Staying down on groundstokes?

[kimba]

Is the key to power and consistancy with ground stokes staying down on them? what does this mean exactly?

[Solat]

staying down in essence refers to you keeping your body lower thru the stroke so as to get more penetration with the swing, if you lift with your body then you can tend to lift your racquet which will take pace off your stroke

[emcee]

This isn't the case for waist-high topspin shots though, is it? Cause the upward motion helps you get spin. I think this is true for flat shots, approach shots, low shots, etc...i.e. closed/square stance shots.

[smoothtennis]

The time when lifting up is a sin in tennis, is when the kinetic transfer of energy is broken when the body, and legs, expend their energy before transfrering that energy into the ball via the arm.

What the means in laymans terms, is that usually, at the hacker level, The legs and body come up first, followed by the arm, which is stuck on it's own to generate the power. It also complicates the timing of the stroke.

[MasturB]

Pros jump all the time and generate 80-95 mph forehands.

I remember Federer hitting a 102 mph forehand against Nadal at Wimbledon last year, he did it in mid-air. Insanity.

[tlm]

The key to power is rotation+lifting up, staying down takes away from your power.Check the next thread out on acceleration+ the video of roddick were he leaves the ground.

[burosky]

Staying down on groundies is sound advise that has been passed on for as long as I can remember. It promotes good balance, it helps to make the shot more consistent, etc... Things have changed since. Although this advise still works, as you get into the higher skill levels, you will have to change this way of hitting in order to keep up. I think the main problem with this advise is the inherent problem with recovering after the shot. The problem isn't as obvious if you are playing against people who doesn't hit with a lot of pace. At the higher skill level, where pace is expected, this problem can easily be seen.

I'm assuming when you say stay down on the shot you meant both feet planted on the ground with the back foot "swinging" forward as you make contact and follow-through as a result of your weight transfer. This was how I learned and am still getting used to the new way to improve my footwork. If you want to get an idea about the new way, pay careful attention to the current pros. They very seldom stay on the ground when they hit groundies. Most give the appearance of "jumping" because they are usually off the ground. This is just a result of the footwork they are using.

One site I found that illustrates this nicely and shows you how to do it as well is http://www.jezgreen.com/cuttingedge/index.htm. Set your pointer on the cutting edge menu and check out the powerstep. With this move, it allows you to recover quicker because you don't have that "extra step" I mentioned earlier as you transfer your weight forward. I've been trying to make this second nature to the way I hit. It's been difficult because for years I've stayed down for my groundies.

Just a disclaimer. I am in no way affiliated with the website I mentioned. I just thought it might be helpful to the folks here.

[ps60]

i jump almost 70-80% time. in at least 50% of which i don't feel any bad effect. In the rest, there could be less than perfect timing, a little mishit ;)

But the pros jump all the way now. With a much greater racket size, that advice could be Out of date in some cases.

[kimizz]

I suggest staying down.

Ive noticed that when I stay down my legs will automatically drive up at one point of the stroke. Maybe this is the idea of "staying down"? This way you dont jump, the legs will drive up NATURALLY.

Pro players dont jump, they have such a huge leg drive that they end up really high off the ground.

[JCo872]

I suggest staying down.

Ive noticed that when I stay down my legs will automatically drive up at one point of the stroke. Maybe this is the idea of "staying down"? This way you dont jump, the legs will drive up NATURALLY.

Pro players dont jump, they have such a huge leg drive that they end up really high off the ground.

Exactly! Also the uncoiling of the torso seems to lift the body upwards as well.

James Blake was interviewed recently and he said that the key to his forehand was "sit and lift". You can this "sit and lift" from Federer as well on my homepage: http://www.hi-techtennis.com. His torso uncoils and his legs push up

[The Gorilla]

what's the benefit of sit and lift JC?

[habib]

what's the benefit of sit and lift JC?

Think of a spring.

[JCo872]

Think of a spring.

Exactly. Spring like.

When I first looked at "sit and lift" in pro forehands, I found interesting that it occured before impact, and that it occurs almost all the time. Here is a great example from Arazi of "sit and lift":

http://www.hi-techtennis.com/video_sample/index.php?movie=arazi_forehand_side.swf&size=normal

It looks to me like "sit and lift" involves some kind of transfer of kinetic energy upwards from the legs to the hitting arm, which really lifts the ball on impact. If you go through Arazi's forehand frame by frame from contact on, you can see how much his arm and racket lift the ball.

Jeff

[kimizz]

Exactly. Spring like.

When I first looked at "sit and lift" in pro forehands, I found interesting that it occured before impact, and that it occurs almost all the time. Here is a great example from Arazi of "sit and lift":

http://www.hi-techtennis.com/video_sample/index.php?movie=arazi_forehand_side.swf&size=normal

It looks to me like "sit and lift" involves some kind of transfer of kinetic energy upwards from the legs to the hitting arm, which really lifts the ball on impact. If you go through Arazi's forehand frame by frame from contact on, you can see how much his arm and racket lift the ball.

Jeff

Even after reading about the leg drive and stuff it was this clip that really made an impact. Look how high he gets... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4jYwOszO4Q

[The Gorilla]

Exactly. Spring like.

When I first looked at "sit and lift" in pro forehands, I found interesting that it occured before impact, and that it occurs almost all the time. Here is a great example from Arazi of "sit and lift":

http://www.hi-techtennis.com/video_sample/index.php?movie=arazi_forehand_side.swf&size=normal

It looks to me like "sit and lift" involves some kind of transfer of kinetic energy upwards from the legs to the hitting arm, which really lifts the ball on impact. If you go through Arazi's forehand frame by frame from contact on, you can see how much his arm and racket lift the ball.

Jeff



I'm having a hard time understanding how straightening the legs loads the hitting arm, I really can't get my head around it.Is it a component of the same 'kinetic chain' or is it a kinetic energy transfer of it's own?Is it possible that the benefit is purely added topspin?Sometimes, just for fun, I jump upwards as high as I can and get a massively topspun ball as my racquet is now moving upwards whilst not having changed me swing path.Or could it be a position from which they are ready to jump up and hit extremely high trajectory balls?

[habib]

I'm having a hard time understanding how straightening the legs loads the hitting arm, I really can't get my head around it.Is it a component of the same 'kinetic chain' or is it a kinetic energy transfer of it's own?Is it possible that the benefit is purely added topspin?Sometimes, just for fun, I jump upwards as high as I can and get a massively topspun ball as my racquet is now moving upwards whilst not having changed me swing path.Or could it be a position from which they are ready to jump up and hit extremely high trajectory balls?

It has nothing to do with "jumping upwards as high as you can," which won't result in anything but a loss of control, nor does it necessarily apply to high trajectory balls. "Sit and lift" refers to nothing more and nothing less than the proper use of your legs when hitting the ball. It's advice used to ingrain the idea that your legs provide most of the drive and power behind shots. When you "sit," you lower yourself and turn your hips/shoulders/bring back your racquet. When you lift, your legs act like a spring, driving upwards to uncoil your hips and propel your shoulders forward, which ultimately pulls the arm and racquet into the ball.

The result of using your legs as the main driving force behind your shots is that it leaves your arm/hand free to focus on controlling the alignment of the racquet and the direction/trajectory of the shot (though of course your legs play a role in this, as well).

[The Gorilla]

It has nothing to do with "jumping upwards as high as you can," which won't result in anything but a loss of control, nor does it necessarily apply to high trajectory balls. "Sit and lift" refers to nothing more and nothing less than the proper use of your legs when hitting the ball. It's advice used to ingrain the idea that your legs provide most of the drive and power behind shots. When you "sit," you lower yourself and turn your hips/shoulders/bring back your racquet. When you lift, your legs act like a spring, driving upwards to uncoil your hips and propel your shoulders forward, which ultimately pulls the arm and racquet into the ball.

The result of using your legs as the main driving force behind your shots is that it leaves your arm/hand free to focus on controlling the alignment of the racquet and the direction/trajectory of the shot (though of course your legs play a role in this, as well).

sweet jesus, do you talk like this to everyone?


I know it results in a massive loss in control, that's why I said ''sometimes, just for fun'', I would never do it in a match, or even in practice.


What has the sitting and lifting got to do with the turn of the shoulders and hips?What you seem to be saying is that sitting and lifting is done at the same time as loading the hips and shoulders, not what relevance sitting and lifting has.

What force does sitting and lifting enact on the hips and shoulder, that's my question, if you didn't sit and lift, would that have any impact on the amount of power you could generate whatsoever?

[habib]

sweet jesus, do you talk like this to everyone?
No. :-)

I know it results in a massive loss in control, that's why I said ''sometimes, just for fun'', I would never do it in a match, or even in practice.
Ok.


What has the sitting and lifting got to do with the turn of the shoulders and hips?What you seem to be saying is that sitting and lifting is done at the same time as loading the hips and shoulders, not what relevance sitting and lifting has.

What force does sitting and lifting enact on the hips and shoulder, that's my question, if you didn't sit and lift, would that have any impact on the amount of power you could generate whatsoever?

I thought I did a decent job of explaining what sitting and lifting has to do with the shoulder and hip turn, but I'll try this again:

First, to answer your question: yes, if you didn't sit and lift it would have a massive impact on the amount of power - and more specifically: controllable power - which you would be able to generate.

Look at it like this: If you don't sit and lift, you are forced to generate all of your power from your upper body - basically by forcing trunk/shoulder rotation. By sitting and lifting, your legs, in driving upwards, automatically uncoil and rotate your torso into the ball.

Do this for me: stand up, and pretend like you're about to hit a forehand. Turn your shoulders and hips as you would, then bend your knees and lower yourself down ("sit"). Now, straighten your legs. You should notice that the act of straightening your legs automatically rotated your torso back to a face-forward (rather than turned) position, or at least somewhere close. In other words - you've just used virtually no upper body effort whatsoever to rotate/open your torso into the shot. What is the benefit? Your upper body remains relaxed and able to focus on directing the ball, not applying force to it. The application of force now occurs, basically, as a side-effect of driving up with your legs.

In simple terms, it's a question of efficiency. Why use your torso to do two things, when your legs can do one far better, leaving your torso to concentrate on the other?

[tlm]

The sit+lift technique is good, but saying to stay down is not good advise.That is bad oldschool teaching, you should naturally lift on a groundstroke trying to stay down will take a lot away from your shot.

The video of federer clearly shows that he bends his knees some but then he comes up even leaving the ground.On many of the videos of pros forehands they come off the ground, so i dont think they are following the staying down technique.

[kimizz]

The sit+lift technique is good, but saying to stay down is not good advise.That is bad oldschool teaching, you should naturally lift on a groundstroke trying to stay down will take a lot away from your shot.

The video of federer clearly shows that he bends his knees some but then he comes up even leaving the ground.On many of the videos of pros forehands they come off the ground, so i dont think they are following the staying down technique.

Yes staying down is bad, If you force it through the stroke. Was this tought in the old days? That you should make sure you stay down? I really dont know. My friend who is a coach sayd he sometimes teaches this but its because he doenst want the students to jump.

The slow-mos of the pros might mislead some of the beginners. The pros indeed come off the ground but thats in a match situation when they try to hit REALLY hard. Some noob might interpert this in a way that jumping is good. Most of the beginners are usually just practising and rallying with their friends. In these cases jumping is harmful. The pros are not coming off the ground when they warm up or practise their groundies. But there isnt much slow-mo clips of the players just practising.

[kimizz]

Do this for me: stand up, and pretend like you're about to hit a forehand. Turn your shoulders and hips as you would, then bend your knees and lower yourself down ("sit"). Now, straighten your legs. You should notice that the act of straightening your legs automatically rotated your torso back to a face-forward (rather than turned) position, or at least somewhere close. In other words - you've just used virtually no upper body effort whatsoever to rotate/open your torso into the shot. What is the benefit? Your upper body remains relaxed and able to focus on directing the ball, not applying force to it. The application of force now occurs, basically, as a side-effect of driving up with your legs.


This is great post, im glad that someone can articulate themselves better than me. I actually realized this few months ago with a similar test. The leg drive automatically starts the rotation. Its very efficent. But it also feels very natural when you get the hang of it...just sit and lift :)

[habib]

The sit+lift technique is good, but saying to stay down is not good advise.That is bad oldschool teaching, you should naturally lift on a groundstroke trying to stay down will take a lot away from your shot.

The video of federer clearly shows that he bends his knees some but then he comes up even leaving the ground.On many of the videos of pros forehands they come off the ground, so i dont think they are following the staying down technique.

Yes, "staying down" is at once completely accurate and totally misleading. What "staying down" really means is bending your legs to get down to the ball (rather than bending at the waist), and then staying low until you're ready to hit it. Too many players come down and then come up far too early, with the result that they lose a lot of that power by the time they actually make contact.

[tlm]

kimizz,
I am not advocating jumping, i am saying that trying to stay down is not a good idea.The pro's are not jumping, they are lifting+ rotating this is were they get the power.

The reason they leave the ground is because they are rising+ rotating at the same time, the coming off the ground is just a byproduct of this, it is not like they are thinking about jumping.

[tricky]

I'll go ahead and give my theory on this -->

I agree with Habib, that you want your legs to be the "primary mover" of your swing, and that the "lift" helps to initiate the uncoiling of the hips. Using the legs is one of the first and ill-heeded lessons they tell you when you learn strokes.

With that said, I'm actually skeptical in regards to the kinetic chain, how much energy from the legs (i.e. linear momentum) actually transfers into the hips and shoulder, and then into the hitting arm.

From my point of view -- and this only applies to the ATP WW stroke (in WTA mechanics, legs are probably crucial for racquet speed) -- what linear transfer really does is alter the swing arc to make it more linear. The more linear transfer that is applied, the more the swing arc stretch into a line toward the ball. This accomplishes two things:

A) A more "linear" swing arc means you hit through the ball much, much better. So you get better penetration and more of the racquet speed contribute directly to generating topspin and pace.

B) A more "linear" swing arc also allows gives you a longer line to pull into the ball. Meaning, your shoulder and torso are allowed to rotate more before coming around. That will give you more racquet acceleration in the forward swing.

Progression of modern FH seems to be about making the WW swing more and more linear. So you get the high spin, compact stroke, and full rotation of the WW model, but you got the directional control and pace of the classical model.

[habib]

I'll go ahead and give my theory on this -->

I agree with Habib, that you want your legs to be the "primary mover" of your swing, and that the "lift" helps to initiate the uncoiling of the hips. Using the legs is one of the first and ill-heeded lessons they tell you when you learn strokes.

With that said, I'm actually skeptical in regards to the kinetic chain, how much energy from the legs (i.e. linear momentum) actually transfers into the hips and shoulder, and then into the hitting arm.

From my point of view -- and this only applies to the ATP WW stroke (in WTA mechanics, legs are probably crucial for racquet speed) -- what linear transfer really does is alter the swing arc to make it more linear. The more linear transfer that is applied, the more the swing arc stretch into a line toward the ball. This accomplishes two things:

A) A more "linear" swing arc means you hit through the ball much, much better. So you get better penetration and more of the racquet speed contribute directly to generating topspin and pace.

B) A more "linear" swing arc also allows gives you a longer line to pull into the ball. Meaning, your shoulder and torso are allowed to rotate more before coming around. That will give you more racquet acceleration in the forward swing.

Progression of modern FH seems to be about making the WW swing more and more linear. So you get the high spin, compact stroke, and full rotation of the WW model, but you got the directional control and pace of the classical model.

I'm not sure I'm following you on this, Tricky. Are you asserting that the use of your legs makes can make the forehand stroke more linear? If so, I'm not sure I agree.

As far as how much energy from the legs is actually transferred into the stroke/ball, I'm sure that, as a function of percentage, it's not a whole lot. However, your quadriceps are by far the strongest single muscle group in your body, so even if a small percentage of their provided energy gets conveyed into the ball, with the rest being lost to small inefficiencies of the transfer, the total energy they generate is immense, and the energy actually transferred is thus quite significant. This, at least, is the way I see it.

Your legs, basically, are the most efficient way of initiating the torso rotation which pulls the racquet into the ball. How much of that energy actually gets transferred is, to me, not entirely relevant since the main benefit isn't simply power, it's controllable power.

[tricky]

Are you asserting that the use of your legs makes can make the forehand stroke more linear? If so, I'm not sure I agree.

Yes, I know it's again the conventional wisdom but that it how I see it, though specifically with the ATP-style WW stroke.

When the hitting arm is set up, the linear transfer helps moves the elbow forward relative to the body. This gives your shoulder and torso more opportunity to rotate before the racquet comes around the body. So, in that sense, you can generate better acceleration through the ball.

The linear transfer increases the size of the swing arc, but because only in the direction toward the ball. As a result, the swing looks less like circle and more of an oval. It's not a lot compared to serving technique, because you're not taking advantage of ballistic mechanics with the legs. But it's enough so that you're now really hitting through the ball.

However, your quadriceps are by far the strongest single muscle group in your body, so even if a small percentage of their provided energy gets conveyed into the ball, with the rest being lost to small inefficiencies of the transfer, the total energy they generate is immense, and the energy actually transferred is thus quite significant.

I'm ambivalent about the energy transferring because energy itself transfers better along "push vs. pull." For example, if you gave me a running start, I can throw a softball far with an overhand motion. But, that running start doesn't help as much were I to throw a softball underhand. Now, if I instead used a coiling motion instead of a run, the opposite result would be true.

[habib]

Yes, I know it's again the conventional wisdom but that it how I see it, though specifically with the ATP-style WW stroke.

When the hitting arm is set up, the linear transfer helps moves the elbow forward relative to the body. This gives your shoulder and torso more opportunity to rotate before the racquet comes around the body. So, in that sense, you can generate better acceleration through the ball.

The linear transfer increases the size of the swing arc, but because only in the direction toward the ball. As a result, the swing looks less like circle and more of an oval. It's not a lot compared to serving technique, because you're not taking advantage of ballistic mechanics with the legs. But it's enough so that you're now really hitting through the ball.

Alright, you're going to have to type a little slower. :-) What I'm not catching here is how exactly the legdrive contributes towards the linear transfer. Or otherwise, let's try it like this. How do you define linear transfer? You state that "linear transfer helps move the elbow forward relative to the body." What part in this do the legs play? I think once we get on common ground with regards to the terminology this will make a lot more sense. ;-)


I'm ambivalent about the energy transferring because energy itself transfers better along "push vs. pull." For example, if you gave me a running start, I can throw a softball far with an overhand motion. But, that running start doesn't help as much were I to throw a softball underhand. Now, if I instead used a coiling motion instead of a run, the opposite result would be true.

Would it? A baseball pitcher uses said coiling motion (as does a cricket pitcher), and while the underhanded 'windmill' technique of throwing a softball can achieve surprising speeds, it seems a little uncertain that it could match an overhanded throw.

[kimizz]

kimizz,
I am not advocating jumping, i am saying that trying to stay down is not a good idea.The pro's are not jumping, they are lifting+ rotating this is were they get the power.

The reason they leave the ground is because they are rising+ rotating at the same time, the coming off the ground is just a byproduct of this, it is not like they are thinking about jumping.

I didnt mean that you would advocate the jumping. I just wrote how some beginners(I was like that) might falsely think that the pros are jumping since they clearly come off the ground in slow-mos. If they had the same slow-mo vids from practise they would see more clearly that its not jumping, its just lifting with the legs.

[emcee]

Isn't staying down a good idea on low shots, or anything you hit with a square or closed stance? It seems going airborne only works on open stance shots...am I right or wrong on this? Doesn't seem natural at all do go airborne in anything but an open stance I think...

[burosky]

Isn't staying down a good idea on low shots, or anything you hit with a square or closed stance? It seems going airborne only works on open stance shots...am I right or wrong on this? Doesn't seem natural at all do go airborne in anything but an open stance I think...

Yes, you are right. This is just all part of the changes in the way tennis is played as it relates to the "modern" game. One of the biggest difference is the open stance. Perhaps advances in racket technology has something to do with it but if you notice in the days of the wooden racket, hitting with an open stance is practically non-existent. "Jumping" is just the result of the momentum generated by the stroke. With the square or closed stance, the idea is to "step-in" to the shot. Simply, the momentum of the shot doesn't make the player appear to be jumping.

The main advantage of the open stance is the possibility to produce more power due to a longer trunk rotation. A 180 degree rotation on a forehand is not uncommon with the open stance. For the square or closed stance, unless you swing your back foot forward, the most you will get is a 90 degree rotation.

This is why you see a lot of Pros use this technique now. Going back to the topic, if you use the square or closed stance, yes, it is a good idea to stay down because if you try to get off the ground just to simulate the jumping, it isn't natural to the stroke.