics-wise, not one of my favourite strokes to watch - I find it
pretty jerky lacking the beautiful flow of a Edberg/Guga shot. The
follow thru was pretty nice though.
-Madhavan
bob
>I think there are two-handers which are quite beautiful, in their way:
> Safin's, Mecir's; Andrei Chesnokov had maybe the most fluid two-hander
> I can recall.
for 2 handers, rios had a nice one, nadal has a nice one..safin's is ugly
but effective IMO.
bob
Habib
history. It looks so flowing, so effortless. Nadal's looks alright,
it's not beautiful but it's no Roddick backhand. Agassi has a nice,
simple stroke. Ditto Nalbandian.
Whisper
> Arietta wrote:
>
>> Pete had great backhand and was quite adroit with it, but his form
>> wasn't as pretty as, say Edberg or even Federer.
>>
>
> Pete was a top notch player and if you picked the player with the best
> stroke of his times, you would be guaranteed to pick Pete on the serve,
> the running forehand and the overhead for its quality and showboating.
>
> You would never pick Pete for the backhand.
>
Speak for yourself - Sampras has easily produced some of the greatest
bh's of all time - absolutely no doubts about that.
Whisper
>
>>Arietta wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Pete had great backhand and was quite adroit with it, but his form
>>>wasn't as pretty as, say Edberg or even Federer.
>>>
>>
>>Pete was a top notch player and if you picked the player with the best
>>stroke of his times, you would be guaranteed to pick Pete on the serve,
>>the running forehand and the overhead for its quality and showboating.
>>
>>You would never pick Pete for the backhand.
>
>
>
>
> but the fact that his backhand wasn't goat by itself doesn't mean it isnt
> tier I rang..or tier II.
>
> not an average. certainly not bad shot
>
>
When it went in it was probably the best ever bh - I can't think of
better bh's at top of my head...?
Whisper
> Whisper wrote:
>
>>I'm trying to imagine how it could be more 'technically perfect' & am
>>drawing a blank...
>
>
> hit,
If you went through all his slam finals you'd be truly amazed at the
number of stunning bh winners he produced... has to be the most in
history by a big margin...
Whisper
> cut the crap guys.
>
> sampras had all amazing shots.
> he had no weaknesess.
>
> of course..it doesn't mean his all of his shots were the same. backhand was
> the lousiest.
> there were better backhand in history.
>
> but not that many..
>
>
There were more consistent bh's, but Sampras' were the most spectacular....
Whisper
>>
>>
>>>Pete had great backhand and was quite adroit with it, but his form
>>>wasn't as pretty as, say Edberg or even Federer.
>>>
>>
>>Pete was a top notch player and if you picked the player with the best
>>stroke of his times, you would be guaranteed to pick Pete on the serve,
>>the running forehand and the overhead for its quality and showboating.
>>
>>You would never pick Pete for the backhand.
>
>
> player would actually beat Sampras? I tend to think that Sampras' BH
> worked perfectly within the scheme of his overall game, and I enjoyed
> watching him hit it. It was quite versatile and a real monster shot
> when he uncorked--which was often.
>
Exactly. The haters look at the mishits & bloopers, but ignore the many
'monster' bh's he produced - I've lost count of the numbers - those were
untouchable.
eg the clip v Rafter dtl - absolutely awesome - that winner was 10 times
better than what it needed to be to win the point.... the fuckers know
it as you can't win 14 slams, 6 yrs No.1 without a completely crushing,
all round game.
Whisper
> *skriptis wrote:
>
>> "Vari L. Cinicke" <cin...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:3vz_f.5441$YT1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Pete had great backhand and was quite adroit with it, but his form
>>>> wasn't as pretty as, say Edberg or even Federer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pete was a top notch player and if you picked the player with the
>>> best stroke of his times, you would be guaranteed to pick Pete on the
>>> serve, the running forehand and the overhead for its quality and
>>> showboating.
>>>
>>> You would never pick Pete for the backhand.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> but the fact that his backhand wasn't goat by itself doesn't mean it
>> isnt tier I rang..or tier II.
>>
>> not an average. certainly not bad shot
>>
>
> career. Once he dialed in his S-V game, I thought his bh went south a
> little, maybe from disuse.
>
> It is a question of attacking the weakest link in the chain -- doesn't
> mean that the chain itself was not strong as hell.
>
lol - we saw what happened when guys attacked his bh.... ; )
Whisper
>>>
>>>
>>>> Pete had great backhand and was quite adroit with it, but his form
>>>> wasn't as pretty as, say Edberg or even Federer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pete was a top notch player and if you picked the player with the best
>>> stroke of his times, you would be guaranteed to pick Pete on the serve,
>>> the running forehand and the overhead for its quality and showboating.
>>>
>>> You would never pick Pete for the backhand.
>>
>>
>>
>> player would actually beat Sampras? I tend to think that Sampras' BH
>> worked perfectly within the scheme of his overall game, and I enjoyed
>> watching him hit it. It was quite versatile and a real monster shot
>> when he uncorked--which was often.
>>
>
> often than his forehand or not?
>
> All his opponents did.
>
> Doesn't mean that his backhand sucked. Just not anywhere near as good as
> his forehand.
>
No matter what side you attacked it's best to say a little prayer
1st.... ; )
Whisper
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Vari L. Cinicke" <cin...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:3vz_f.5441$YT1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Pete had great backhand and was quite adroit with it, but his form
>>>>>> wasn't as pretty as, say Edberg or even Federer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pete was a top notch player and if you picked the player with the best
>>>>> stroke of his times, you would be guaranteed to pick Pete on the
>>>>> serve,
>>>>> the running forehand and the overhead for its quality and showboating.
>>>>>
>>>>> You would never pick Pete for the backhand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> but the fact that his backhand wasn't goat by itself doesn't mean
>>>> it isnt
>>>> tier I rang..or tier II.
>>>>
>>>> not an average. certainly not bad shot
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not saying it was bad at all. It used to be better earlier in his
>>> career. Once he dialed in his S-V game, I thought his bh went south a
>>> little, maybe from disuse.
>>>
>>> It is a question of attacking the weakest link in the chain -- doesn't
>>> mean that the chain itself was not strong as hell.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> You know that I am just objecting to the hero-worship and elevation to
> perfection that Pete's backhand has been undergoing the past 10 days.
>
> It was weaker than that when he was playing, for goodness' sake!
>
You truly are insane - have you ever seen a better bh's than those clips
I posted..?
I challenge you to post 1 clip of a better bh than the one he hit v
Rafter dtl....
You can't do it because it doesn't exist - no amount of verbal
gymnastics can change the reality. Post the clip & we'll judge with our
eyes & not your constant transparent bullshit...
Whisper
> I would contrast Sampra's backhand with, for example, his forehand
> half-volley, which he hit
> with textbook form: that meant the shot very seldom broke down- as
> opposed to his backhand,
> which had the (relative) inconsistency and variability caused by stroke
> production defects well listed
> above.
>
You have to concede they were perfect when he hit them correctly - I
can't think of any other player in history with the ability to produce a
bh of that quality....
Whisper
No you don't understand - they attacked his bh relentlessly, but Sampras
won the points because of his serve.
Whisper
The mishits aren't important - any bumrooter is capable of that - what's
beyond bumrooters, however, is the classically perfect Sampras strokes.
Much like losses in slams aren't important if you have mind-boggling
number of wins.
Some accuse me of cherry picking, but most of these awesome winners are
from the same match. Let's see some cherrypicked/technically-perfect
classic Agassi/Coria strokes lol... ; )
Hell, even Rafter is inacapable of producing a classically perfect
tennis stroke like Sampras.....
Dave Hazelwood
proof ? cite ?
Dave Hazelwood
tell it to Yzaga and Bastl !!!
Hey post some of those bh's that buried them will ya ?
A ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Dave Hazelwood
GregRupedski
> So, just to be *clear*, as an expert on biomechanics and coach of
> world-class junior tennis players,
> do you opine that Sampras's backhand did not have the technical
> problems mentioned earlier
> in this thread?
LOL. Please clarify these "technical problems" you are referring to. Are you
referring to when you said that he hits the backhand with arm bent?
>That it was essentially perfect, the equal or better of
> say Edberg's?
ROFL. I never mentioned Edberg's name.
GregRupedski
"bob" <rst...@NOSPAMcfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4oC_f.138019$Fw6....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Indeed, there is a lot of evidence to suggest this. Even based on personal
experience, I've found this to be true! There is no doubt in my mind that
groundstrokes and return are the most affected by the modern racquets.
Volleys are easier with larger headed, stiffer racquets, but great pro
volleyers had no problem making great volleys with the old gear so that
hasnt' changed all that much. The change in serving for a good server, once
he adjusts, is almost negligible, with perhaps the possible exception of 2nd
serves/kick serves being harder to get as much speed on.
Whisper
The follow-through was textbook perfection - how anyone can dispute this
is beyond me..
Whisper
It was far superior to edberg as far as producing winners goes.
arnab.z@gmail
lengthy and pointless threads on Sampras's *perfect* technique 4 years
after his retirement, and it's not even grass season yet.
The videos are the only good things to come out of it. Thank God the
troll knows how to edit and upload videos.
Vari L. Cinicke
You should control your drooling. Find a new medication or something,
please.
Cheers,
vc
--
Cheers,
vc
Dave Hazelwood
Anytime anyone disputes anything you think is great, it baffles you.
Right ?
Whisper
Every slam final he won - want me to post them? 100's of 'em...
Vari L. Cinicke
Here is homework for you. Pick a few of Sampras matches (two on clay
from RG - a win and a loss, one on grass from W, one from USO -- Yzaga?)
and pull together _every_ backhand he hits during those matches. Post
those clips. No fanboy preselections! Just the raw footage, all of the
backhands.
Go for it! I dare you!
--
Cheers,
vc
Dave Hazelwood
Independent and unbiased analysis and/or statement from experts.
Anything but your own "warped" opinion.
Dave Hazelwood
Nothing like calling "Pinnochios" bluff. Bravo.
stephenj
> Bob Whisper wrote:
>
>> ...was hit with perfect form.
>
>
>
>
> Yes, technically correct & perfect.
then why did he make so many errors with it .. ?
--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
Habib
> Whisper wrote:
> > Yes, technically correct & perfect.
>
> then why did he make so many errors with it .. ?
Because it was "perfect when he hit it correctly." Hilarious.
Javier González Nicolini
> You have to concede they were perfect when he hit them correctly - I
> can't think of any other player in history with the ability to produce a
> bh of that quality....
LOL! If you add "when hit correctly" it becomes very easy. Gasquet's
BH, "when hit correctly" has more power and better placement than, say,
Roddick's "monster" FH.
Shakes
Whisper wrote:
> Habib wrote:
> > Whisper wrote:
> >
> >>I'm trying to imagine how it could be more 'technically perfect' & am
> >>drawing a blank...
> >
> >
> > That's because 1) you posted one of the prettiest backhands he ever
> > hit,
>
>
> If you went through all his slam finals you'd be truly amazed at the
> number of stunning bh winners he produced... has to be the most in
> history by a big margin...
that's a lot of matches to select from. it's an explosive BH but not as
consistent as someone like agassi, borg, safin, nalby, baggy, fed etc.
as long as u get that it's fine.
i mean, in any given match, the ratio of winners to errors on the BH
side for pete is not too high, definitely much lower than his FH.
Whisper
> Whisper wrote:
>
>> Bob Whisper wrote:
>>
>>> ...was hit with perfect form.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, technically correct & perfect.
>
>
> then why did he make so many errors with it .. ?
>
That's like saying why did he lose so many slams. We look at wins, &
what kind of shots they were capable of. I'm not saying it was
consistent, but given his overall game it didn't have to be - obvious by
the reults. Who else produced perfect bh's like that in modern era...?
Whisper
Who else fits that bill....?
Whisper
I'm talking 'technically perfect', not flashing winner...
Whisper
> Whisper wrote:
>
>>Habib wrote:
>>
>>>Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm trying to imagine how it could be more 'technically perfect' & am
>>>>drawing a blank...
>>>
>>>
>>>That's because 1) you posted one of the prettiest backhands he ever
>>>hit,
>>
>>
>>If you went through all his slam finals you'd be truly amazed at the
>>number of stunning bh winners he produced... has to be the most in
>>history by a big margin...
>
>
>
> that's a lot of matches to select from. it's an explosive BH but not as
> consistent as someone like agassi, borg, safin, nalby, baggy, fed etc.
> as long as u get that it's fine.
Obviously - you do realize Sampras wasn't aiming for consistency? That
entails long rallies - he was developing explosive point-enders in every
facet of the game...
>
> i mean, in any given match, the ratio of winners to errors on the BH
> side for pete is not too high, definitely much lower than his FH.
>
Not the point I was making. He still produced way more bh winners than
any opponent I can think of - just clouded a little by his misfires...
Habib
> > Because it was "perfect when he hit it correctly." Hilarious.
>
> Who else fits that bill....?
Guga, Haas, Calleri, Mauresmo, Gaudio, Acasuso, Federer, I could keep
going.
bob
if i had to guess i'd say that a groundie with topspin to the extreme is the
stroke most benefitted by the new lighter rackets..
bob
bob
you can say what you want, but pete's BH was hit with textbook form
consistently..nobody's criticizing fed here, this isn't about fed's form, so
just relax.
bob
bob
"Vari L. Cinicke" <cin...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:JIB_f.5648$YT1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> GregRupedski wrote:
>
>> "Vari L. Cinicke" <cin...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:KUz_f.5486$YT1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>>>blande...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Arietta wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Pete had great backhand and was quite adroit with it, but his form
>>>>>>wasn't as pretty as, say Edberg or even Federer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Pete was a top notch player and if you picked the player with the best
>>>>>stroke of his times, you would be guaranteed to pick Pete on the serve,
>>>>>the running forehand and the overhead for its quality and showboating.
>>>>>
>>>>>You would never pick Pete for the backhand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I wonder if rst could devise a "Frankenstein" type player, if that
>>>>player would actually beat Sampras? I tend to think that Sampras' BH
>>>>worked perfectly within the scheme of his overall game, and I enjoyed
>>>>watching him hit it. It was quite versatile and a real monster shot
>>>>when he uncorked--which was often.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are approaching against Pete. Do you hit it to his backhand more
>>>often than his forehand or not?
>>>
>>>All his opponents did.
>>>
>>>Doesn't mean that his backhand sucked. Just not anywhere near as good as
>>>his forehand.
>>
>>
>> Federer's backhand....LOL.
>>
>> For a decade and a half, the best groundstrokers on the planet,
>> relentlessly
>> attacked the Sampras backhand any and every way they could, there were
>> times
>> when it looked like Courier could only hit his groundies to one place,
>> the
>> backhand corner! Sampras walked away with 14 slams, even those who don't
>> know a thing about biomechanics(apparently a lot of posters!) can
>> understand
>> that.
>>
>>
>
> You are very peculiar. Yes, Federer's forehand is better than his
> backhand. Happy now?
>
> You do know that Sampras used to run around his backhand a lot and tempt
> his opponent to go for the open court so he could hit his running
> forehand, don't you? On fast courts, that was a great play. Didn't work
> nearly as well on red clay.
sampras had an extremely powerful FH crosscourt, perhaps best in history..he
liked it, he had huge confidence in it and he hit it for outright winners
relentlessly..his BH wasn't his personal strongest shot, but it was picture
perfect in form--beautiful to watch and produced its share of winners.
> Is "biomechanics" a loaded term for you? It seems to trigger frenetic
> responses from you. Perhaps you want to take up the biomechanical battle
> with whoever started that
i see you stoop low again when drowning in the sea of rupedski dominance..
bob
bob
"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:443b734e$0$6787$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>> Arietta wrote:
>>
>>> Pete had great backhand and was quite adroit with it, but his form
>>> wasn't as pretty as, say Edberg or even Federer.
>>>
>>
>> Pete was a top notch player and if you picked the player with the best
>> stroke of his times, you would be guaranteed to pick Pete on the serve,
>> the running forehand and the overhead for its quality and showboating.
>>
>> You would never pick Pete for the backhand.
>>
>
>
>
>
> of all time - absolutely no doubts about that.
i recall watching sampras practice in miami a yr or two before he retired,
he was mostly hitting BHs, and they were beautiful..watched it mesmerized,
particuarly at the follow through --and then jerkoffs here have nerve to
criticize the follow through..if you want to say it wasn't as powerful as
the FH fine, but don't criticize the form and god forbid criticize the
follow thru.
bob
bob
"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:443b734e$0$6787$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>> Arietta wrote:
>>
>>> Pete had great backhand and was quite adroit with it, but his form
>>> wasn't as pretty as, say Edberg or even Federer.
>>>
>>
>> Pete was a top notch player and if you picked the player with the best
>> stroke of his times, you would be guaranteed to pick Pete on the serve,
>> the running forehand and the overhead for its quality and showboating.
>>
>> You would never pick Pete for the backhand.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Speak for yourself - Sampras has easily produced some of the greatest bh's
> of all time - absolutely no doubts about that.
and no doubt why, he had picture perfect form on the BH..personally, i even
liked the BH form better than the FH form, although the FH stroke was a
killer--mass murderer type killer..
bob
bob
he had a fairly high # of BH errors in a match because every opponent hit
90% of the shots to his BH, eventually you miss some..they did it because
they were tired of trying to chase down FH cross court winners all day.
bob
Habib
criticize his form? It wasn't textbook at all. It wasn't bad form, but
it had its share of problems, many of which have been mentioned. And
yes, the lift-up follow through was particularly unorthodox.
bob
>
> "Carey" <carey...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1144689805.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> He also hit it with the elbow quite bent at contact, contrary to
>> ergonomic correctness, which led to
>> the high number of errors off that side.
>
> ROFL. "ergonomic correctness!"....it's great to hear from a genuine
> biomechanist!
i wish the little radio and air conditioning control knobs on my VW were as
"ergonomically correct" as pete's BH........ROFLMAO.
bob
bob
> Manuel Munoz wrote:
>> Vari L. Cinicke a écrit :
>>
>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>> Carey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He also hit it with the elbow quite bent at contact, contrary to
>>>>> ergonomic correctness, which led to
>>>>> the high number of errors off that side.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why don't people know that Sampras never missed a backhand he didn't
>>> mean to? With his classical style and utter mastery of the stroke, he
>>> could select from several different perfect _mishits_ off that side to
>>> confuse the enemy. Wide shot down the line, crosscourt into umpire's
>>> chair, passing shot into the backfence! All done with pure form and
>>> exquisite touch! ;-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Great fun reading this...
>> Don't ask me why but it reminds me the famous "ministry of silly walk"
>> Maybe the way you choose to demonstrate your sense of humour...
>>
>> You should consider dubbing audio of a video (yet to be edited)
>> including many great mishits from the most famous players.
>> I'm sure the result would be as funny as sensible.
>> At last watching best players ever (note to whispersclones: not only
>> pete's silly shots) doing mistakes as we do.
>> So young players (10/11) wouldn't start crying as they miss a shot,
>> despite leading the match 6/0 5/1...
>>
>> Keep up the pace like this!
>>
>>
>> Manolo
>>
>
>
> The mishits aren't important - any bumrooter is capable of that - what's
> beyond bumrooters, however, is the classically perfect Sampras strokes.
> Much like losses in slams aren't important if you have mind-boggling
> number of wins.
>
> Some accuse me of cherry picking, but most of these awesome winners are
> from the same match. Let's see some cherrypicked/technically-perfect
> classic Agassi/Coria strokes lol... ; )
nobody cherry picks like hazelwood/vari, not even hops..
bob
John
> Carey wrote:
>> So, just to be *clear*, as an expert on biomechanics and coach of
>> world-class junior tennis players,
>> do you opine that Sampras's backhand did not have the technical
>> problems mentioned earlier
>> in this thread? That it was essentially perfect, the equal or better of
>> say Edberg's?
>>
>
>
> It was far superior to edberg as far as producing winners goes.
I wonder who won the duel when they play the AO in 93, what did Edberg
do when he rallied with Sampras ? Edberg basically direct all his rallies
to
Sampras' backhand and why was he doing that because he knew that when
it comes to winner/unforce error ratio on the backhand he would always
beat Sampras. A better backhand is the one that can produce winners at
lower winner/unforce error ratio Edberg clearly does it better than Sampras
thus he has a superior backhand and on top of it Edberg had better slice
backhand
and much wider variety with his backhand than Sampras.
Dave Hazelwood
Millions know that. Whisper doesn't.
Whisper
You have got to be fucking kidding...?
Ok, post even 1 clip for comparison....
Whisper
You're nuts - I've posted dozens of clips showing absolutely perfect
textbook form & follow through, & you still persist with bullshit...?
Sampras is far more textbook/correct than federer - it's not even close...
I notice no one has posted any Fed clips showing a more correct bh than
Sampras... how come?
Dave Hazelwood
1. Because we have better things to do with our time than search through
old videos, edit them, and post them simply to have you post another and
another in rebuttal, ad nauseum.
2. Even if we did decide to waste the time and did provide the video you
would argue it is not more correct and is shit.
Bottom line:
3. We know your modis operandi.
Whisper
Ah, so your position is Sampras was incapable of taking a bit off his bh
& bumroot for a bit..?
Whisper
Sampras' bh was technically perfect - pure textbook. Fed's looks
ungainly, but very effective due to wrist deformity....
Dave Hazelwood
Your analysis is ineffective to a brain deformity.
Sasidhar
shot. If I may be so bold, I think it is the best backhand on the tour
right now -- especially his returns and his DTL backhands.
stephenj
prone to errors. i wonder why?
Habib
stephenj wrote:
> yes, but despite that form, his backhand was always very suspect -
> prone to errors. i wonder why?
Because no matter what Spampras would like to believe, Pete's his form
on that side was deficient.
Sasidhar
backhand as Safin.
Habib
> Habib wrote:
> > Guga, Haas, Calleri, Mauresmo, Gaudio, Acasuso, Federer, I could keep
> > going.
>
> You have got to be fucking kidding...?
Nope, they all pretty much hit it better and more correctly.
> Sampras' bh was technically perfect - pure textbook. Fed's looks
> ungainly, but very effective due to wrist deformity....
It was only pure textbook from your fanboy perspective. Fed has a much
prettier and better flowing backhand, as do many players on the tour,
even those who may not hit their BH's as effectively due to timing
issues/whatnot.
> You're nuts - I've posted dozens of clips showing absolutely perfect
> textbook form & follow through, & you still persist with bullshit...?
Ah, I see the problem. You're confused. See, it's actually you posting
the bullshit. Well, I'm glad we got that figured out. However, for
purposes of giving you at least some credit, why don't you go ahead and
tell us what [in your fanboy brain] constitutes textbook form on the
1hbh?
> Sampras is far more textbook/correct than federer - it's not even close...
Not the dumbest thing you've ever said, but somewhere up there with the
whole wristy-shmisty babble.
> I notice no one has posted any Fed clips showing a more correct bh than
> Sampras... how come?
Because the preponderance of evidence is on our side. You're only
posting batches of Sampras clips because you're obviously insecure (and
likely dubious) of the very point you're trying to make. And your
childish insecurity leads you to flood the group with cherry-picked
clips to try and convince everyone of how good your idol was.
Federer's backhand, however, doesn't need a fanboy's futile attempt to
prove that it's hit with excellent form. Ditto that for Guga, Haas,
even Olivier freakin' Rochus. It's like Sampras' serve and forehand -
no one needs to try and prove anything, because everyone but a handful
of Spamprasses knows just how well it's hit.