|
Post by cardinalvolleyball on Feb 10, 2016 22:18:51 GMT -5
We are not talking about the angle of the hand. We are talking about a wrist snap. This is NOT the same thing. Guess we are at an impasse because it sounds like the same thing to me.
|
|
|
Post by zenyada on Feb 10, 2016 23:05:33 GMT -5
Two 16 year old sophomores at SB High used to come down to East Beach and pound balls on their own, day-in and day-out til sunset. Not bags of balls. Old school. Two swings then sprint down the beach. They were pretty good. Karch Kiraly was a mature 6'2", already explosive, and hitting an early version of his heavy ball with a torqued armswing that started in the middle of his back. He went on to win his first Open that summer. His pal, John Hanley was not yet as tall as he'd later become, less physically mature and required an exaggerated "reach" just to clear the net. Yet he was already generating significant power through what appeared to be a simple, but lightening quick wrist snap. At least that's how it looked. In reality, Hanley's talented arm speed began at the elbow, developing a great deal of both power and control by syncing perfectly his quick twitch elbow and a flexible, loaded wrist. Kiraly and Hanley were a contrast in styles, but not mechanics. I'll explain.
Kessler I believe is misleading. Baseball coaches at high levels teach and develop what they refer to as a "fat wrist" for throwing, which is the fully cocked wrist bent as far back as the player can eventually bend it. A great deal of additional power (ball speed) and throwing accuracy can be generated using this position. A great deal more than 2%.
Hitting a baseball HARD also requires loaded wrists which release stored energy at impact. The complex, synced acceleration of the hands (bat speed) is referred to as "hitting through the ball". The term "follow through" is archaic, unimportant, and what happens after contact and after the release of energy.
If you want to teach volleyball players to hit the ball harder first teach them the concept of "hitting through the ball", and the wrist will naturally engage. Later you can progress and teach the "fat" or loaded wrist. Most girls/players start out just trying to make contact while in the air, trying not to hit out, or worse embarass themselves and whiff. The effect is their arm swing is SLOWING at contact. "Hitting through the ball" is the concept of accelerating hand speed through the ball by staying loaded longer. This must include the wrist, which remains the last joint to release stored energy. Early on, both Kiraly and Hanley understood intuitively the concept of hitting through the ball. And both were willing to run a little farther for it.
|
|
|
Post by universal on Feb 11, 2016 1:02:50 GMT -5
I love these discussions. Threads about biomechanics, as well as tactics and strategies, are what draw me to this site. Thank you posters.
Anyway, to the point. The question is - Do you believe the wrist snap adds anything to an attack in volleyball?
According to Peter Vint, Senior Sports Performance Director of the USOC (who is actually a volleyball person), QUOTE ...during the very brief time in which the hand is actually in contact with the ball (.008-.01 contact time) the wrist is usually neutral and is NOT actively flexing forward… END QUOTE
That means the ball is long gone before the hand actually snaps forward. The hand flies forward because of the wrist snap, but the ball is long gone by then. It's like waving goodbye. The person departs, but not because you pushed them away with your wrist snap. Their leaving, and your wrist snap waving, are two unrelated actions.
The wrist snap does not contribute anything new to the ball other than what s0uthie describes so accurately in an earlier posting. It's worth (re)reading. The wrist snap is the beneficial end-result of an effective whip arm swing. (Maybe ?? this is analogous to a big jump while attacking. You will eventually land on the ground again, but landing does not contribute to your jump height. Landing is an end-result of jumping; a beneficial thing, but it makes no contribution to your big vert.)
|
|
|
Post by aveenovbc on Feb 11, 2016 1:33:09 GMT -5
Does anyone have a link to the actual research study that was done?
|
|
|
Post by vbman100 on Feb 11, 2016 9:14:51 GMT -5
This has been an interesting discussion and made me really think about some things.
Does the wrist 'snap' because the action of an armswing is 'violent' and the chain of reaction from the arm swinging and elbow 'snapping' leads to the 'snap'? The 'snap' is more a symptom of an armswing, rather than a cause of the action I want to place on the ball? The hand wants to reach back to get rid of the ball so it 'snaps' forward to complete the action? If you swing slow, you can avoid this 'snap' from happening.
Does the wrist 'snap' when dribbling a basketball?
Does the wrist 'snap' when throwing a football or baseball?
Is torque of the body worth it? The hand is in contact with the ball for a short period of time, so how can torque generate power?
|
|
|
Post by vbkid111 on Feb 11, 2016 12:04:08 GMT -5
Did you watch the tennis video? It shows that these statements are incorrect. The BALL and the location of the ball on the racket is what determines the follow-through. I don't disagree that wrist angle helps topspin (if the ball is struck in the correct spot). But snapping the wrist "during" or after contact does not cause topspin. Did you watch the tennis video? The whole point of the video was that the motion of the swing (despite being only a nanosecond in length) created topspin and not the angle of contact. It also wasn't talking about the tennis serve as the example above states. I could see using lessons from hitting forehands from/behind the baseline if we were talking about Japanese-style sidearm serves, but not the spiking motion. I don't think there's a tennis coach around NOT teaching players to snap on the ball on serve/overhead smash. Agree with candlelight: I DID watch the video, and as a former tennis instructor, agree with it wholeheartedly. The verbal cue of "topping the ball" has always just been that--a verbal cue to get young kids to hit the ball with an upward motion (raquet beginning low, finishing high). And by the way, much to the video instructor's chagrin, many of the player's racquets were finishing (over the ball/a little parallel to the ground), but he was careful to cut the video before the swing finished its full progression. How convenient. But back to the point: this is a completely different swing. A comparison to the tennis overhand serve is much more appropriate. The racquet head always finishes down, leading the rest of the hand, arm, shoulder, etc. Look--I am a proponent of a stiff, locked wrist/hand on contact, BUT 1. the loose wrist "snaps/whips" up to that point, and then, 2. continues in a firmer/more locked position downward, leading the fingers (and in this case, the racquet head) to the court TO ENSURE THAT NEITHER THE HAND OR THE RACQUET HEAD REMAIN FLAT AND CUTTING BACKWARD ON THE BALL, WHICH WOULD SEND IT AGAINST THE BACK WALL OR BACKSTOP).
|
|
|
Post by vbkid111 on Feb 11, 2016 12:36:50 GMT -5
How on earth is the racket head going to finish high? This is just the natural follow-through required. The same with the arm in volleyball. It's the angle at contact that matters. That seems like a silly question...unless you are misinterpreting an earlier description/choice of words. What I mean by "high" is when either a young vb attacker or tennis server does what MANY do when they are learning--they stop the hand motion on contact, leaving the hand/racquet to hit the ball flat or with an undercutting back spin, leaving the fingers (attacker) or racquet head to follow the hand instead of leading it. My goodness, kids who drop their elbow when swinging do this ALL the time, causing the ball to "take off" on them. That's why, even though the fingers and upper hand may not ever or rarely touch the ball, it's so important to emphasize finishing through/over/on top of the ball to the floor. I don't know how to explain it any further. And by the way, here's a vid of Federer's back hand in slo mo. His racquet in finishing the stroke in no way remains open or perpendicular to the ground, regardless of where the ball contacts the head. In fact, at :59 he hits it dead center and by 1:00 his head is completely parallel to the ground, doing just what the earlier instructor said did not happen. It does happen because it has to in order to GET THE RIGHT ANGLE OF CONTACT. That's the whole point. Anybody who argues that attention to follow through in just about any athletic movement (bball shooting, pitching, etc) doesn't matter or just happens naturally, well I don't know what to say to that. Maybe that's not what you are saying, but it sounds like it.
|
|
|
Post by future on Feb 11, 2016 13:02:36 GMT -5
All types of wrist movement here. Lots of flat deep court attacks obviously too.
|
|
|
Post by vbkid111 on Feb 11, 2016 14:11:14 GMT -5
That seems like a silly question...unless you are misinterpreting an earlier description/choice of words. What I mean by "high" is when either a young vb attacker or tennis server does what MANY do when they are learning--they stop the hand motion on contact, leaving the hand/racquet to hit the ball flat or with an undercutting back spin, leaving the fingers (attacker) or racquet head to follow the hand instead of leading it. My goodness, kids who drop their elbow when swinging do this ALL the time, causing the ball to "take off" on them. That's why, even though the fingers and upper hand may not ever or rarely touch the ball, it's so important to emphasize finishing through/over/on top of the ball to the floor. I don't know how to explain it any further. And by the way, here's a vid of Federer's back hand in slo mo. His racquet in finishing the stroke in no way remains open or perpendicular to the ground, regardless of where the ball contacts the head. In fact, at :59 he hits it dead center and by 1:00 his head is completely parallel to the ground, doing just what the earlier instructor said did not happen. It does happen because it has to in order to GET THE RIGHT ANGLE OF CONTACT. That's the whole point. Anybody who argues that attention to follow through in just about any athletic movement (bball shooting, pitching, etc) doesn't matter or just happens naturally, well I don't know what to say to that. Maybe that's not what you are saying, but it sounds like it. You're right. I don't know what you're talking about anymore. I thought we had switched to the serve? Now I'm looking at a backhand? What do you mean by "finishing the stroke"? Is that the same as his follow-through? Again, I am talking about what causes the topspin. It is the angle at contact, not the follow-through. Maybe we should just agree that we are talking about different things here? Because I sure am not arguing that the follow-through has nothing to do with the angle of contact. But the follow-through does not create the angle at contact. Well, you did post that earlier vid on tennis groundstrokes that countered some on this board about hand snapping/finishing/angling/rolling/(insert any other appropriate word) over the ball. Both the Federer tennis serve vid and the groundstroke vid serve to counter that "myth-busting" vid and the notion that the follow-through doesn't at all finish over the ball (or where the ball used to be). I am not arguing against the notion that angle causes the topspin. That's a given. But what some are calling a "snapping of the hand," can certainly be referring to that kind of follow-through/finish that can help get the player to swing with the proper angle needed to drive the ball down. Helping the kid to get it is what matters most anyway and when top instructors work with young athletes, nearly all understand that if you teach the correct follow-through, it will really help ensure that the proper ANGLE of contact occurs. I agree let's end it here. Maybe it's all potato potahto.
|
|
|
Post by hochee on Feb 11, 2016 15:08:42 GMT -5
Follow- through, hitting- through, wrist-snap, etc.... don't matter unless you try to hit, throw, swing without them. Kinda like quantum physics. Hard to believe but it "works".
|
|
|
Post by rhinovb14 on Feb 12, 2016 7:02:07 GMT -5
Just going to drop in a little science here to debunk the wrist snap myth... Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by aveenovbc on Feb 12, 2016 9:53:14 GMT -5
Just going to drop in a little science here to debunk the wrist snap myth...
A couple of pictures doesn't equate to science, IMHO.
I asked earlier for an actual research study about this debunking of the wrist snap myth, and got nothing in return.
|
|
grutz
Junior High
Posts: 1
|
Post by grutz on Feb 12, 2016 18:24:45 GMT -5
So I am getting that the reach and snap image is useful - but not for the reasons I believed. I can live with that. I dont know if anyone has said 'dont do it'. Just that we arent getting the same action for the same reasons on a rebound contact as we do on a throw of baseball or football.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Feb 13, 2016 11:53:39 GMT -5
I prefer a topic on the "heavy ball."
If two girls -- one named Wendy Weakarms and the other named Ogonna Nnamani -- hit the same ball at the same velocity, why is Ogonna the only one who is considered to have hit a "heavy ball"?
|
|
|
Post by rhinovb14 on Feb 19, 2016 8:37:52 GMT -5
John Kessel can supply you with the science behind the wrist snap myth....still a myth.
|
|