The serve of Roscoe Tanner?
Eric Patton
On August 7, 2003, St. Petersburg Times columnist Gary Shelton claims
that on Tanner's serve, Tanner "usually topped out above 130, but he had
been timed at 153, and no one doubted it." [1]
But John Maclean writes for the Sunday Mail on June 20, 2004, that "In
1974 when US monster Roscoe Tanner was thundering down serves estimated
at 140mph with a WOODEN racket the winner of Tennis magazine's contest
to find the game's biggest hitter was unknown Aussie Colin Dibley, who
was credited with 148mph." [2]
In October 2003, GolfDigest.com says that "A typical tour swing rips
through the ball at 115 miles per hour. Former long-drive champion Jason
Zuback's swing is 140 mph; the average golfer's is 90 mph. The ball will
leave a long hitter's clubface at 200 mph, which easily exceeds the
fastest recorded tennis serve of 153 mph (by Roscoe Tanner), and is on a
par with jai-alai, often called the fastest game in the world." [3]
Something here called the "National Fast Serve Challenge Tour" says, in
a note credited to someone named Tina Cheung, that " To know what it is
like for a top server to win it, let us drop back in history to examine
the details of a 1976 event. That's when legendary Roscoe Tanner, whose
serve a radar gun once clocked at 153 mph, blasted into the winner's
circle." [4]
As part of an April Fools' Day joke in 1985 in Sports Illustrated,
George Plimpton wrote that "The fastest projectile ever measured by the
JUGS (which is named after the oldtimer's descriptive -- the
'jug-handled' curveball) was a Roscoe Tanner serve that registered 153
mph. The highest number that the JUGS had ever turned for a baseball was
103 mph, which it did, curiously, twice on one day, July 11, at the 1978
All-Star Game when both Goose Gossage and Nolan Ryan threw the ball at
that speed." [5]
Simon Austin and Mark Jolly say "The whole subject of the world's
fastest serve is not quite what it seems.
"For one thing, there are not speed guns on every court and they are not
always the most accurate devices on the planet.
"There are those that swear Roscoe Tanner, one of Bjorn Borg's rivals
from the 1970s, could serve at 150mph - and that was with a wooden
racket." [6]
According to this, on September 5, 1979, "Roscoe Tanner fires 11 aces,
breaks the net with his bullet serve & upsets top-seeded Bjorn Borg in
US Tennis Open quarterfinals." [7]
I don't know. I could believe that, perhaps, on one occasion, Roscoe
Tanner managed to hit a 150+ mph serve with a wooden racquet. I think I
might even be able to believe he managed to hit some 130+ mph serves
more often than not.
I just have difficulty believing that there's also not some "urban
legend" quality at work here. I have incredible difficulty believing
that Tanner was out there walloping serves like Sampras, Ivanisevic,
Rusedski, or Roddick, way back before people were even using so much as
an aluminum tennis racquet.
People are free to draw their own conclusions from all this. One thing,
however, is absolutely certain: Big serve or no, Tanner managed one
grand slam title only -- the 1977 Australian Open. If he really did
have all that heat, then he sure didn't do much with it if he could only
muster one solitary grand slam win.
Notes:
1. http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/07/Columns/Tanner_doing_disservi.shtml
3.
http://www.golfdigest.com/features/index.ssf?/features/gd200310golfguru.html
4. http://nfsctour.com/big.html
5. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/magazine/09/26/plimpton.finch/
However, it appears as though what appears on cnnsi.com is an excerpt.
The full article would seem to be able to be found at
http://www.bostonbaseball.com/whitesox/baseball_extras/sidd.html
ConnMoore
>Path:
>From: Eric Patton ebpa...@xyahoo.com
>I just have difficulty believing that there's also not some "urban
>legend" quality at work here. I have incredible difficulty believing
>that Tanner was out there walloping serves like Sampras, Ivanisevic,
>Rusedski, or Roddick, way back before people were even using so much as
>an aluminum tennis racquet.
I do want to point out a fatal flaw in this reasoning.
Tennis raquets do not generate any pace...the user does.
How fast a tennis ball travels has to do with a few different factors.
1) How fast the raquet is going when it hits the ball
2) How much compression the ball has.
3) How much compression the raquet has.
Be aware that wooden raquets were often strung at very high tensions. Very
little give or trampoline effect in these raquets. This means that you have a
very tough time generating pace off ground strokes, without losing a lot of
control..
Put another way......string tensions on raquets today are lower than they were
with old wood raquets. Bjorn Borg had a string tension in the 80's!! Today
you seldom hear of anyone going above 60. Those old raquets were like playing
with a board. or a Bat. Now can you hit something very hard with a bat?
I know that few of you have ever played with a wooden raquet, but if you have
one around...go pick it up, and compare the face of the raquet with a modern
wide body. The woody will have very little if any give....no trampoline
effect at all. All that balls stored energy is going to stay with the ball
when you hit it. Seldom, if ever, would a player using a wood raquet hit it
with anything close to full strength during a rally...it was a game of guile
and patience. The ONE shot people would hit with full force was the
serve...the first serve at least....because a flat downward swing fit right in
with the old raquets strengths.....full power transmitted into the
ball.......to be sure, serving percentages were lower, because the ability to
impart spin was greatly lessened...but hitting a ball with a tightly strung
raquet using arm speed in excesss of 100 MPH is going to create a serve as fast
if you use a rock, a tennis raquet, a frying pan or a Toyota Corolla.
Its physics...pure and simple.
Eric Patton
> Its physics...pure and simple.
Okay, you've convinced me of this much. So Tanner could have hit 153.
But with that small racquet head, to do it consistently? It might be
physics as far as velocity generation, but it's accuracy to connect with
the racquet's sweet spot and actually be able to get the serve in;
hitting a 200 mph serve does no good if you can't place the shot in the
service box.
Doesn't the smaller size of those wooden racquets' heads make it more
difficult to serve consistently hard serves? Put another way, even if
we stipulate that Tanner could have served 153 with a wooden racquet (or
a Toyota Corolla), what percentage of the time was he hitting 140+ mph
first serves -- and, of course, actually getting them in the service
box? Wouldn't it be more likely that he'd have to serve slower in order
to hit his serve accurately?
ConnMoore
>Path:
>From: Eric Patton ebpa...@xyahoo.com
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Window
>So Tanner could have hit 153.
>But with that small racquet head, to do it consistently?
I have heard the 153 number bandied about for so long......Even I would have
doubts about this number....He hit the ball damn hard though..as hard as I have
ever seen a tennis ball hit.
As for consistancy...you are correct.....the old time big servers had much
lower serving percentages than the big bombers of today. hitting 50% was a
GREAT day for a guy like Tanner.
I have no doubts that servers of today are better than servers of the past,
mostly due to equitment changes....they are much more accurate, and their
second serves are HUGE compared to the patty cake crap that old timers had to
throw up.
But in terms of raw speed of a first serve....the ability to generate that
speed was there even with the old creaky raquets.
>Wouldn't it be more likely that he'd have to serve slower in order
>to hit his serve accurately?
This is the reason Tanner was never an all time great player.......his serve
was unstoppable....but since he couldnt hit it more than 50% of the time...it
all depended on how "on" he was if he was going to win a tournament...
You are 100% correct when you mention the idea of consistancy being so
important....guys like Tanner just decided that if they were hitting 50% of
their serves...they would win..if they dropped into the low 40's...it was all
over for them
GregRupedski
"Eric Patton" <ebpa...@xyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qAkGc.186030$DG4....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Let's see here...
Eric, I can assure you Tanner topped 130mph, I have talked to Vic Braden
personally about it. He has computer analysis and footage of this.
As noted in another thread, Kevin Curren who topped 120mph on atp radar has
acknowledged that Tanner served much harder than he did.
When I saw Tanner's motion IN PERSON, I realized how he did it. His motion
was absolutely unique. Like nothing in tennis I've ever seen. It
was....perfection....bear in mind my personal record is 124mph and I once
hit 118mph with a cheap(was cheap at the time of purchase) Bancroft wood
racquet with the original strings which actually cracked in half on a
forehand about a month later when I was fooling around with it. The Tanner
motion made me feel like....well a complete hack.
StephenJ
> legend" quality at work here. I have incredible difficulty believing
> that Tanner was out there walloping serves like Sampras, Ivanisevic,
> Rusedski, or Roddick, way back before people were even using so much as
> an aluminum tennis racquet.
.. and at under six feet tall to boot (no top servers these days are).
Don't fret - your tennis instincts don't betray you. The notion that Tanner
really was serving 140 mph back in the late 70s, better than Sampras, Goran,
Roddick, etc. is ludicrous...
--
When the facts change,
one's opinion ought to change.
- John Maynard Keynes
GregRupedski
From: VH5150VP (vh51...@aol.com)
Subject: Eric Patton is StephenJ
View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.music.van-halen
Date: 1998/08/27
>Eric Patton <nos...@this.address>
>At the very least, tell us _why_ the fact Stephen thinks Dave's
>career is dead
Hey moron, what is your obsession with StephenJ? Why do you always defend
him?
I think you and him are the same person. It's quite obvious that both you
retards aren't dealing with a full deck. It's like everytime someone attacks
Stephen (which is quite often), you come out and protect him like his mommy
would. And then Stephen quotes you and says "ROTFL". Get lost spam boy.
Sammy
isn't coming back.
NO MATTER HOW MANY SCREENAMES YOU USE!!!!!!!
StephenJ
> Be aware that wooden raquets were often strung at very high tensions.
Very
> little give or trampoline effect in these raquets. This means that you
have a
> very tough time generating pace off ground strokes, without losing a lot
of
> control..
? Every one knows that higher tension = lesss trampoline effect = *less*
power (speed) on the ball.
> I know that few of you have ever played with a wooden raquet, but if you
have
> one around...go pick it up, and compare the face of the raquet with a
modern
> wide body. The woody will have very little if any give....no trampoline
> effect at all.
... which means less power...
> All that balls stored energy is going to stay with the ball
> when you hit it. Seldom, if ever, would a player using a wood raquet hit
it
> with anything close to full strength during a rally...it was a game of
guile
> and patience. The ONE shot people would hit with full force was the
> serve...the first serve at least....because a flat downward swing fit
right in
> with the old raquets strengths.....full power transmitted into the
> ball....
> Its physics...pure and simple.
Yes, lower tension (wood) = less power.
Go figure.
Sawfish
>[snip stuff]
>> Its physics...pure and simple.
>Okay, you've convinced me of this much. So Tanner could have hit 153.
>But with that small racquet head, to do it consistently?
Never consistently 153. I don;t even believe 153.
I do believe 128-135 fairly consistently, like Roddick's 140+.
>It might be
>physics as far as velocity generation, but it's accuracy to connect with
>the racquet's sweet spot and actually be able to get the serve in;
>hitting a 200 mph serve does no good if you can't place the shot in the
>service box.
>Doesn't the smaller size of those wooden racquets' heads make it more
>difficult to serve consistently hard serves? Put another way, even if
>we stipulate that Tanner could have served 153 with a wooden racquet (or
>a Toyota Corolla), what percentage of the time was he hitting 140+ mph
>first serves -- and, of course, actually getting them in the service
>box? Wouldn't it be more likely that he'd have to serve slower in order
>to hit his serve accurately?
He hit pretty fucking hard. Remember, if he was going to win, at all, it
would be from his serve. He had no real hope in a ground game with any of
the top 50.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shit <------------------------------------------------------------> Shinola
"Which is which?" --Sawfish
Sawfish
>>Subject: Re: The serve of Roscoe Tanner?
>>Path:
>>From: Eric Patton ebpa...@xyahoo.com
>>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Window
>>So Tanner could have hit 153.
>>But with that small racquet head, to do it consistently?
>I have heard the 153 number bandied about for so long......Even I would have
>doubts about this number....He hit the ball damn hard though..as hard as I have
>ever seen a tennis ball hit.
>As for consistancy...you are correct.....the old time big servers had much
>lower serving percentages than the big bombers of today. hitting 50% was a
>GREAT day for a guy like Tanner.
>I have no doubts that servers of today are better than servers of the past,
>mostly due to equitment changes....they are much more accurate, and their
>second serves are HUGE compared to the patty cake crap that old timers had to
>throw up.
Absolutely this is the biggest difference!!!
>But in terms of raw speed of a first serve....the ability to generate that
>speed was there even with the old creaky raquets.
>>Wouldn't it be more likely that he'd have to serve slower in order
>>to hit his serve accurately?
>This is the reason Tanner was never an all time great player.......his serve
>was unstoppable....but since he couldnt hit it more than 50% of the time...it
>all depended on how "on" he was if he was going to win a tournament...
>You are 100% correct when you mention the idea of consistancy being so
>important....guys like Tanner just decided that if they were hitting 50% of
>their serves...they would win..if they dropped into the low 40's...it was all
>over for them
..and as I siad before, he sure wasn't strategically prepared to rally,
ever.
He really wasn't even a real good volleyer, you know? He got as far as he
did on service, alone. A freak.
ConnMoore
>Path:
>From: "StephenJ" SJ...@sestSJJj.ttcom
>Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
>References:
>? Every one knows that higher tension = lesss trampoline effect = *less*
>power (speed) on the ball.
>
Thats not how it works...the trampoline effect is a myth. The more the
"Trampoline" the softer the ball is going to go back. What the trampoline
effect does for tennis is keeps the ball on the raquet just a fraction
longer...allowing greater control. The strings of a raquet spring back at a
much slower rate than the amount of time it takes for the ball to leave the
strings. If you watched a slow motion film of a ball at impact you would see
this. Sure the strings "spring" back...but the ball is long gone by then.
>... which means less power...
Sigh....why do you keep trying to discuss these physics things..when you very
clearly have no idea what the hell you are talking about?
Here...an example....hopefully you follow American baseball a bit...if you do
this will help you to understand.
Major League Baseball does not allow aluminum bats...because said bats have
almost NO trampoline effect....therefore all the power of the swing is directed
at the ball...making it come off the bat at a much faster rate. Wood bats
have give to them....and with that give, some power is lost.
>Yes, lower tension (wood) = less power.
>
>Go figure.
The wood raquets had HIGHER TENSION STRINGS........
Please...quit making such a fool of yourself.
Arnie
news:20040705214242...@mb-m02.aol.com...
One of Newtons law: energy is not created or destroyed but transfered or
transformed.
Firstly, I agree the trampoline effect doesn't really help serve speed. If
the raquet and/or the strings move more, it's asborbing the kinetic energy
(energy transformation). The reason you jump higher when you bounce on a
trampoline is because you are taking advantage of gravity to impart kinetic
energy on the way down. You are still bouncing back with LESS kinetic energy
than you had on the way down, but it is more than if you were to jump off
the ground without any trampoline therefore you jump higher.
Theres one other thing about the wooden raquets that helps them hit harder.
They were heavier. I have a wide face wooden raquet here that weighs more
than 2 of my modern composite raquets. More mass in the head does mean there
is greater kinetic energy in the moving raquet to impart on the ball much
like a heavy car will cause more damage at the same speed in a collision.
That's assuming the player is able to put in the energy to accelerate the
heavier raquet head to the same contact speed as the lighter composites.
Having played with wooden raquets, on the serve it is not hard to generate
the speed because you have a long service motion to put that energy into the
raquet motion. Using the car analogy, it is like achieving terminal velocity
on a long stretch of road while being heavier as mass doesn't affect
terminal velocity, it just takes longer to get there. However, when you are
trying to make quick jabs at the ball, the heavier raquet means you don't
accelerate it as quickly just like a heavier car accelerates slower over
short distances with the same engine power as a lighter car.
That said, if you wanted to build a raquet for fastest serve, you'd make the
frame stiffest to reduce energy transformation and as heavy as possible
without affecting the "terminal velocity" when raquet contacts the ball
(depends on player strength). And you would definitely string it as tight as
possible to reduce energy transformation and maximise energy transfer.
Sawfish
I agree, and importantly, the reason you can take all the time in the
world to heft it into place on the serve. It's cumbersone qualities are
not as big a disadvantage on the serve as on a groundstroke, for example.
>Using the car analogy, it is like achieving terminal velocity
>on a long stretch of road while being heavier as mass doesn't affect
>terminal velocity, it just takes longer to get there. However, when you are
>trying to make quick jabs at the ball, the heavier raquet means you don't
>accelerate it as quickly just like a heavier car accelerates slower over
>short distances with the same engine power as a lighter car.
>That said, if you wanted to build a raquet for fastest serve, you'd make
the
>frame stiffest to reduce energy transformation and as heavy as
possible
>without affecting the "terminal velocity" when raquet contacts
the ball
>(depends on player strength). And you would definitely string it
as tight as
>possible to reduce energy transformation and maximise energy
transfer.
This seems like sound physics.
StephenJ
> >? Every one knows that higher tension = lesss trampoline effect = *less*
> >power (speed) on the ball.
> Thats not how it works...the trampoline effect is a myth.
I see, everyone is wrong and Sir Isaac Conman is right..?
http://tennis.about.com/library/blfaq25.htm
http://www.racquettech.com/top/basic_facts.html
http://www.tennis4all.com/info/string.shtml
> The more the
> "Trampoline" the softer the ball is going to go back. What the
trampoline
> effect does for tennis is keeps the ball on the raquet just a fraction
> longer...allowing greater control.
That's true, but that's just the 'dwell time' aspect of the trampoline
effect. There's also the coefficient of restitution, and that peaks at
about string tension = 60 for a midsize racket. See the part about string
tension:
http://www.racquetresearch.com/sevencri.htm#Power.
> Sigh....why do you keep trying to discuss these physics things..when you
very
> clearly have no idea what the hell you are talking about?
I see. Albert Conman Einstein is right - everyone else is wrong...
> >Yes, lower tension (wood) = less power.
> >
> >Go figure.
>
>
>
> The wood raquets had HIGHER TENSION STRINGS........
Sorry, meant higher tension. Should have been obvious ...
StephenJ
harder.
> They were heavier.
? Anyone can make a graphite racket heavy by adding tape, which most pros
do...
> That said, if you wanted to build a raquet for fastest serve, you'd make
the
> frame stiffest
Wood?
StephenJ
> world to heft it into place on the serve. It's cumbersone qualities are
> not as big a disadvantage on the serve as on a groundstroke, for example.
>
> >Using the car analogy, it is like achieving terminal velocity
> >on a long stretch of road while being heavier as mass doesn't affect
> >terminal velocity, it just takes longer to get there. However, when you
are
> >trying to make quick jabs at the ball, the heavier raquet means you don't
> >accelerate it as quickly just like a heavier car accelerates slower over
> >short distances with the same engine power as a lighter car.
Sure, which explains why not only Tanner, but everyone was serving as
big/bigger in the wood era as the top guys do today. After all, they had the
advantage of swinging these small head, tightly strung wood rackets, that
are (laws of physics speaking) the most powerful kind. And Tanner wasn't the
only guy with good form and a "go for it" attitude on the first serve,
that's been part of tennis since the Tilden era.
So it's no surprise that guys like Roddick, Sampras, Becker, Goran, etc.
didn't get as much pace on their serves as Tanner, Ashe, Colin Dibley (? -
the guy who hit one 148 mph), Rocket Rod Laver, Pancho etc. - these modern
guys were handicapped by their modern-fibre, looser-strung rackets. Physics
professors like ConMoore were invaluable in shedding light on this
phenomena.
That's why it's become a truism in the tennis world that serve speeds have
declined markedely since the introduction of new rackets in the mid-80s,
and the ITF has convened panels of mathematicians and physical scientists to
try and figure out how to get velocity back on the first serve.
There's even been talk of going back to wood rackets in an effort to
recapture the golden era of the huge serve, when guys like Tanner and Ashe
bombed in 140 mph serves, etc. Introducing smaller balls that zip through
the air faster, etc.
All because, whatever other advantages they may provide, the modern-fibre
rackets just don't pack that same serve-punch that those jack kramer woods
did....
john adams
What is so difficult to believe if you already concede that he consistently
hit above the 130 mph range? The logic doesn't quite add up: he may
not have served as many aces, which is something I am too lazy to
look up, but obviously with this kind of power he was a heavy server
without doubt.
> People are free to draw their own conclusions from all this. One thing,
> however, is absolutely certain: Big serve or no, Tanner managed one
> grand slam title only -- the 1977 Australian Open. If he really did
> have all that heat, then he sure didn't do much with it if he could only
> muster one solitary grand slam win.
As we all know very well it takes more than a huge serve to win a grand
slam.
Arnie
news:zvpGc.873$4Z3.126@lakeread02...
>
> > >? Every one knows that higher tension = lesss trampoline effect =
*less*
> > >power (speed) on the ball.
>
> > Thats not how it works...the trampoline effect is a myth.
>
> I see, everyone is wrong and Sir Isaac Conman is right..?
>
> http://tennis.about.com/library/blfaq25.htm
>
> http://www.racquettech.com/top/basic_facts.html
>
> http://www.tennis4all.com/info/string.shtml
Pfffft!
These pages don't even use the term Power in the correct scientific
definition. Basically, power is rate of energy transfer and not necessarily
related to the speed of the ball.
I'd like to point out that a lot of this raquet/string talk on these pages
relate largely to hitting a moving ball and how efficient the raquet is at
returning the energy plus adding some of the player's own.
However, this thread is nothing about returning the ball's kinetic energy
because we are talking about serving where the ball has next to no kinetic
energy when the raquet hits it. Thus we are after the raquet that can
generate the fastest ball speed from basically zero assuming x mph raquet
speed. This is very different to the aim of generating max speed from a
moving ball which may have kinetic energy in its speed and also the amount
of spin in the ball. The ideal raquet for max speed serve may not be the
best for hitting back fast, spinning balls coming at you.
Arnie
> > That said, if you wanted to build a raquet for fastest serve, you'd make
> the
> > frame stiffest
>
> Wood?
Wood is definitely not stiff compared to most composite frames. I don't
think wood itself is an advantage for fastest serve, but the fact they can
use higher string tensions with wood because wood allows some give compared
to stiff composites may be an advantage for serve speed.
StephenJ
>
> Wood is definitely not stiff compared to most composite frames.
Well ok then...
> I don't
> think wood itself is an advantage for fastest serve, but the fact they can
> use higher string tensions with wood because wood allows some give
compared
> to stiff composites may be an advantage for serve speed.
Roddick strings his racket at 63. You're saying he could enhance his serve
speed by getting one that goes up to 75- 80...?
Wonder why he doesn't, given that serve speed seems to matter most to him...
StephenJ
> These pages don't even use the term Power in the correct scientific
> definition. Basically, power is rate of energy transfer and not
necessarily
> related to the speed of the ball.
?
"Dr. Howard Brody, a physics professor at the University of Pennsylvania,
writes that lower string tensions generally result in a more powerful hit
because less energy is dissipated in compressing the ball, which returns
only about 55% of that energy, as oppposed to the more than 90% returned by
the strings."
Dr. Brody isn't up on the latest scientific definitions..?
You snipped my other link as well.
Point is, if i'm ignorant about the physics of rackets, lots of others,
including Professors of Physics, are as well.
Amazing, that... ;)
StephenJ
consistently
> hit above the 130 mph range?
Yes, his error was in conceding that. First, it put him in the wrong,
second, it leads to the quandary you noted...
Dudewaba
>Thats not how it works...the trampoline effect is a myth.
Actually, the USRSA did a study on this, and there findings were that basically
regardless of the tension, there was no real difference in power. The reason
people *perceive* more power with lower tensions is because there is an
increase in trajectory, hence the ball travels longer. Which most perceive as
less control.
With a tighter string bed the ball did not travel as far, but the relative
power was the same.
In terms of spin, they found that a tighter string bed produced a little more
spin, I believe around 5% or so for about 10lbs. greater tension.
john adams
It may be pure phyics, but I don't think your physical analysis is
purely correct. Velocity is a function of mass and speed, but there are
other important factors that come into play between objects struck: the
ability of a racket to absorb and then retransmit power is determined
by things such as size of sweet spot and the elasticity of the strings when
striking the ball. Imagine playing tennis with steel balls (or benoit balls,
if
you wish). In match play, they are going to travel much slower than a
regular tennis ball because of the inability of the balls to reabsorb
kinetic
energy at the moment of inertia. That is why if you string your racket at
200 lbs. you would probably notice a pretty large shift towards slower
racket speed, supposing the racket and string still held together.
Wood rackets tend to have a pretty small sweet spot, so it takes
excellent timing to hit clean, powerul strokes. As you noted above,
the strings tensions tend to be higher in wood rackets as well. In
addition to that, the rackets themselves are fairly heavy. However,
the logic of your initial post goes against that of the rest of it when
you deduce that stiff unforgiving, small heads generate more pace than
more elastic (more energy retransmitting) rackets with larger sweet spots.
john adams
So why do players sometimes try to get away with corking the bat?
Arnie
> > > Wood?
> >
> > Wood is definitely not stiff compared to most composite frames.
>
> Well ok then...
I have a wooden raquet with pretty high tension and compared to my other
composites with the same high tension, I feel that the wooden raquet
actually smacks one of my fastest serves when I give it my all. But I don't
think it's the fact the frame is wood that achieves this but rather the
extra weight of the raquet. I wouldn't prefer it for playing though as it is
very tiring to fling it around for set after set. But for sheer serve speed
(flat serves), I don't think the frame being wood actually makes it slower.
>
> > I don't
> > think wood itself is an advantage for fastest serve, but the fact they
can
> > use higher string tensions with wood because wood allows some give
> compared
> > to stiff composites may be an advantage for serve speed.
>
> Roddick strings his racket at 63. You're saying he could enhance his serve
> speed by getting one that goes up to 75- 80...?
>
> Wonder why he doesn't, given that serve speed seems to matter most to
him...
If he used a higher tension, I have no doubt his serve would be faster.
However, he may lose a lot in consistency and control. I have a few raquets
of different tensions and I'm damm sure high tension lends itself to faster
serves, however, it doesn't mean it's a BETTER serve. Plus the high tension
is really hard on your elbow/wrist/arm, I really feel it coz I really try to
clock it hard all the time. If Roddick played with higher tension, he'd
prolly suffer more injuries.
Arnie
> > Pfffft!
> > These pages don't even use the term Power in the correct scientific
> > definition. Basically, power is rate of energy transfer and not
> necessarily
> > related to the speed of the ball.
>
> ?
>
> "Dr. Howard Brody, a physics professor at the University of Pennsylvania,
> writes that lower string tensions generally result in a more powerful hit
> because less energy is dissipated in compressing the ball, which returns
> only about 55% of that energy, as oppposed to the more than 90% returned
by
> the strings."
>
> Dr. Brody isn't up on the latest scientific definitions..?
Like I've already pointed out, serving is different to returning a fast
ball. There is hardly any kinetic energy in the ball before contact when you
serve, so the speed of the serve is going to be proportional to the
compression of the ball as the transfer of kinetic energy is from the raquet
to the ball (serve), not ball to string and back plus what the player puts
in (returning a fast ball).
>
> You snipped my other link as well.
yer, that was a really in depth link, I didn't go thru it all, but it seemed
rather sound. Certaily much better than the less scientific link you had
above.
>
> Point is, if i'm ignorant about the physics of rackets, lots of others,
> including Professors of Physics, are as well.
>
> Amazing, that... ;)
Are any of them in the field of designing raquets solely to maximise speed
of serve?
I don't think anyone would make the ideal uncompromising raquet just for
serving fast.
I'm not in that field either but my experiences with several raquets tells
me that wooden raquets are not really slower if all you want to do is serve
fast.
Eric Patton
of Tanner for myself sometime, but at least I can kind of believe this
about his serve a little bit better.
I'd still like to see it with my own eyes though.
Eric Patton
Makes the bat lighter so they can generate more bat speed.
StephenJ
> >
> > Well ok then...
>
> I have a wooden raquet with pretty high tension and compared to my other
> composites with the same high tension, I feel that the wooden raquet
> actually smacks one of my fastest serves when I give it my all. But I
don't
> think it's the fact the frame is wood that achieves this but rather the
> extra weight of the raquet.
Seems like there's a basic contradiction in your argument here, i.e., you
said that the "trampoline effect" doesn't matter on the serve because the
serve involves hitting an essentially non-moving ball, yet you then say that
tighter-strung rackets produce more power on the serve - because they don't
have as much of a trampoline effect.
So if we eliminate string tension as a factor (hitting a non-moving ball),
and ditto for racket weight (weight of course matters, but a composite can
be made as heavy as a wood with lead tape), the only thing left is
stiffness, and composite has the big advantage there.
So composite, modern-fiber rackets produce more power on the serve...
StephenJ
http://www.racquettech.com/top/basic_facts.html
--
When the facts change,
one's opinion ought to change.
- John Maynard Keynes
>"Dudewaba" <dude...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040706013014...@mb-m20.aol.com...
StephenJ
> > "Dr. Howard Brody, a physics professor at the University of
Pennsylvania,
> > writes that lower string tensions generally result in a more powerful
hit
> > because less energy is dissipated in compressing the ball, which returns
> > only about 55% of that energy, as oppposed to the more than 90% returned
> by
> > the strings."
> >
> > Dr. Brody isn't up on the latest scientific definitions..?
>
> Like I've already pointed out, serving is different to returning a fast
> ball. There is hardly any kinetic energy in the ball before contact when
you
> serve, so the speed of the serve is going to be proportional to the
> compression of the ball as the transfer of kinetic energy is from the
raquet
> to the ball (serve), not ball to string and back plus what the player puts
> in (returning a fast ball).
You're saying there's no compression when a serve-stroke tennis racket hits
a tennis ball....?
Forgive me if i side with Dr. Brody...
> > You snipped my other link as well.
>
> yer, that was a really in depth link, I didn't go thru it all, but it
seemed
> rather sound. Certaily much better than the less scientific link you had
> above.
... and that link clearly says that the optimal string tension for mid-size
rackets is around 60...
> > Point is, if i'm ignorant about the physics of rackets, lots of others,
> > including Professors of Physics, are as well.
> >
> > Amazing, that... ;)
>
> Are any of them in the field of designing raquets solely to maximise speed
> of serve?
> I don't think anyone would make the ideal uncompromising raquet just for
> serving fast.
> I'm not in that field either but my experiences with several raquets tells
> me that wooden raquets are not really slower if all you want to do is
serve
> fast.
I gave you some solid links - physics professors, the official United States
Racquet Stringers Association web site, etc.
Looks like my POV has more support.
Like i said, if i'm wrong, i have lots of august company... ;)
Sawfish
>?
>Amazing, that... ;)
My own perception was that with looser stringing (significantly
looser--maybe 10-12 lbs--bordering on too loose) the ball tended to fly or
go longer with less effort. This is definitely at odds with my perception
of modern era racquets, where the stiffer racquets, generally accompanied
by some kind of BS swing speed chart, tend to impart more energy, and the
more flexible ones like the ProStaff Original 85-90 imparted less.
All of this needs more thought. This seems contradictory.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. But give a man a boat,
a case of beer, and a few sticks of dynamite..." -- Sawfish
ConnMoore
>Like I've already pointed out, serving is different to returning a fast
>ball. There is hardly any kinetic energy in the ball before contact when you
>serve, so the speed of the serve is going to be proportional to the
>compression of the ball as the transfer of kinetic energy is from the raquet
>to the ball (serve), not ball to string and back plus what the player puts
>in (returning a fast ball).
Sweet merciful Jesus...Someone who GETS IT...thank you Arnie for restoring my
faith in tennis fans everywhere.
>I'm not in that field either but my experiences with several raquets tells
>me that wooden raquets are not really slower if all you want to do is serve
>fast.
All Steve, and anyone else has to do, is get a wooden raquet, and compare the
speeds to any raquet they want. I have been telling him the same thing for a
few days now, but he has somehow decided that he knows more than actual
experience.
ConnMoore
>From: "StephenJ" SJ...@sestSJJj.ttcom
>Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
>References:
>
>You're saying there's no compression when a serve-stroke tennis racket hits
>a tennis ball....?
>
The serve is by far the fastest stroke in the game...the strings do not have
time to react to the compression....the ball is gone before the strings can
properly react....add to that the fact there is no kinetic energy from the
ball...and that is why a serve is a completely different stroke from any other
in tennis....and why hard flat first serves can be created with almost any
raquet.
StephenJ
the
> speeds to any raquet they want. I have been telling him the same thing
for a
> few days now, but he has somehow decided that he knows more than actual
> experience.
I trust Mac's experience - he played both Tanner and Becker...
StephenJ
have
> time to react to the compression....the ball is gone before the strings
can
> properly react....add to that the fact there is no kinetic energy from the
> ball...and that is why a serve is a completely different stroke from any
other
> in tennis....and why hard flat first serves can be created with almost any
> raquet.
So why were you rambling on about a tight string bed being better for the
serve ...? Or was that Arnie?
You also said a tight string bed produces more power off the ground -
experts like the physics prof and the USRSA disagree with that as well...
I guess "simple physics" can't be mastered by these experts but can by
conman..
ConnMoore
>Path:
>From: "StephenJ" SJ...@sestSJJj.ttcom
>Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
>I trust Mac's experience - he played both Tanner and Becker...
get a raquet and just try it sometime...its simple and easy. Any Goodwill or
similar used materials store will have a wooden raquet or two in them. Give it
a try.....and report your findings here.
Others have tried to point out to you that serving with a wooden raquet can
give you comprable speeds to the ones you use today....why dont you want to
find out for yourself?
ConnMoore
>Path:
>From: "StephenJ" SJ...@sestSJJj.ttcom
>Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
>References:
>You also said a tight string bed produces more power off the ground -
>experts like the physics prof and the USRSA disagree with that as well...
>
I never said ANYTHING like that...not once. I have not discussed anything
about groundstrokes, except to point out how much better they are now than they
were then, mainly due to the upgrades in raquets.
There are innumerable ways that modern raquets are better than old wood
ones.......the one area where there is little to any improvement is a low,
flat, hard serve.
Oh...guess what kind of serve Tanner specialized in.
StephenJ
can
> give you comprable speeds to the ones you use today....why dont you want
to
> find out for yourself?
It's pointless, as i'm not a pro.
We're discussing pros, so why not rely on their opinion?
StephenJ
> >experts like the physics prof and the USRSA disagree with that as well...
> I never said ANYTHING like that...not once. I have not discussed
anything
> about groundstrokes, except to point out how much better they are now than
they
> were then, mainly due to the upgrades in raquets.
WTF?
Jaros: "? Every one knows that higher tension = lesss trampoline effect =
*less*
power (speed) on the ball."
Conman: "Thats not how it works...the trampoline effect is a myth. The more
the
"Trampoline" the softer the ball is going to go back. What the trampoline
effect does for tennis is keeps the ball on the raquet just a fraction
longer...allowing greater control."
Conmaroon: "The woody will have very little if any give....no trampoline
effect at all."
Jaros: "... which means less power..."
Conmoron: "Sigh....why do you keep trying to discuss these physics
things..when you very
clearly have no idea what the hell you are talking about?"
Conmoo even decided to enlighten me with a baseball analogy:
"Here...an example....hopefully you follow American baseball a bit...if you
do
this will help you to understand.
Major League Baseball does not allow aluminum bats...because said bats have
almost NO trampoline effect....therefore all the power of the swing is
directed
at the ball...making it come off the bat at a much faster rate. Wood bats
have give to them....and with that give, some power is lost."
You can't even keep your own mindless ramblings straight...
> There are innumerable ways that modern raquets are better than old wood
> ones.......the one area where there is little to any improvement is a low,
> flat, hard serve.
>
> Oh...guess what kind of serve Tanner specialized in.
.. the kind that go a good 15 - 20 mph slower than Roddicks...
ConnMoore
>Path:
>From: "StephenJ" SJ...@sestSJJj.ttcom
>
>It's pointless, as i'm not a pro
No its not...go out and hit your hardest serves with your modern raquet...then
do the same with the wood raquet...try to make it a flat serve.....IE one that
you are not spinning in, and see if the results, just in terms of speed are
similar.
Its a way to see for yourself..rather than relying on the opinions of pros...of
which you have actually not given any.
>We're discussing pros, so why not rely on their opinion?
Your only pro opinion has been that McEnroe said that Becker was the biggest
serve he had ever faced...and I can agree with that, since Becker served such a
heavy ball. Your inablity to understand that speed and "bignesss" are not the
same thing is not our problem.....you can find out for yourself if hitting a
wood raquet can generate as much speed as a modern graphite...why are you
resisting this idea so much? There have been several people on this thread
that have given first hand accounts of saying they have served just as hard
with a woodie as they now do with a graphite..........the oppurtunity is there
to find this out for yourself....why not do it?
StephenJ
> Your only pro opinion has been that McEnroe said that Becker was the
biggest
> serve he had ever faced...and I can agree with that, since Becker served
such a
> heavy ball. Your inablity to understand that speed and "bignesss" are
not the
> same thing is not our problem...
It's a sign of abject desperation that you've latched back on to that. I
was the one who explicated the difference between them, though of course
when doing so i noted that they are *highly* correlated. It's *rare* for
player A to have a bigger serve than player B and *not* also have a faster
serve.
When Mac said that Becker's serve was the biggest, he almost surely meant
that Becker's serve was clearly faster than Tanner's.
PS - the first 7 years i played tennis was with a wood racket. I know all
about them. And i agree with the physics professor. LOL.
ConnMoore
>Path:
>From: "StephenJ" SJ...@sestSJJj.ttcom
>Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
>References:
>PS - the first 7 years i played tennis was with a wood racket. I know all
>about them. And i agree with the physics professor. LOL.
You have never played tennis...quit lying.
StephenJ
> >about them. And i agree with the physics professor. LOL.
> You have never played tennis...quit lying.
LOL.. you've dissolved into mush.
Arnie
> > > > Wood is definitely not stiff compared to most composite frames.
> > >
> > > Well ok then...
> >
> > I have a wooden raquet with pretty high tension and compared to my other
> > composites with the same high tension, I feel that the wooden raquet
> > actually smacks one of my fastest serves when I give it my all. But I
> don't
> > think it's the fact the frame is wood that achieves this but rather the
> > extra weight of the raquet.
>
>
> Seems like there's a basic contradiction in your argument here, i.e., you
> said that the "trampoline effect" doesn't matter on the serve because the
nope, that's not what I said. I'm saying the low tension trampoline effect
is not an advantage and in fact is a disadavantage for pure serve speed.
> serve involves hitting an essentially non-moving ball, yet you then say
that
> tighter-strung rackets produce more power on the serve - because they
don't
> have as much of a trampoline effect.
>
> So if we eliminate string tension as a factor (hitting a non-moving ball),
> and ditto for racket weight (weight of course matters, but a composite can
> be made as heavy as a wood with lead tape), the only thing left is
> stiffness, and composite has the big advantage there.
>
> So composite, modern-fiber rackets produce more power on the serve...
Yes, I agree that a stiffer raquet is better for that job, BUT the raquet
stiffness is the least contributing factor to the point of being
insignificant because energy efficiency of the frame is very very high
compared to the strings. I'm saying that weight and string tension are the
main factors that count. And before you say, yes but we can tape the raquet
to make it heavier. No pro in their right mind would get a modern raquet and
tape it up to be as heavy as a woody. If Tanner was using a heavier frame
with tensions higher than what the pros are using today, I don't see why he
would be disadvantaged in pure serve speed. If anything, he'd prolly have an
advantage!
Arnie
>
> > > "Dr. Howard Brody, a physics professor at the University of
> Pennsylvania,
> > > writes that lower string tensions generally result in a more powerful
> hit
> > > because less energy is dissipated in compressing the ball, which
returns
> > > only about 55% of that energy, as oppposed to the more than 90%
returned
> > by
> > > the strings."
> > >
> > > Dr. Brody isn't up on the latest scientific definitions..?
> >
> > Like I've already pointed out, serving is different to returning a fast
> > ball. There is hardly any kinetic energy in the ball before contact when
> you
> > serve, so the speed of the serve is going to be proportional to the
> > compression of the ball as the transfer of kinetic energy is from the
> raquet
> > to the ball (serve), not ball to string and back plus what the player
puts
> > in (returning a fast ball).
>
> You're saying there's no compression when a serve-stroke tennis racket
hits
> a tennis ball....?
I said, "...so the speed of the serve is going to be proportional to the
compression of the ball..."
> Forgive me if i side with Dr. Brody...
What he said about the efficiency of the ball vs the strings is not
applicable because you are not trying to harness any kinetic energy from the
ball, you are hitting it from rest.
You gave a lot of links, but none of them are particular to the physics of a
flat serve.
Sawfish
I'm trying to remember what kind of racquet Tanner used, but it wasn't
wood. He may have used a Head composite like Ashe, or maybe a yonex.
So, really, equipment-wise, he wasn't as disadvantaged as Steve protrays
him.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish: A totally unreconstructed elasmobranch.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
StephenJ
power?
> > So composite, modern-fiber rackets produce more power on the serve...
>
> Yes, I agree that a stiffer raquet is better for that job, BUT the raquet
> stiffness is the least contributing factor to the point of being
> insignificant because energy efficiency of the frame is very very high
> compared to the strings. I'm saying that weight and string tension are the
> main factors that count. And before you say, yes but we can tape the
raquet
> to make it heavier. No pro in their right mind would get a modern raquet
and
> tape it up to be as heavy as a woody.
The modern rackets off-the-rack are 9 ounces, but pros don't use
off-the-rack. Most pros swing rackets that weigh more than 13 ounces
(Sampras 14 oz, Flipper 13.5 oz, etc.)...
> If Tanner was using a heavier frame
> with tensions higher than what the pros are using today, I don't see why
he
> would be disadvantaged in pure serve speed. If anything, he'd prolly have
an
> advantage!
I don't believe anyone has posted what Tanner's string tension was...
Remember, Mac strung his woodie at 44. That's pretty low...
StephenJ
> him.
It was some kind of old composite. But clearly a primitive racket (primitive
doesn't necessarily = wood only, behold the t2000).
StephenJ
> > Forgive me if i side with Dr. Brody...
>
> What he said about the efficiency of the ball vs the strings is not
> applicable because you are not trying to harness any kinetic energy from
the
> ball, you are hitting it from rest.
... but it's still the same idea, a trampoline effect (which you just said
does exist on a serve).
> You gave a lot of links, but none of them are particular to the physics of
a
> flat serve.
Why not make it even narrow it down more and say i haven't cited anything
"specific to Roscoe Tanner's personal service motion" or somesuch..?
Bottom line is that most experts seem to agree that lower string tension =
more power. They aren't saying "except on flat serves hit by primitive 1970s
rackets..".
Sawfish
>> So, really, equipment-wise, he wasn't as disadvantaged as Steve protrays
>> him.
>It was some kind of old composite. But clearly a primitive racket (primitive
>doesn't necessarily = wood only, behold the t2000).
Just as clearly not wood, however. So you can take that out of the
equation, pronto.
Have you ever played with an Ashe, or one of the fiberglass composites, or
even an all-metal, like a Head Professional ("Red Head")?
Holy christ! I played with a t2000/3000 for about a month, each. What a
nightmare!
StephenJ
(primitive
> >doesn't necessarily = wood only, behold the t2000).
>
> Just as clearly not wood, however.
Yes, but primitive, i.e., we can presume it doesn't provide as much power as
the modern rackets do.
But yes, it moots the academic debate over the specific properties of
wood...
Sawfish
>> >It was some kind of old composite. But clearly a primitive racket
>(primitive
>> >doesn't necessarily = wood only, behold the t2000).
>>
>> Just as clearly not wood, however.
>Yes, but primitive, i.e., we can presume it doesn't provide as much power as
>the modern rackets do.
I would not even presume that much, without evidence. Nor would I wish to
speculate on just *how much* more/less power it would generate without
more precise information.
But I guess *you* would, huh?
>But yes, it moots the academic debate over the specific properties of
>wood...
Yes, and in doing so it leaves open the question of whether wood can give
equal service performance as modern constructions. THey can't say it does,
and you can't say it doesn't.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it...
Srikanth
> So why do players sometimes try to get away with corking the bat?
Some experts weighed in on this after the sosa business:
Expert #1: A yale prof. claimed no effect since any increase in bat
speed would have to make up for the decrease in the mass of the bat
(f=ma, m goes down, A goes up, net effect negligible).
Expert #2: The experimental evidence with machines, everything
constant, except for the corked bat. Which if the only thing happening
is f=ma should actually decrease the distance (a is constant, but you
have decreased the mass of the bat -----> f is lower) . These
experiments resulted in about a 2% increase in distance and they
suggest it is because of the trampoline effect.
I would guess a 2% increase in distance for the average player is
trivial; even for Sosa I would guess this increase is trivial. This
suggests that IF there is a non-trivial effect in real games then it
must be a placebo effect.
This reminds of the fuzzy ball vs. non-fuzzy ball when players in
tennis decide to go for faster serves. Is this real?
srikanth
StephenJ
as
> >the modern rackets do.
>
> I would not even presume that much, without evidence.
? Who doubts that modern rackets provide more power than primitive ones...?
Sawfish
>> >Yes, but primitive, i.e., we can presume it doesn't provide as much power
>as
>> >the modern rackets do.
>>
>> I would not even presume that much, without evidence.
>? Who doubts that modern rackets provide more power than primitive ones...?
Well, *you* mooted the argument re wood vs modern material, don't you
recall? It was just below where you snipped, you wily devil, you.
StephenJ
>
> >? Who doubts that modern rackets provide more power than primitive
ones...?
>
> Well, *you* mooted the argument re wood vs modern material, don't you
> recall?
? Now the issue is modern vs. primitive (a category that includes wood, but
also metal and early composites). Adds up to pretty much the same thing...
pltrgyst
>It was some kind of old composite. But clearly a primitive racket (primitive
>>doesn't necessarily = wood only, behold the t2000).
Tanner used a PDP aluminum racquet in his Wimbledon final.
-- Larry
StephenJ
(primitive
> >>doesn't necessarily = wood only, behold the t2000).
>
> Tanner used a PDP aluminum racquet in his Wimbledon final.
aack! Aluminum!
Lise Michaels
"Professionally Designed Products," a company that did put out some
interesting products (his racquet, and the fiberstaff for instance).
Think he was still using that at Wimbledon '79.
Having seen Tanner, Ivanisevic, and Sampras play in person....I'd bet
that if Tanner had the advantage of post '86 racquet technology, he
would be right up there with the best of 'em. He had the most perfect
service motion I have yet seen.
"StephenJ" <SJ...@sestSJJj.ttcom> wrote in message news:<SSbHc.465$sj.458@lakeread02>...
StephenJ
> that if Tanner had the advantage of post '86 racquet technology, he
> would be right up there with the best of 'em.
.. and modern training methods and perhaps 2 more inches of height...
ConnMoore
>Path:
>From: "StephenJ" SJ...@sestSJJj.ttcom
>Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
>References:
>.. and modern training methods and perhaps 2 more inches of height...
Of all the idiotic things you have posted in this thread...this is perhaps the
dumbest.
You already KNOW that plenty of guys shorter than Tanner can clock it over 130
MPH......you should know that Tanner had one of the best service motions for
producing pure speed...Yet you continue with this fools quest to get the last
word in.
Roscoe Tanner had a huge serve...one of the biggest and fastest in
history...and nothing you create in that vacuum of a head is going to change
that.
By the way, Bill Tilden was 6' 2"...not 6'6"
StephenJ
>
>
> Of all the idiotic things you have posted in this thread...this is perhaps
the
> dumbest.
After the abject tail-whipping you suffered, i'm surprised to see Mr.
Physics (LOL) back in this. But it figures it would be just to embarrass
yourself further. Let's see...
> You already KNOW that plenty of guys shorter than Tanner can clock it over
130
> MPH.
Yes, and has been said at least 10 times, these are guys who (a) can do it
only quite infrequently, as evidenced by their first serve averages which
are typically around 110-115 mph, and (b) none of whom are known as "big
servers" by anyone.
Case dismissed... You can go back to the kennel now..
ConnMoore
>Path:
>50!not-for-mail
>From: "StephenJ" SJ...@sestSJJj.ttcom
>Newsgroups: rec.sport.ten
>Yes, and has been said at least 10 times, these are guys who (a) can do it
>only quite infrequently, as evidenced by their first serve averages which
>are typically around 110-115 mph, and (b) none of whom are known as "big
>servers" by anyone.
Uh huh.....of couse we arent talking about these other guys, except to show to
your rather pathetic self that 130 MPH plus can be done by people that you
consider short.
So add that to the fact that every person of the era claims that Tanner had one
of, if not THE fastest serve of the time...and your entire pathetic self
delusion comes crashing down.
>
>Case dismissed... You can go back to the kennel now..
Patting yourself on the back for an argument you were outclassed in from the
beginning is your only means of defense now. As long as you can convince
yourself of this...nothing else really matters.
StephenJ
> >Yes, and has been said at least 10 times, these are guys who (a) can do
it
> >only quite infrequently, as evidenced by their first serve averages which
> >are typically around 110-115 mph, and (b) none of whom are known as "big
> >servers" by anyone.
> Uh huh.....of couse we arent talking about these other guys, except to
show to
> your rather pathetic self that 130 MPH plus can be done by people that you
> consider short.
It doesn't matter what you intended these facts to convey, what matters is
what they do convey:
That it's perfectly possible for a short guy to (a) hit a 130 mph serve on
occasion, but (b) not be anywhere near the "big server" category.
Which was my contention about Tanner - that he wouldn't be considered a "big
server" in today's game if he were serving today the way he served in 1979.
Too bad a fact that you thought bolstered your case ended up sinking it.
Now back to the kennel, pup.
ConnMoore
>Path:
>From: "StephenJ" SJ...@sestSJJj.ttcom
>Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
>References:
>That it's perfectly possible for a short guy to (a) hit a 130 mph serve on
>occasion, but (b) not be anywhere near the "big server" category.
What if this "short guy" is able to hit 130 MPH on his first serve,
consistantly? When do you proclaim it a "big serve"?
StephenJ
on
> >occasion, but (b) not be anywhere near the "big server" category.
>
>
>
> What if this "short guy" is able to hit 130 MPH on his first serve,
> consistantly?
? If a short guy did consistently hit 125+ mph on his first serve, then of
course that would make him a big server.
But we've never had one of those. Go figure...
ConnMoore
>Path:
>From: "StephenJ" SJ...@sestSJJj.ttcom
>Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
>? If a short guy did consistently hit 125+ mph on his first serve, then of
>course that would make him a big server.
>
>But we've never had one of those. Go figure...
Sure we have...you just dont know enough about tennis to realize it.
StephenJ
of
> >course that would make him a big server.
> >
> >But we've never had one of those. Go figure...
>
>
>
> Sure we have...
Sure we have... Just one time, back in 1979, and never ever since! LOL.
Arnie
>
> > > Forgive me if i side with Dr. Brody...
> >
> > What he said about the efficiency of the ball vs the strings is not
> > applicable because you are not trying to harness any kinetic energy from
> the
> > ball, you are hitting it from rest.
>
> ... but it's still the same idea, a trampoline effect (which you just said
> does exist on a serve).
>
> > You gave a lot of links, but none of them are particular to the physics
of
> a
> > flat serve.
>
> Why not make it even narrow it down more and say i haven't cited anything
> "specific to Roscoe Tanner's personal service motion" or somesuch..?
>
> Bottom line is that most experts seem to agree that lower string tension
=
> more power. They aren't saying "except on flat serves hit by primitive
1970s
> rackets..".
Hmmm, lets clear this trampoline effect up in a simple way.
The strings are like a spring. A spring is good at *rebounding* energy. A
spring is not good at transfering energy.
So when you are trying to hit back a fast ball, you want the trampoline
effect because you want to rebound the ball's kinetic energy. There is an
ideal tension for the string to do this for a particular ball speed because
you want to match the rebound rate of the strings to the dwell of the ball
compression on the strings. Don't ask me to work this out just go by the
theory plz :P
So this means 1 set tension is not ideal for all ball speeds.
When you are hitting a serve, the ball has zero kinetic energy and you are
trying to maximise the transfer of energy so the trampoline effect is not
ideal for that. The ideal tension for zero ball speed is quiet different to
the ideal tension for high ball speed.
Hopefully that helps to explain what I'm getting at for using high tension
to maximise serve speed.
StephenJ
> The strings are like a spring. A spring is good at *rebounding* energy. A
> spring is not good at transfering energy.
Even if so, stringing is under the control of the player, e.g., you can
string a wood racket tight or loose, ditto for the modern fibres.
But the modern fibres are clearly stiffer, and that helps on serve power...