March 2007 -- Question: I’m confused by the term "Modern Game." It seems to refer to changes that have occurred in tennis over the years but there appears to be an uproar over exactly what the "Modern Game" represents. Can you help clarify?
Answer: This is a question that needs to be put front and center on our radar screens. Your first statement is correct: The Modern Game is what it is being called. The name "Modern Game" actually refers to the evolution that has taken place in tennis over the years. To use the word evolution, however, you must identify the "changes" that have occurred and then discuss if it’s necessary for teaching professionals to understand and apply these "changes" to their students’ games. Obviously, I can’t answer all the questions in one short column, but I can set the stage for some possibly good debates.
Without doubt, changes have occurred in our great game. Let’s break down some of the changes and attempt to identify how the game has been affected. The first area is equipment technology. The wooden racquet began leaving the game in the 1960s (itftennis.com says that wooden racquets were manufactured into the ’80s) and racquet technology has continued to evolve. The science involved in tennis shoe design simply skyrocketed in the mid- to late ’70s and, there again, has continued to evolve.
In fitness training, the great Harry Hopman did many things to help us realize the role of fitness in playing tennis at a high level. He revolutionized how athletes learned to sprint and explode through line drills and kangaroo hops, etc. Yet, it was research at the Olympic Training Center in the early ’80s on how Alpine skiers in Europe used tennis as a cross-training sport in their off-season that paved the way for many of our current movement training techniques. As one example we studied their hexagon exercise as a fitness test and agility exercise device to help our athletes improve their footwork, dynamic balance, coordination and agility.
In psychology, Jim Loehr changed the way players are taught to behave between points and on changeovers. His study in the mid-1980s introduced the four stages between points (positive physical response, relaxation, preparation and rituals). This research became foundational to the field of mental toughness.
With technique, we really need to understand what has happened. Let’s begin in a biomechanical fashion by asking if the quality of ball impact has changed. Note that I didn’t ask how the strokes have changed yet. How has the "quality" of ball impact changed? Let’s go even further by asking this: Is the ball being hit consistently harder? Please know that in my answer I am not debating whether it is good or not for the athlete, nor am I debating at what level of play that tennis players "should" be hitting harder shots; that would require more space than I am allowed. I can and will debate those points at another time.
First, let me say that Pancho Gonzales, Rod Laver and Roy Emerson could hit the ball really hard, and with wooden racquets. Could they hit the ball even harder with new-age racquets? Sure they could! I also believe that a greater number of players are hitting the ball harder at
all levels of the game. But, you see, the players
want to hit the ball harder. It is a natural progression of any player’s game - a desire to hit the ball with placement and with power.
I am reminded of a strategic planning meeting I attended with
Tennis magazine in 1994 in upstate New York. The editors and several of my fellow instruction editors were on hand. At one point, we got to discussing the type of instruction that should be delivered and how it should be presented to the public. Without divulging any "secrets," one discussion occurred that all of us have talked about publicly. We, as a team of instruction editors, discussed how recreational players need to know about ball control, depth into the court, consistency in playing a point, and how perhaps we should teach them about power. The editorial staff stopped us cold and said that control, consistency and depth do not sell magazines. While the recreational players realized intellectually the need for control, consistency and depth into the court, the only one-word description that sells magazines to the masses and makes magazines jump off shelves is
power. If that statement is true, that our club players want to hit the ball harder, we need to ask this question: Do we have a responsibility to understand how to teach a power game and teach it with control, consistency and depth? I believe the answer, as a biomechanist, is a definite yes! Our players need to understand how their role models at the highest levels of the game are able to do what they do in striking the ball, covering the court, and being as mentally tough as they are.
As the game has evolved, there is no research to demonstrate that our players are getting tennis elbow more than they did in the ’60s and ’70s. And, we may never know, since there was a paucity of scientific study dedicated to this during those years. Likewise, are there more shoulder injuries from serving harder? I believe all of this is going to be very difficult to prove conclusively, as we are just now getting good epidemiologic data that can be examined longitudinally. There are some things we know and others we don’t. Scientific study will help us on our journey but, as the game continues to evolve, some subjects will always be up for debate as to whether they are good for the player or not.
As for the evolution of technique, I must say that a change
has occurred. The game has and will continue to evolve. However, I also know this: For years, I have lectured and written about the concept of laws, principles and preferences. A law of physics you cannot violate. No matter how you swing the racquet, the laws of inertia, acceleration, action/reaction and gravity will control what happens. Principles can be used to your benefit or detriment. The moment of inertia, for example, can be lowered by using the old teaching phrase, "swing from inside out." In that action, the radius of swing is shortened in the beginning of the swing and then the lever is lengthened as the racquet approaches ball contact. If the athlete keeps the arm fairly straight, the moment of inertia will be higher (aka how Jimmy Connors swung). Assuming this athlete wants to swing hard at the ball, his body will likely be "pulled" off the ground because of the force required to accelerate. And, that’s what happens when an athlete loads the back leg in an open-stance shot. The vertical force is so great, transferring that to the rotational momentum of the hips and trunk, that the body is pulled off the ground. Today’s athletes, in the "modern" game, do not jump at the ball; their bodies are pulled off the ground. They still hit the ball with control, consistency and depth, but only because of the timing of the entire shot.
All of this needs to be discussed and debated by the leading teachers in the game. The sport sciences will play a huge role in helping us understand the basics as well as the pedagogy behind when and how to teach it. Suffice it to say, however, that evolution in tennis has occurred and we, as professionals, must keep up with technology and changes in the game to do the job we need to do.
Send questions to jgroppel@LGEPerformance.com.
