There has been much discussion of modern baseline tennis, with its concommitant "bumrooter" tendencies. I believe that the time is ripe to try to understand how this sorry state has come to be. So, with a nod of indebtedness to our good Whisper, I would like to offer my hypothesis.
First, at its core, bumrooting is made easier--nay! necessary-- by high-bouncing shots. This is a basic assumption.
With the advent of the modern racquet technology, it quickly became possible for more players to impart more spin (often topsin) on more shots. This led to a constant diet on the receiving end of more balls that hopped upward more quickly than before, forcing the player to choose between taking the ball before it hits the highest point, hitting it somewhere near the highest point, when it has stopped rising, or playing the ball late on the descent.
The first option is very difficult to do with consistency, and the last option is strategically disasterous, surrending too many easily exploitable angles, so the average professional began to play the ball near its peak, and this was considerably higher than it had been in the times of wood, when dinosaurs ruled the earth.
Now, it is difficult to hit an assertive forehand or backhand from a high position with a continental or eastern grip. But let us confine ourselves to the forehand, since this is the bread-and-butter for most professionals. As the grip moves toward a western, however, it begins to allow a more assertive shot off of a high ball. However, this grip also produces more topspin, which in turn produces a higher ball to the initial shotmaker, who then has to deal with a high bouncing ball. And *he* utilizes a western grip to hit back.
This tendency, if permitted to stabilize, results in both players taking very high balls with western grips, and producing very high-bouncing shots. My friends, I submit that this is the very definition of "bumrooting"!
This tendency is more quickly encouraged in shorter players who, by the fact of their diminutive stature, see more "high" balls than a taller player.
Of course, the answer to this nonsense is to slice the ball whenever the opportunity presents itself, in order to force a player with a western grip to take the ball lower than normal--which is not an optimum situation for the western grip, nor is slice an optimum shot from this grip. This can be done by slicing the ball (eastern/continental), or from the backhand side of a bumrooter's 2H BH--a flatter shot is possible from that side.
I would expect that the evolution of this sort of game would favor a) taller players who may see balls as less "high", therefore enabling them to use a more varied grip regimem (semi-western/eastern, to continental), b) players who are able to take the ball earlier; c) players who change grips radically as a normal part of the game.
Once the player can get the ball "down", the average bumrooter is at a disadvantage, and may be open to a net attack. Of course, the knowledgable bumrooter will move heaven and earth to get the ball bouncing high again, as soon as possible.
Now, since the advent of slower, perhaps more abrasive, hard courts, the ball bounces even higher, faster. You know the kind of court I'm talking about: the kind that rips the fuzz off of the ball so that the fuzz rolls, like tumble weed, in little clumps. The ball leaves a green mark where it hits. I've personally seen heavy topspin jump to my eye level (I'm 6'3") on such a court if the bumrooter across the net is allowed to crank up on a high bouncer. Now all of this was to slow down the serve advantage, but has also benefitted the bumrooter disproportionately.
Thoughts/opinions/personal attacks?
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Man! I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!" --Sawfish
With the advent of the modern racquet technology, it quickly became> possible for more players to impart more spin (often topsin) on more> shots.
Not really. In the old days, there were two kinds of baseline shots - flat shots, like Connors hit, or *loopy* topspin shots, like Borg/Vilas would hit.
What modern rackets allowed guys to do was hit "flat topspin" shots - shots that skim the net, but have a lot of topspin on them - ala Agassi. Never saw that back in the wood days.
But wood was capable of producing extreme topspin. Just not the flat variety.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
What modern rackets allowed guys to do was hit "flat topspin" shots -
shots> >that skim the net, but have a lot of topspin on them - ala Agassi. Never
that back in the wood days.>
But wood was capable of producing extreme topspin. Just not the flat> >variety.>
Have to disagree.>
I've played extensively in both eras with both racquet types. I'm not> speculating: you can hit more spin--potentially even more slice with the> modern large face racquets.
Did you ever see Borg or Vilas - types play?
Massive amount of topspin...
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
What modern rackets allowed guys to do was hit "flat topspin" shots ->shots>> >that skim the net, but have a lot of topspin on them - ala Agassi. Never>saw>> >that back in the wood days.>>
But wood was capable of producing extreme topspin. Just not the flat>> >variety.>>
Have to disagree.>>
I've played extensively in both eras with both racquet types. I'm not>> speculating: you can hit more spin--potentially even more slice with the>> modern large face racquets.
Did you ever see Borg or Vilas - types play?
Of course. I'm one of the few here that seems to understand that Vilas was not a 2H BH.
Massive amount of topspin...
Granted. And I'm saying that this sort of topspin came within the ability of the less gifted player with the advent of the 110-120 sq in composite racquet. Heck, even a "Red Head" gave more spin; any one could tell that much by putting down their Maxpli and picking up a Head Professional.
I'd speculate that Borg/Vilas probably would have produced more spin, but that's not germane to the discussion. I'm saying more players, at every level, were able to impart more spin, with more regularity. When the ball started to bounce higher than their eastern grip FH would allow them to hit TS, they began to crank around to a semi, then western, and in the bizarre Bumrooter Parallel Universe, even the Hawaiian.
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sawfish: A totally unreconstructed elasmobranch. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why have western grips become dominant? Because advances in racquet> construction have made it possible to hit the ball with more power,> more accuracy, with a wider margin for error. Why aren't there eastern> forehands left on the pro tour? Because that would be like> intentionally handicapping yourself.
What is the difference between all of these grips? I keep looking it up and then getting confused. I play my FH with the same grip I play my badminton FH, which I believe is eastern. What's a western and the semi variations of the two? And the Hawaiian? The hell is that?
Granted. And I'm saying that this sort of topspin came within the ability> of the less gifted player with the advent of the 110-120 sq in composite> racquet.
Ok, fair enough. I didn't see that "less gifted" aspect emphasized in the original post. I can buy that.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
BUt a lot of people think that this is because somehow the extra height> enables you to hit the ball harder. From my perspective of being tall and> having a decent serve, here's actually what the advantage is: the angle in> tot he court, over the net, looks doable, and because this is reassuring,> taller players are more apt to really cream the ball: they hit harder> because they really believe that it will go in, even if hit flat. And, by> God! it is successful
IMO, it's not either/or. The geometry of the serve does provide an actual physical edge to the taller player via a better angel, but there's the psychological dimension to it as well (i.e., Roddick saying Karlovic looks like he's "serving out of a tree").
Likewise (though you may disagree), i think that a big reason most people use large-head rackets is not so much that they actually provide a bigger/better "hitting area" (though that's part of it), but moreso that when they are starting out it just *looks* easier to hit a tennis ball effectively - i'm talking baseline shots here for the most part - with one. You see the small ball, the huge racket face, and think "ok, this looks doable". And so it's a confidence thing.
-- "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please".
BUt a lot of people think that this is because somehow the extra height>> enables you to hit the ball harder. From my perspective of being tall and>> having a decent serve, here's actually what the advantage is: the angle in>> tot he court, over the net, looks doable, and because this is reassuring,>> taller players are more apt to really cream the ball: they hit harder>> because they really believe that it will go in, even if hit flat. And, by>> God! it is successful
IMO, it's not either/or. The geometry of the serve does provide an actual>physical edge to the taller player via a better angel, but there's the>psychological dimension to it as well (i.e., Roddick saying Karlovic looks>like he's "serving out of a tree").
Likewise (though you may disagree), i think that a big reason most people>use large-head rackets is not so much that they actually provide a>bigger/better "hitting area" (though that's part of it), but moreso that>when they are starting out it just *looks* easier to hit a tennis ball>effectively - i'm talking baseline shots here for the most part - with one.>You see the small ball, the huge racket face, and think "ok, this looks>doable". And so it's a confidence thing.
Agreed.
One odd quirk for me: the oversized racquets seem very awkward. I've hit myself in the shin several time, and that's never happened with an 85 sq in racquet.
Also, I don't like oversized racquets for volleying.
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sawfish: A totally unreconstructed elasmobranch. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Sawfish" <mtn@q7.com> wrote in message news:1114657977.967195@q7.q7.com...>
There has been much discussion of modern baseline tennis, with its> concommitant "bumrooter" tendencies. I believe that the time is ripe to> try to understand how this sorry state has come to be. So, with a nod of> indebtedness to our good Whisper, I would like to offer my hypothesis.>
First, at its core, bumrooting is made easier--nay! necessary-- by> high-bouncing shots. This is a basic assumption.
Very interesting, thoughtful analysis.
A couple of carping points: (1) you say it's strategically disastrous to take the ball on the descent but Nadal and a few others regularly do so. The reason is that you can much more easily produce lethal topspin off the falling ball. When it's on the rise or at the top of it's bounce any topspin you impart can only neutralize at best the counter-spin you're contending with. However, once the ball is dropping and has lost most of its topspin then most of the top you impart will be effectively transmitted to the ball.
(2) you say slice is the best method of countering topspin. Oddly, slice is better as an attacking shot than as defence, although defence usually employs it through necessity - slice requiring little preparation. When you slice a heavily topped ball, you're usually returning it relatively high and slow and it often sits up unless you have a very deft touch. In other words it's easily attackable on a high-bouncing surface.
SV wrote:> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
Hey, I've been drafted to play a bit of competition doubles tomorrow. I'll >>let you know how it goes.... : )>>
Yep, seems that once you hit 30, doubles is about all you're good for. I > got roped into a similar comp last year and 2 seasons and 2 premierships > later, we're back in retirement. >
If I'm going down it'll be at the net all guns blazing - no bumrooting.
SV wrote:>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
Hey, I've been drafted to play a bit of competition doubles tomorrow. I'll >>>let you know how it goes.... : )>>>
Yep, seems that once you hit 30, doubles is about all you're good for. I >> got roped into a similar comp last year and 2 seasons and 2 premierships >> later, we're back in retirement. >>
If I'm going down it'll be at the net all guns blazing - no bumrooting.
I would propose that bumrooting is seldom to be found in doubles...
-- --Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Wha's yo name, fool?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message >news:KGnce.259$sd7.3887@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...>> SV wrote:>>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message>>
Hey, I've been drafted to play a bit of competition doubles tomorrow. >>>>I'll let you know how it goes.... : )>>>>
Yep, seems that once you hit 30, doubles is about all you're good for. I >>> got roped into a similar comp last year and 2 seasons and 2 premierships >>> later, we're back in retirement. >>>
If I'm going down it'll be at the net all guns blazing - no bumrooting.
It's a travesty. In 2 seasons and against more than 50 players, I saw 1 >decent volleyer, and even he didn't serve-volley. I was the only one (and >I'm 8 yrs out of practise). It's doubles for christsakes!
It was hilarious really, we got to the GF and the opposition actually gave >up trying to hit passing shots when I served and instead returned every ball >up over my partner's head. It won them a few points initially but only >succeeded in bringing the quality of the points down - they didn't win >another game.
My god! I was wrong! Bumrooting has infiltrated even doubles!
-- --Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Wha's yo name, fool?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Sawfish" <mtn@q7.com> wrote in message news:1114780484.311774@q7.q7.com...
One can always point to the exception, but I meant to speak in broad> terms. The playrs who can take the ball late successfully must have> remarkable court coverage. Of the old guys who took the ball late, Borg> took it *VERY* late, but his coverage was up to snuff.
That's true. A Davenport HAS to dominate from the baseline but an ASV can afford to play from well behind.
Of course, Agassi is the model of the guy who takes the ball early, and,> as you say, hits it pretty flat. Aside from the ability to negate the huge> hop, and the advantage in angles, it takes time away from your opponent.> But, as you imply, it's far hard to place the ball with precision when> taking it on the rise.
Oh, I'm a huge advocate of taking it early and not giving your opponent time to respond. However, there's an even better place for doing it: the net.......
Personally, if the choice gets down better angles or more topspin, I'd> favor the angles, but then I don;t have an court coverage anymore.
One thing: if you can make the ball kick high enough and deep enough it's almost impossible to attack you. Try hitting heavily-topspin semi-lobs deep so they bounce above head-height. It's amazing how your opponent's game falls to pieces. However, for some reason people don't often use this tactic, mainly because it seems like moonballing.
(2) you say slice is the best method of countering topspin.>
No, getting the ball *down* is the best way to break a bumrooter rally,a> nd slice is one good way to do it. Not defensively.
I'm an advocate of slice but it's rare to find anybody who has the feel to be able to play a soft low-bouncer off a heavily-topped above the shoulders ball. If they can do it the more power to them.> >When you> >slice a heavily topped ball, you're usually returning it relatively high
slow and it often sits up unless you have a very deft touch. In other
words> >it's easily attackable on a high-bouncing surface.>
I agree. But I was listing options a player has for getting the ball down,> so that it is harder for a wester forehand to attack with TS.
I think it's better to use slice when you're in an attacking position rather than waiting until you're on the defence. That way you can make it skid through low. Once you're hitting it off the back-foot it becomes more a backspin that can sit up and be killed.
"Sawfish" <mtn@q7.com> wrote in message > Your insightful observation on the sequence of events that led to the> prevalence of western grips (do you think everyone just woke up one> morning, bought a 110 sq in racquet, and adopted a western grip THAT> AFTERNOON?)
Western grips began a full CENTURY ago, on the cement courts of California (why they're named as such). The high bounce made the grip the optimum one.............as far as I know, modern racquets weren't invented until modern times. That's why they're modern, I believe........
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> writes:
"Sawfish" <mtn@q7.com> wrote in message news:1114780484.311774@q7.q7.com...
<SNIP>
(2) you say slice is the best method of countering topspin.>>
No, getting the ball *down* is the best way to break a bumrooter rally,a>> nd slice is one good way to do it. Not defensively.
I'm an advocate of slice but it's rare to find anybody who has the feel to>be able to play a soft low-bouncer off a heavily-topped above the shoulders>ball. If they can do it the more power to them.
But before everyone--including recreational player--went to a 2 H BH, that's exactly what people did with a high-bouncing backhand: slice cross court.
When you>> >slice a heavily topped ball, you're usually returning it relatively high>and>> >slow and it often sits up unless you have a very deft touch. In other>words>> >it's easily attackable on a high-bouncing surface.>>
I agree. But I was listing options a player has for getting the ball down,>> so that it is harder for a wester forehand to attack with TS.
I think it's better to use slice when you're in an attacking position rather>than waiting until you're on the defence. That way you can make it skid>through low. Once you're hitting it off the back-foot it becomes more a>backspin that can sit up and be killed.
Yes. I agree. Again, I'm listing ways to get the ball back down from where a western forehand player would like it. Slice is one way; taking the ball very early is another.
And when I say slice, I mean neutral or offensive. To me, defensive slice is the very last choice, like eating your shoes in a POW camp. You're probably gonna die anyway. This just lets you stick around a little longer, to see how...
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If we use Occam's Razor, whose razor will *he* use?" --Sawfish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
