[kidbourbon]

Originally Posted by latso

It's true and the fact that it is legal is a glitch in the rules.

Just like in table tennis, it should be legit to hit a serve only if the ball has made a certain height in the air.

Just because the oponent can't be ready for such kind of shot and despite that this is the point of the surprising serve, it would be just as "legit" to serve fast while the oponent is still whipping his face with the towel facing back to the net.

That's the same as the under arm serve imo.

If one is able to make a drop shot serve with a ball thrown in the air as for a normal serve, then it's cool, but otherwise it's just kinda cheating.

I'd expect such serves from Benoit Paire in the future, he is the kind of wild tennis player with no respect for unwritten rules

This is the absolute dumbest reasoning I've ever heard. Are you actually suggesting there should be a minimum height requirement for a ball toss? A serve is a shot where you toss the ball in the air and hit it. It isn't a glitch in the rules that it is legal. In order for it to be illegal, they would have to write up the most contrived, nonsensical sounding rule of all time.

Would you also propose banning sidearm pitchers in baseball? Would you propose that a guy that normally doesn't throw side arm can't mix it up and throw side arm on occasion?

[kidbourbon]

Originally Posted by latso

First of all it is hardly a shot that would give you a better advantage than a good first serve. So it is like a mockery of the oponent and this is counted as trying to destabilize him, just like getting a medical break out of nowhere, or faking an injury, etc.

That's just a stupid shot that would get you killed by the oponent in 8 out of 10 times.

You can't make a good drop shot from this position, so it's just useless and annoying.

If it's so useless, then why would anybody bother banning it?

Fact is, you're analysis is self-contradictory and nonsensical. Lots of shots are meant to trick your opponent. You don't have to tell them where you're going to hit it before you hit it.

[kidbourbon]

Originally Posted by Dougie

This is exactly what I tried to say. I suppose it sounds like a stupid and ridicilous thing to those that have not played the game themselves, but to those that have, it´s pretty clear.

This is so weak. Defending your position by saying that the people who disagree with you don't play tennis. That is the type of position people take when they can't think of anything substantive that isn't completely retarded.

Weak dude.

I play tennis, and I've used it before, and I would definitely be sure to use it against you if I played you. just so you could see me laughing at you.

[kidbourbon]

Originally Posted by latso

This shot is not yet banned because it's not often used and it's not often used becaused it is stupid as it gives you no advantage in the point.

In 90% of the cases the returner will be at the ball on time to execute you like a pigeon.

If it would have been a shot that gives advantage to the server it would have been more often used, would have made the game look like a clownery and the ATP would have banned it in no time.

Simple as that.

Your analysis isn't simple at all. It's convoluted and it makes no sense.

It's not banned because it's rarely used? Wrong.
If it were used more it would be banned? WRong.

It will never be used a lot because it is a trick shot. And it will never be banned because it fits within any non-convoluted and contrived definition of what constitutes a serve.

[Dougie]

Originally Posted by kidbourbon

This is so weak. Defending your position by saying that the people who disagree with you don't play tennis. That is the type of position people take when they can't think of anything substantive that isn't completely retarded.

Weak dude.

I play tennis, and I've used it before, and I would definitely be sure to use it against you if I played you. just so you could see me laughing at you.

That´s not what I said, don´t twist my words. I said that those who have played the sport competitively, seem to have a better understanding of why it is considered as an insulting. If I played against you, you could use it as much as you like, because I already consider you a jerk, underarm serve wouldn´t change a thing.

And learn to use the multiquote-function, this many posts of aggressive bs is just weak. Dude.

[Looner]

Originally Posted by Dougie

That´s not what I said, don´t twist my words. I said that those who have played the sport competitively, seem to have a better understanding of why it is considered as an insulting. If I played against you, you could use it as much as you like, because I already consider you a jerk, underarm serve wouldn´t change a thing.

And learn to use the multiquote-function, this many posts of aggressive bs is just weak. Dude.

Although I don't agree with the notion that the underhand serve should be despised, it does seem that it's frowned upon in the pro circles. I can't really know as I don't play even as an amateur but it's one of those things in sport.

For example, in cycling attacking during in the so-called feeding zone (the place of the stage where you get food given to you in bags when you pass by) is seen as low and unprofessional conduct.

I wish it wasn't though .

[Cosmin24]

Tactically and technically one must consider the following:
- the underhand serve is almost like a drop shot: there is the element of surprise and disguise.
- you have to understand that if your opponent is quick enough you will be attacked at the net, or worse it could be an easy put-away for an experienced opponent.
- you should consider moving up to the net otherwise if your opponent gets to it early he/she has many angles to place the ball to.
So, in summary, the underhand serve is exciting to execute but you will be put in two situations:
- either make it a winner (the returner doesn't get to it - he's taken completely by surprise) or a shot your opponent barely gets to it - which you are attacking.
- or if it is not taking your opponent by surprise you are on defense.