PDA

View Full Version : Is FYB wrong about the windshield wiper forehand?


GuyClinch
11-06-2009, 02:44 PM
If you watch the FYB video it talks extensively about how you hit the ball by swinging up MORE on the ball then with a 'traditional" forehand and you can't "tac on" a WW to a tradtional swing.

However - perhaps my eyes are deceiving me but I would swear that Roger Federer DOES NOT use an uppercut swing - at least not any more then Warinka right next to him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuXiQRyN8Uc

The reason for the low finish with Roger is that he is swinging without much of an uppercut - and thus when he turns his forearm over it naturally finishes low. A low flat swing would have a lower flatter finish.

Whereas an uppercut swing (like a baseball player would take) would naturally finish over the shoulder.

For example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkMtdAb8lI8

Seems to me the WW does exactly the opposite of what Will says in FYB. It enables a flatter swing because you generate the spin with the pronation instead of the low to high movement..

Now don't get me wrong - you generate spin with all that pronation so the racquet itself is moving upward at a very rapid pace before contact. But the angle of arm path itself seems less then a traditional shot.

For example Kim Clisters - forehand drive (traditional finish)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AicCkXhp-c0

James Blake Forehand drive (WW)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5l6NiQ1Upg

If you look at the angle the arm travels Blakes looks far flatter then Kim's..which makes sense as the followthrough is lower.

Kim's has more low to high movement - and thus the follow through is higher.

I see the WW forehand as a flatter (though not flat) swing with alot more pronation whereas a traditional swing has more upper cut but less wrist turn.

Of course I don't hit a WW yet so I could be totally wrong.. I want to start learning it though.


Pete

SystemicAnomaly
11-06-2009, 03:01 PM
Not sure what you mean by an uppercut baseball swing. Baseball batters typically put underspin on the ball to hit deep, long balls. Are you talking about something else?

Federer does start his racquet head below the ball with his forward swing. the racquet head itself goes thru a distinct low-to-high motion during the first part of the WW. The forearm does pronate quite a bit to facilitate this. Perhaps, I'm not understanding what you are saying here. Take a look at this slow-mo vid of Fed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmhvKafCYsk
.

wihamilton
11-06-2009, 03:20 PM
Hi GC. To answer your question -- No, we're not wrong =)

There is more than one way to hit a WW forehand. Here's a video of Roddick hitting per our definition in that video:

http://www.fuzzyyellowballs.com/pro-stroke-library/andy-roddick/

There is another thread (linked below) where I discuss the two types of WW forehands. You can either lift the racket using your entire arm to create the WW motion OR you can pronate as you & SA observed Roger doing.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=259859

Let me emphasize that not many players do what Roger does. Most pros use the technique we outlined in the video you linked. Verdasco and Nadal are two other guys that DO pronate to create the WW motion. Nadal actually combines the two techniques -- he lifts low-to-high AND pronates. That's how he generates so much spin.

Federer is EXTREMELY unique in his super-flat swing path + pronation. More on this in a video to come =)

5263
11-06-2009, 03:48 PM
Guy, Wil, SA,
How do you guys define a WW Fh?
Is it any Fh that finishes by the other elbow on the wrap?

tricky
11-06-2009, 04:50 PM
As the above thread shown, there's 2 variations of the WW FH. There's another thread where I go into the mechanical theory between the two, but the short answer is you have a "loop-based" takeback and you have a "turn-based" takeback. This has little to do with whether a takeback is "circular" or "straight", it is set by how you separate the left arm from the racquet. This dictates type of WW FH.

To the WW FH of what Guy is describing, you need to have a turn-based takeback. To do this, you need to separate the left hand "forward" from the racquet. To do that try this:

1) As you separate the left hand from the racquet, imagine partially stroking the neck of the racquet with that hand. That should prevent your hand from "lifting" the racquet in order to separate. See whether your swing changes from this.

2) If not, then try separating the left hand from the racquet while your elbow is pointing straight at the ground. See whether your swing changes from this.

3) If that still isn't working, then work on throwing footballs or socks with a football-like motion. Notice how the left arm separates from the football.

You should notice two changes:

1) During your takeback, you'll notice a strong shoulder turn whether you take a big cut or not. Also, you'll notice that however you may try, you can't get a big loop path with your takeback.

2) During your forward swing, it will feel like you're swatting at the ball. Yet, you'll find that you can't easily avoid the WW action when you swing through the ball. It's so automatic that you don't really feel it that much until your finish.

ahile02
11-06-2009, 05:33 PM
Yo Will,
Love your site. I think another video you should do concerning the WW forehand is one addressing the common mistakes and errors people have when trying to use the WW forehand.

wihamilton
11-06-2009, 05:47 PM
Yo Will,
Love your site. I think another video you should do concerning the WW forehand is one addressing the common mistakes and errors people have when trying to use the WW forehand.

Thx. I think the most common error w/the WW is trying to hit it before you have a fundamentally-sound forehand. Many folks get enamored with the technique and ignore the more important building blocks:

1. Pivot and shoulder turn (also called unit turn) -- the entire body begins to turn sideways. Both hands stay on the tennis racket but the racket starts to come back by virtue of the shoulders turning sideways.

2. Racket back -- complete shoulder turn, release the racket w/your non-hitting hand, take the racket all the way back, extend your non-hitting arm across your body, load weight on outside leg (right leg if you are right-handed).

3. Swing to contact -- push off outside leg, rotate body toward the net, drop racket down and swing forward (the path the racket travels along looks like the letter "C"), and make contact in front of your body w/the strings flat on the back of the ball.

4. Follow through -- continue to rotate your upper body, extend out in the direction you are hitting, turn your forehand and wrist over as one piece (pronate) like you're trying to check the time on a watch, bring the racket across your body in a smooth + relaxed motion / all this stuff allows you to slow yourself and the racket down comfortably.

5. Continuous swing path -- once you release the racket with your non-hitting arm, the racket shouldn't stop moving -- it stays in motion through the rest of the backswing, into the forward swing and contact, and into the follow through. No breaks!

Virtually every single pro on tour does these things each and every time they hit a forehand. Most amateurs, however, don't. So it doesn't make much sense to work on the WW if you can't do this stuff.

We'll be release a free email course covering this stuff next week. It will include video of Federer, Nadal, Verdasco, Roddick, Ivanovic, Hantuchova, Safina, etc. and will illustrate the stuff I listed above. Stay tuned.

5263
11-06-2009, 05:51 PM
It's be nice we could start with actually constitutes a ww Fh.
Much of what I saw in the vids didn't appear to be a WW to me.

Wil, I see you added that as I posted the above,
thanks

wihamilton
11-06-2009, 05:55 PM
Guy, Wil, SA,
How do you guys define a WW Fh?
Is it any Fh that finishes by the other elbow on the wrap?

My view is that it's not just the up-and-down motion the racket travels along. The racket can't release "on edge" like a classic forehand at any point during the follow through. In other words, you have to be able to see thru the string bed at all times.

For example, if you watch the 3rd video on the page linked below -- the forehand at ~50 seconds -- Verdasco finishes relatively high for a WW forehand. However, you can go thru and freeze the video at various points to see that he's still got the string bed facing the net during the follow through.

http://www.fuzzyyellowballs.com/pro-stroke-library/fernando-verdasco/forehand/

ahile02
11-06-2009, 06:18 PM
A bit off topic, but dude Will you gotta put some vids of you in match play, thatd be pretty cool. Have you played Oliver yet? lol. One final q, if I'm in the D.C. area, can I get a lesson?

The problem I have with my WW forehand is every once in awhile I'll have a swing and pull off right before contact in an attempt to get the motion, and i end up getting a spinny, weak ball. I'll just reinforce myself that the racquet still needs to swing through, not just up, and my WW forehand's all good again. The Gael Monfils videos on your side do a really good job of demonstrating that. He is still able to see through his racquet face after contact and into the follow through, yet the racquet face is tilted forward, showing that he's hit through the ball sufficiently enough to hit a penetrating shot with pace yet also produce a ton of spin. That video was extremely helpful for showing that.

GuyClinch
11-06-2009, 08:56 PM
My view is that it's not just the up-and-down motion the racket travels along. The racket can't release "on edge" like a classic forehand at any point during the follow through. In other words, you have to be able to see thru the string bed at all times.

Wow I get a response from the FYB expert -awesome thanks.

I totally agree after watching your videos that Federer hits flatter then many others with regards to the WW. Its likely easier to learn (and probably requires less racquet speed) with an uppercut swing. Also your step by step WW forehand totally makes sense as well.

But here is the thing about the release. It seems to me it might be just a function of the pronation. If you pronate fast enough it never has a chance to get to that on edge position. Say you swing the racquet and just prior to contact you pronated very quickly. I think the racquet would end up on the other side of you before it ever had the chance to be "on edge". It seems kinda self explanatory if you just trace the racquet movement through the air.

I think this really makes sense if you think about it. The various heights of the WW finishes then can just be seen as functions of the upper cut nature of the swing (or lack thereof). I dunno maybe i am missing something biomechanically..but basically someone discovered that if you really pronate aggressively you can create topspin without as much low to high in your swing.

Of course you can still swing low to high - and likely generate even more topspin and this would lead to the high finishes. It might be even easier to learn this way (as likely the swing energy could be slower and still allow you to bring the ball over the net).

Other pros describe the WW swing a bit differently then you do on your site..

For example Mario Lllano talks about the snap (fast forward to like 2:26 seconds into it). This of course is the pronation. Prior to that the swing is very similiar to a conventional forehand..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0RndYbEl3s

Also interestingly if you watch that video he has some "high" finishes with his WW swing..

Also previously at a club I go to was telling me to add more pronation into my swing. I don't think about is as tacking on because even in a regular forehand there is a some pronation as your swing travels over your shoulder.

Seems to me if you just heavily exaggerated this - and finished wherever you naturally would - presto a WW forehand..

And with enough pronation likely you could swing on a flat plane like Federer and still pull the ball over the net due to the "snap".. Thinking about it this way frees you from worrying whether your racquet would ever be "on edge" which strikes me as problematic. Whatever happens - happens. If you pronated REALLY slowly it would end up on edge and without enough upper cut to your swing the ball is probably going in the net..

Pete

aznstyle
11-06-2009, 11:34 PM
i've also been trying to tweak my forehand a bit to a ww forehand. but i notice i tend to mishit the ball often, perhaps bc of the vertical swingpath. would u recommend me hitting using the alternative method?

Knightmace
11-06-2009, 11:39 PM
Hi GC. To answer your question -- No, we're not wrong =)

There is more than one way to hit a WW forehand. Here's a video of Roddick hitting per our definition in that video:

http://www.fuzzyyellowballs.com/pro-stroke-library/andy-roddick/

There is another thread (linked below) where I discuss the two types of WW forehands. You can either lift the racket using your entire arm to create the WW motion OR you can pronate as you & SA observed Roger doing.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=259859

Let me emphasize that not many players do what Roger does. Most pros use the technique we outlined in the video you linked. Verdasco and Nadal are two other guys that DO pronate to create the WW motion. Nadal actually combines the two techniques -- he lifts low-to-high AND pronates. That's how he generates so much spin.

Federer is EXTREMELY unique in his super-flat swing path + pronation. More on this in a video to come =)
Cool, has it been released yet Will, the federer forehand video?

limitup
11-06-2009, 11:45 PM
You just need to practice more. If I try to hit more flat like you and Federer I mishit too - because I learned to hit like Nadal and that's how I've always hit. Just hit more balls. Any time you try to change a fundamental part of your game it's going to take A LOT of practice.

tricky
11-07-2009, 02:27 AM
But here is the thing about the release. It seems to me it might be just a function of the pronation. If you pronate fast enough it never has a chance to get to that on edge position. Say you swing the racquet and just prior to contact you pronated very quickly. I think the racquet would end up on the other side of you before it ever had the chance to be "on edge". It seems kinda self explanatory if you just trace the racquet movement through the air.

Ehh, it still depends on whether takeback is loop-based or turn-based. For most people, even if they try a just-before-contact wiping action, the uppercut motion will occur anyway. Even if there is a lot of actual release going from strictly the pronators, the upper arm will have to "hook" in order to keep the racquet face from not opening up toward "launch" angle. Mechanically, the arm is "tracked" to do that. So in other words, even if you swing with a very loose wrist hinge, you still either have a very flat swing plane with not much wiping action, or you have one with a bigger uppercut and great wiping action. Either/or, for a given grip.

Most people come from a more traditional swing, so they're conditioned to lift the racquet with the hand in order to separate the hand from the racquet. This sets up the takeback, so that the upper arm elevates before it turns or rotates. As a result, in the forward swing, even if you try to do last-millesecond pronation (not advisable either, since that throws off your timing) the upper arm will always "hook" in response.

SystemicAnomaly
11-07-2009, 03:07 AM
Guy, Wil, SA,
How do you guys define a WW Fh?
Is it any Fh that finishes by the other elbow on the wrap?

It's like porn -- "I know it when I see it"

(Thnx for doing all the heavy lifting on this one, Will & tricky)

.

NamRanger
11-07-2009, 08:21 AM
Wow I get a response from the FYB expert -awesome thanks.

I totally agree after watching your videos that Federer hits flatter then many others with regards to the WW. Its likely easier to learn (and probably requires less racquet speed) with an uppercut swing. Also your step by step WW forehand totally makes sense as well.

But here is the thing about the release. It seems to me it might be just a function of the pronation. If you pronate fast enough it never has a chance to get to that on edge position. Say you swing the racquet and just prior to contact you pronated very quickly. I think the racquet would end up on the other side of you before it ever had the chance to be "on edge". It seems kinda self explanatory if you just trace the racquet movement through the air.

I think this really makes sense if you think about it. The various heights of the WW finishes then can just be seen as functions of the upper cut nature of the swing (or lack thereof). I dunno maybe i am missing something biomechanically..but basically someone discovered that if you really pronate aggressively you can create topspin without as much low to high in your swing.

Of course you can still swing low to high - and likely generate even more topspin and this would lead to the high finishes. It might be even easier to learn this way (as likely the swing energy could be slower and still allow you to bring the ball over the net).

Other pros describe the WW swing a bit differently then you do on your site..

For example Mario Lllano talks about the snap (fast forward to like 2:26 seconds into it). This of course is the pronation. Prior to that the swing is very similiar to a conventional forehand..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0RndYbEl3s

Also interestingly if you watch that video he has some "high" finishes with his WW swing..

Also previously at a club I go to was telling me to add more pronation into my swing. I don't think about is as tacking on because even in a regular forehand there is a some pronation as your swing travels over your shoulder.

Seems to me if you just heavily exaggerated this - and finished wherever you naturally would - presto a WW forehand..

And with enough pronation likely you could swing on a flat plane like Federer and still pull the ball over the net due to the "snap".. Thinking about it this way frees you from worrying whether your racquet would ever be "on edge" which strikes me as problematic. Whatever happens - happens. If you pronated REALLY slowly it would end up on edge and without enough upper cut to your swing the ball is probably going in the net..

Pete



I would like to point out that the Federer / Nadal / Verdasco esque WW forehand is much harder to learn than the normal forehand, and very prone to errors without precise footwork. It is a shot that is naturally ingrained in these 3 that they learned from the beginning, so it's not like you can just pick it up that easy.



Also, there's a whole lot of things that can go wrong with this forehand than the normal WW forehand that 99.9% of the professional players use. It's not just the high racquet speed associated with the forehand; it's the intricate nature of the forehand that makes it harder to hit. The normal WW forehand has alot less "moving" parts so to speak, and is a much simpler stroke.

chico9166
11-07-2009, 08:26 AM
I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on how the straight arm configuration fits into the equation.

GuyClinch
11-07-2009, 09:08 AM
Let me emphasize that not many players do what Roger does. Most pros use the technique we outlined in the video you linked. Verdasco and Nadal are two other guys that DO pronate to create the WW motion. Nadal actually combines the two techniques -- he lifts low-to-high AND pronates. That's how he generates so much spin.

Cool. I see what your saying here. The only thing though is I think perhaps your selling the average pro a bit short. My guess would be (as I am not sure you can tell from video alone) is that every pro is actively pronating as well as turning the whole arm over like Roger does.

This is what you say in the other thread:

The first way is to modify your swing path -- make it more vertical. This is the method we taught in the WW video. Jeff Counts of Hi-TechTennis.com describes the WW motion as lifting and turning over a lever. I think this is a pretty good anology. You lift the racket up, across the ball prior to and through contact. After you hit, your arm and the racket turn over, creating the WW follow through.

If the WW motion was just a way to slow down the uppercut swing you could just finish over your shoulder like Clijsters often does.

Maybe what's going on is that Roger, Verdasco and others have learned to windshield wiper the racquet a touch earlier so its more obvious..

Pete

wihamilton
11-07-2009, 09:21 AM
It's like porn -- "I know it when I see it"

(Thnx for doing all the heavy lifting on this one, Will & tricky)

.

+1 on the Justice Potter Stewart quote from Jacobellis v. Ohio.

wihamilton
11-07-2009, 09:23 AM
I would like to point out that the Federer / Nadal / Verdasco esque WW forehand is much harder to learn than the normal forehand, and very prone to errors without precise footwork. It is a shot that is naturally ingrained in these 3 that they learned from the beginning, so it's not like you can just pick it up that easy.

Also, there's a whole lot of things that can go wrong with this forehand than the normal WW forehand that 99.9% of the professional players use. It's not just the high racquet speed associated with the forehand; it's the intricate nature of the forehand that makes it harder to hit. The normal WW forehand has alot less "moving" parts so to speak, and is a much simpler stroke.

I agree. I'd recommend most players stay away from it. You can hit a world-class forehand w/out pronating like Federer / Nadal / Verdasco / etc.

wihamilton
11-07-2009, 09:29 AM
Wow I get a response from the FYB expert -awesome thanks.

But here is the thing about the release. It seems to me it might be just a function of the pronation. If you pronate fast enough it never has a chance to get to that on edge position. Say you swing the racquet and just prior to contact you pronated very quickly. I think the racquet would end up on the other side of you before it ever had the chance to be "on edge". It seems kinda self explanatory if you just trace the racquet movement through the air.


Thx Pete. This may be possible -- who knows. The question is why are you trying to force a particular type of follow through? It has no bearing on the amount of pace / spin on the ball you just hit. And if you swing flat through the ball and simply tact on a WW finish, that's not a WW forehand. That's a bad forehand =)

wihamilton
11-07-2009, 09:35 AM
Cool. I see what your saying here. The only thing though is I think perhaps your selling the average pro a bit short. My guess would be (as I am not sure you can tell from video alone) is that every pro is actively pronating as well as turning the whole arm over like Roger does.

Other pros have pronation in there -- sure. But many don't use this as an active source of topspin like Federer, Nadal, etc. If you watch some slow-motion video on Youtube, look at the relationship between the racket and hitting arm at the beginning of the forward swing and at contact.

If the racket head is well below the hand at the start of the swing -- but in-line with the hand at contact -- chances are there's a good amount of pronation in there.

However, if the relationship has stayed the same over the course of the forward swing, then the player hasn't pronated.

If the WW motion was just a way to slow down the uppercut swing you could just finish over your shoulder like Clijsters often does.

Maybe what's going on is that Roger, Verdasco and others have learned to windshield wiper the racquet a touch earlier so its more obvious..

I think this ignores the virtually infinite # of ways you can combine the horizontal speed and vertical speed of the racket.

GuyClinch
11-07-2009, 10:42 AM
The question is why are you trying to force a particular type of follow through? It has no bearing on the amount of pace / spin on the ball you just hit. And if you swing flat through the ball and simply tact on a WW finish, that's not a WW forehand. That's a bad forehand =)

Hmm? I am suggesting that none of the pros do this. It's two motions fused into one movement.

A good example is throwing a punch in some martial arts. You can punch straight - or you can throw a punch and while rotating your arm. Your arm rotates from palms sideways to palms down in the punch.

Likewise on a tennis stroke - you could have a normal upper cut swing through contact with an over the shoulder finish. Or you could fuse that stroke with an WW rotation of the entire arm. I don't think the pros worry about keeping the racquet face from going on edge - they just pronate (and whip the whole arm around) so it doesn't happen. I don't see it as "tacking on" because the forward force is still there. Its not like you swing like an uppercut - slow your arm down and pronate. Its all one fluid stroke like a punch.

GuyClinch
11-07-2009, 11:18 AM
But many don't use this as an active source of topspin like Federer, Nadal, etc. If you watch some slow-motion video on Youtube, look at the relationship between the racket and hitting arm at the beginning of the forward swing and at contact.

If the racket head is well below the hand at the start of the swing -- but in-line with the hand at contact -- chances are there's a good amount of pronation in there.

However, if the relationship has stayed the same over the course of the forward swing, then the player hasn't pronated.

If they started their active pronation a bit later then Federer and Nadal it would be pretty hard to tell wouldn't it? You see what I mean right.. If you pronate early and quickly the racquet clearly makes contact on the 1/4 portion of the swing.

What if these guys are just starting their pronation later and its slower thus you don't really see the difference?

I dunno if that makes sense..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmhvKafCYsk

See like at 18 seconds Fed's racket is still pointed towards the ground but at 19 its not - and at 20 its pointing towards the sky.

Roddicks is less extreme but to me anyway its not clear its a "release" instead of active muscle firing..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOqKQJbtHQE

(47-49 seconds) If its just release there is no reason to really follow through in that way..

But I do see what your saying about the differences in the two swings.. Its clearly less dramatic then Fed's.

Pete

user92626
11-07-2009, 12:08 PM
Hi Will and Others,

I happened to recently sit thru and watch ALL the clips/instructions of the FH at FYB. Not only were the instructions clear, you also portray them as something very easy to learn (this is a distinctive skill in teaching). GREAT resource. Thanks.

I like your hitting-arm position explanation and I have been trying to implement it. However, this is going away from what I was learning from watching pro's clips which was introducing the "slingshot" effect amid the foreward swing motion. When I kept my arm fixed in the hitting arm position, I lost some power. Not sure what your take on this, because all pro's like Fed, Nadal, Tsonga, Verdasco, etc. do not keep their hitting arm structure fixed.

Also, about WW, you do the WW motion thru swinging and NOT pronating the arm, right? Doing it via pronating would kill the arm eventually.

wihamilton
11-07-2009, 12:27 PM
Hi Will and Others,

I happened to recently sit thru and watch ALL the clips/instructions of the FH at FYB. Not only were the instructions clear, you also portray them as something very easy to learn (this is a distinctive skill in teaching). GREAT resource. Thanks.

I like your hitting-arm position explanation and I have been trying to implement it. However, this is going away from what I was learning from watching pro's clips which was introducing the "slingshot" effect amid the foreward swing motion. When I kept my arm fixed in the hitting arm position, I lost some power. Not sure what your take on this, because all pro's like Fed, Nadal, Tsonga, Verdasco, etc. do not keep their hitting arm structure fixed.

Also, about WW, you do the WW motion thru swinging and NOT pronating the arm, right? Doing it via pronating would kill the arm eventually.

Hey, thanks. Our explanation of the hitting-arm position could use an upgrade. You're right that the hitting-arm structure doesn't remain fixed throughout the course of the forward swing -- the wrist releases forward a little bit.

If you watch the following slow-motion video of Tsonga from the back perspective, look at his hitting arm at the beginning of his forward swing. The angle between the forearm and racket is about 90 degrees. At contact, however, the angle is much less. The wrist has released foward.

http://www.fuzzyyellowballs.com/pro-stroke-library/jo-wilfried-tsonga/forehand/

The million-dollar question is, "is Tsonga actively bringing the racket around?" The answer is no. The wrist is going to release forward a little bit given the shape of the swing.

We need to give some thought to what kind of language we want to use to describe this in future videos. The arm itself isn't changing -- for example, the elbow doesn't get less or more bent during the swing. So you can certainly say that the hitting-arm position remains fixed.

In terms of describing what to do with the racket, I'm leaning toward the "relaxed but controlled." You want to keep your grip on the racket relaxed, but you still need to be able to control the racket so that you reach proper contact. I also think that telling someone to control the racket makes it less likely that they'll try to snap their wrist through the ball.

BB / tricky would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

tricky
11-07-2009, 05:39 PM
I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on how the straight arm configuration fits into the equation.

On the armchair theory side . . .

First, it goes without saying that if you hit a ball far enough in front of you, the arm will straighten out. That may reflect a specific kind of shot in a specific situation (esp. a long inside-out shot.) That may not be necessarily the optimal contact point. Therefore, it may not necessarily give you any unique attributes that people associate with a straight-arm FH. So, if a person is talking about a "straight-arm configuration", presumably it's about a FH where at least the majority of situations is hit with a straight-arm, and where are characteristics unique to that shot.

There's two different models of WW FH. But technically, the more difficult one is actually the more mechanically "correct" one. It goes back to the takeback itself: "loop-based" vs. "turn-based", which in turn goes back to how the left hand separates from the racquet at the end of the unit turn.

Basically, the difference between the "loop" and "turn" based takeback is the order between adbuction occurs before external rotation as the racquet goes back. If it's abduction before external rotation, you have a loop-based takeback. If it's external rotation before abduction, you have a turn-based takeback. The loop-based takeback is what you learn when you first learned to hit a ball over your shoulder, and it's designed to match that finish. The loop-based takeback is not really designed to match the finish associated with a WW motion. However, it can be used very well with a WW motion, but there's a level of "inhibition", which you see as the elbow or upper arm hooking away from the body through the contact point.

That inhibition affects every aspect of the FH. Limits the range of height and degree of wiping arc. And, it makes it to more difficult to hit a straight-arm FH. Now, most people with a loop-based approach can still hit a ball with a straight-arm configuration. Here's what you do. Visualize that you need to hit 3 balls in a row (this leads to you swinging more from the shoulder as a "unit" rather than in a more tucked position <-- basically your kinetic chain loads up crazy power in the transverse plane, which extends the line of the shot. this is one of the reasons why Agassi crushes balls even in practice without much apparent effort). AND also hit the ball very flat; that is, consciously limit the amount of wiping movement through the contact point. However, though it gives you a lot of power, it doesn't give you the same heavy ball that is associated with the straight-arm. In addition, you may feel some strain in the forearm, especially when swinging at higher balls.

In terms of the larger question about why turn-based and loop-based takebacks may influence different WW FHs. Well, basically, the foundation for wiping movement is due to the combination of internal rotation and adduction in the forward swing. And the sequence in the kinetic chain essentially defines the nature of that WW action. In a turn-based takeback, the adduction comes after the internal rotation. This is important, because it means that the hand path of the wiping motion is primarily "right-to-left." Since internal rotation is essentially "right-to-left" this enables the WW action to be big and powerful regardless of the swing plane or timing of the swing. Therefore all you really care about is striking through the ball. Now, in a loop-based takeback, the adduction comes before the internal rotation. This is important, because it means that the hand path of the wiping motion is primarily "down-to-up", and it requires some element of the swing to facilitate that. You can have either a big down-to-up swing plane (minus the over-the-shoulder-finish), or you can hook hard with the elbow. The latter is not considered good form.

The non-reverse WW finish are somewhat different between the two styles, and it has to do with the position of the upper arm at the end of the stroke. In a turn-based style, the upper arm finishes close to the left side of your body. This is BTW also true when you execute a loop-based swing with an over-the-shoulder finish. Technically, that position is the optimal position for pure swing speed because when you take the racquet back, that upper arm is loaded for adduction, and adduction means your upper arm finishes close to the left side of your body. However, in a WW finish for a loop-based swing, the upper arm has to finish away from the left side of your body. If it doesn't, you'll find that your racquet face actually opens up too much, essentially sending your shots into the next court. As a result, your upper arm starts to significantly shorten the line of the shot (the transverse plane) and create a hook with the upper arm. That hook exists to some degree with this type of WW finish.

So, as you can see, there's a lot of interconnected mechanical stuff. As a result, it's actually somewhat fruitless to micromanage the forward swing. By the time you've set up your unit turn, you've kinda tracked about 60% of your stroke. By the end of takeback, you've tracked another 20-25% You can control maybe only 15-20% of the FH characteristics in the forward swing.

chico9166
11-07-2009, 05:56 PM
Tricky,

Thanks for your time, very informative. In layman's terms, is transverse adduction the movement of the arm forward in the swing?

tricky
11-07-2009, 06:03 PM
In layman's terms, is transverse adduction the movement of the arm forward in the swing?

Yup, or you can think of it as the "line of shot." It's the basis for pace and depth in your shots. All a straight-arm FH really is BIG (and uninhibited) transverse adduction.

chico9166
11-07-2009, 06:08 PM
yeah okay im following, thanks for the dumbed down version for those of us who are biomechanically challenged. :):)

SystemicAnomaly
11-07-2009, 07:28 PM
It's like porn -- "I know it when I see it"...

+1 on the Justice Potter Stewart quote from Jacobellis v. Ohio.

Oh, yeah. That's where I heard it. RU a student of law (or a student of trivia)?

wihamilton
11-07-2009, 07:32 PM
Oh, yeah. That's where I heard it. RU a student of law (or a student of trivia)?

I was a political science major in college and am interested in constitutional law. Also you pick up a lot of random stuff like that living in DC.

teachestennis
11-07-2009, 08:24 PM
Hey, thanks. Our explanation of the hitting-arm position could use an upgrade. You're right that the hitting-arm structure doesn't remain fixed throughout the course of the forward swing -- the wrist releases forward a little bit.

If you watch the following slow-motion video of Tsonga from the back perspective, look at his hitting arm at the beginning of his forward swing. The angle between the forearm and racket is about 90 degrees. At contact, however, the angle is much less. The wrist has released foward.

http://www.fuzzyyellowballs.com/pro-stroke-library/jo-wilfried-tsonga/forehand/

The million-dollar question is, "is Tsonga actively bringing the racket around?" The answer is no. The wrist is going to release forward a little bit given the shape of the swing.

We need to give some thought to what kind of language we want to use to describe this in future videos. The arm itself isn't changing -- for example, the elbow doesn't get less or more bent during the swing. So you can certainly say that the hitting-arm position remains fixed.

In terms of describing what to do with the racket, I'm leaning toward the "relaxed but controlled." You want to keep your grip on the racket relaxed, but you still need to be able to control the racket so that you reach proper contact. I also think that telling someone to control the racket makes it less likely that they'll try to snap their wrist through the ball.

BB / tricky would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Lot of terrific analysis hear, FYB. I think your point about what kind of language we want to use to describe this is important regarding future instruction. It seems until someone came up with the term "windshield wiper" there were a hundred different ways to describe the best forehands until that term came into common usage and was accepted as the best visual picture of what the modern tennis FH looks like. Same thing with pronation. Your descriptions of pronation are excellent also and I always enjoy your video analysis.

Regarding your million dollar question, I believe Kelly Jones would agree with you entirely and I think you saw his statement of such I posted on this forum or emailed to you regarding such. Hope he takes Blake to semis at the Australian. By the way, I would say Tsonga's wrist releases passively even while it goes forward because he is shaping the shot with his hand, using the edge to generate force also, which is why he closes the racquet so drastically. When I tell students to control the shot, I emphasize shaping the shot with their hand, which is associated with the feel of the strings going across it from right to left on the FH. The most upright swing plane I've found on the men is Monfils. That guy is close to a true windshield wiper as you can get and still drive the ball deep with power and spin.

ttbrowne
11-07-2009, 08:33 PM
I'm trying to change to a WW and the most difficult part is getting the face of my racket down ("pat the dog"). This is just impossible for me.

bhupaes
11-07-2009, 10:03 PM
tricky, I've been trying out the different swings and I find that in a turn based swing where one ends up swiping the ball right to left, one needs only a modest shoulder turn since the racquet is already well back and the pecs are stretched, because of the external shoulder rotation. Should one force the shoulders to turn as much as possible, or leave it natural, in your opinion? Thanks again for the great discussion.

tricky
11-07-2009, 11:10 PM
Should one force the shoulders to turn as much as possible, or leave it natural, in your opinion?It should be natural. A turn-based takeback is inherently compact. BTW, you know you have a turn-based takeback if your finish has two characteristics:

1) If you swing through your wheelhouse (and with a grip that isn't Western), you'll finish with your elbow joint below or at the same level as your hand.

2) Your upper arm is touching left side of body.

Getting a shoulder loaded for internal rotation (regardless of takeback style) is really more dependent on the sit+lift, and whether you really have that down. And that gets into footwork (particularly the step-out) and why I keep yapping about it.

Thing about internal rotation: In regards to strictly the arm, it's the source of power for your swing. HOWEVER, it's not the same as racquet head speed or swing speed.

The power derived from internal rotation goes into 3 different elements of your swing (and usually in this order of preference): the swing plane (adduction and overall WW motion), line of shot (transverse adduction), and finally pronation ("wristy" element of WW motion.) The sit+lift enhances the internal rotation, but there's other elements in the trunk that can also be loaded, which improves all these other aspects.

All of these elements can be learned through visualization. What you do is first make the visualization, then you execute the swing. You make a note of the "feel" in your muscles, then go to the next visualization. The order of the visualization is important, because it reflects the correct sequence of the kinetic chain as well. You can do the following with shadow swings:

1) Sit+Lift. Visualize a ball that is "heavy" (say made of concrete or steel.) Then execute your swing from the beginning. This should lead to your body performing a sit+lift motion. Once you verify that, then you go to . . .

2) Swing Plane: Visualize a heavy ball that is above your shoulders. Then execute your swing. Now try swinging at different heights. This is where you might first observe a real bump in your racquet head speed as well as overall speed in your WW action. Once you verify that, then you go to . . .

3) Straight Arm/Line of Shoot: Now, visualize 3 heavy balls in a row above your shoulders. Swing. This may not necessarily give you a straight-arm (again, depends on the WW swing style), but your line of shot aggressively increases. Also, your racquet head will take another bump. Once you verify that, then you go to . . .

4) Pronation: Visualize the right side fence is closer to you, or that you need to swing out of a slot. Swing. Your WW action should have a strong ballistic feel, and it should feel "wristy" even if you don't close your racquet face in the takeback. You may also find yourself with reverse FH finishes a lot, in which case you may want to "flatten" your swing plane further.

I left out a lot of detail, but the general point is that internal rotation isn't the final word. There's other elements that are part of the kinetic chain.

teachestennis
11-08-2009, 03:49 AM
Tricky, this is a terrific post above. As a long time teacher, I have experimented at various times with shadow swinging but haven't done much the last few years but I consider this a very effective tip as I think it's time I do more even though I get good results on court. Think I can teach my students to do some of this even on court and off court if they aren't "feeling" it, which you noted is key. It felt right when I tried it upon getting up early this morning. Thanks for your great insight on this and other posts.

As for the straight arm elbow hitting structure used by the three players cited the most (Phillipousis might have been the first ATP player in the modern game to use it a lot...kudos to Jeff Counts of hi-techtennis.com for pointing this out), it's very hard for even pros to keep their body the exact distance from the ball every time, a requirement if you are to hit this shot It's like trying to touch a wall in front of you with your arm straight out. I have taught one player who learned it from video of Fed and he's got a great FH as long as he can get up in the air and rotate his entire body even more than average or he has to step off the ball to keep the radius perfect as he wipes across the ball. It takes him playing a lot to keep it sharp, also.

This is why the bending of the arm to "find" the ball is preferred by all players and even Fed does it a lot still. Each player only has to move a small amount of mass to then hit across the ball by puliing the hand inward decreasing the radius and thus creating racket acceleration. FYB is correct that you can hit a world class FH using the bending of the arm before contact. Even for the great ones it's difficult to position 200 pounds of mass even when in the air directly the same distance from the ball using your arm as the radius. You really have to be an "expert" at findng the ball to keep your body the exact distance of your arm from the shot and then wipe across it while pronating the forearm or you can do it by moving off the ball, which if you watch Nadal, they don't actually move forward when they go up in the air, they lift up and then torque their bodies across and their feet usually land slightly behind where they were at contact. I can do it fairly well on my inside FH shot because that's a shot I move off as I drag the racket head angle behind my hand about about 15 degrees to the net. I can do it as long as I step off the ball just hitting back and forth, even at high speeds, but I prefer to bend my arm per Djokovic, who I use as a model FH and 2HBH. At my age, it's too hard otherwise to get way up in the air like they do and reach out to the ball while torquing across it at such high speeds. FYB points out this high degree of difficulty of his FH structure might explain why Fed shanks so many balls and that probably has some validity as I've observed that also, though his using a small racket head and trying to close the racket face to varying degrees while approaching the ball is probably a contributing factor.

bhupaes
11-08-2009, 05:17 AM
tricky, thanks for clearing up my questions. I understand exactly what you are saying now. I verified that my swing is turn based, and I do have the step out down. I am going to practice the visualizations you have suggested - they are exactly what I need to do. In fact, I am going to print out your response and keep it in my tennis bag! Thanks again.

teachestennis
11-08-2009, 06:08 AM
I'm trying to change to a WW and the most difficult part is getting the face of my racket down ("pat the dog"). This is just impossible for me.

Here is how I teach it to players by just going back to the basics, even if means starting at the beginning. Just simplify your swing by putting the racket butt in your belly button. This sets the angle of the wrist which does not play an active role in the way I teach a modern WW forehand. That "laid back" wrist maintains it's angle through the stroke until well past contact. With a loose grip, take the racket back (focus on the racket going back, not the arm) and then move your hand to the ball (not the racket) and as soon as your strings "touch" the ball, bend your arm at the elbow sharply to the left lifting the racket onto your shoulder trying to scratch your back in the beginning stages. The "finish" near the ear with the butt of the racket associated with where the ball just went is just a starting point and will vary as you get better and depending on your grip and degree of WW may or may not come down as you get a lot better, though by 4.5 levels, I notice it really starts to come down a lot more towards the elbow. Try to let the racket go back dynamically, with a loose grip, you will learn to feel this. Start slowly as if you have a glass wall in front of you and be careful not to break the glass the glass with your racket and then you'll figure it out by learning to tilt the glass wall forward and still pull the racket head across the glass, say at 60 degrees, for example.

You can also email me at eztennisswing@ yahoo.com and I'll give you more info without hijacking this thread. I bet you will learn a WW quickly using the techniques I will send you. You can share your experience, positive or negative, with this forum. The players who are "stuck" are the ones I seem to help the most using the Power of Simplicity.

TenniseaWilliams
11-08-2009, 06:47 AM
...

You can also email me at ****@*****.com and I'll give you more info without hijacking this thread. I bet you will learn a WW quickly using the techniques I will send you. You can share your experience, positive or negative, with this forum. The players who are "stuck" are the ones I seem to help the most using the Power of Simplicity.

Simply put, one man's polite invitation is another man's example of blatant spamming for MTM.

5263
11-08-2009, 07:01 AM
Simply put, one man's polite invitation is another man's example of blatant spamming for MTM.

Yes, if you offer to help someone for free with a proven system, it is spamming for you, but if you are some alias on the web with a hodge podge of claimed experience, it is Ok.

SystemicAnomaly
11-08-2009, 12:10 PM
^ Don't believe that TW is referring to just one incidence.
TT has a history of infomercial-style posting.



.

naylor
11-08-2009, 01:35 PM
On the armchair theory side . . . There's two different models of WW FH. But technically, the more difficult one is actually the more mechanically "correct" one. It goes back to the takeback itself: "loop-based" vs. "turn-based", which in turn goes back to how the left hand separates from the racquet at the end of the unit turn...

Forgive me, tricky, but I'm trying to digest all the information in this and other posts in this thread.

The way I understand it,
1. if you abduct (lift the elbow away from your side, up to shoulder level) before you turn your shoulders, you have a loop-based takeback. Then, in the forward swing you first adduct (bring the elbow back down close to the body) and then rotate your shoulders back and hit through the ball, which results in a low-to-high swing through contact, and a racket-over-the-shoulder finish. But you can tag a WW finish to this swing by swinging more from the shoulder and extending through the line of the shot (the hit-3-balls-in-a-row), and to get this extending the elbow has to hook away from the body through contact; or
2. if you turn the shoulder and then abduct, you have a turn-based takeback. Then in the forward swing, first you have rotation, right-to-left, which brings the racket through in a much flatter plane (than with the loop-based swing) and keeps the elbow away from the body through contact, so you achieve the hitting-through-the-ball that generates a heavy ball through the rotation - hence all you care about is striking the ball on the rotation plane. Then after contact you adduct, which tucks your elbow back down and onto the left side of the body.

Have I got the above right? If so, then presumably the turn-based takeback is the better and more mechanically correct one, in the sense that it has less moving parts (that can go wrong) just before and around contact - just get on the right plane and turn forward?

Many thanks.

tricky
11-08-2009, 02:47 PM
Then in the forward swing, first you have rotation, right-to-left, which brings the racket through in a much flatter plane (than with the loop-based swing) and keeps the elbow away from the body through contact, so you achieve the hitting-through-the-ball that generates a heavy ball through the rotation - hence all you care about is striking the ball on the rotation plane. Then after contact you adduct, which tucks your elbow back down and onto the left side of the body.Mmm, the adduction still occurs with the rotation, but it's sequenced after. (Again the WW action needs both adduction and rotation for it to work.) The upper arm still moves toward the side of the body as you forward swing and you finish with it tightly wound. By itself, adduction is used to set up swing plane. By itself, shoulder rotation defines the cut you take at the ball. The sequence is the thing.

In a turn-based approach, you basically take a cut at a ball. The swing plane is only dictated by the height of the incoming ball. Therefore, there's little uppercut. The beauty of the swing is that the WW action is automatically generated by the cut you take at the ball. You can still uppercut your swing plane if you need to add extra topspin, but even your flat shots will be spinny. It lets you generate a heavy ball with less moving parts and less effort. It gives you a bigger strike zone. It requires less takeback.

In a loop-based approach, the sequence dictates that you wipe on a ball. The swing plane is dictated by both height and "level of topspin vs. flatness" you want on the incoming ball. Therefore there's stronger uppercut. The good thing about this swing is that it's also inherently more defensive. If the ball has a bad bounce or if you end up hitting way outside the strike zone, you have more control. By virtue of there being more moving parts, you have more direct control.

If so, then presumably the turn-based takeback is the better and more mechanically correct one, in the sense that it has less moving parts (that can go wrong) just before and around contact - just get on the right plane and turn forward?Yes, turn-based takeback is the more mechanically correct one. Technically, the Federer/Safin model of the FH is the "easier" (less effort, less moving parts), more mechanically correct one. However, most people are making a transition, and are already grooved into a loop-based takeback. (BTW, a "straight" takeback can still be a loop-based takeback.) Also, practically speaking, the Roddick/whatever style is a more balanced stroke in terms of defense vs. offense.

Theory aside, the difference really is about how you separate the left hand from the racquet. Very subtle, but it sets up either/or.

VaBeachTennis
11-08-2009, 03:16 PM
Mmm, the adduction still occurs with the rotation, but it's sequenced after. (Again the WW action needs both adduction and rotation for it to work.) The upper arm still moves toward the side of the body as you forward swing and you finish with it tightly wound. By itself, adduction is used to set up swing plane. By itself, shoulder rotation defines the cut you take at the ball. The sequence is the thing.

In a turn-based approach, you basically take a cut at a ball. The swing plane is only dictated by the height of the incoming ball. Therefore, there's little uppercut. The beauty of the swing is that the WW action is automatically generated by the cut you take at the ball. You can still uppercut your swing plane if you need to add extra topspin, but even your flat shots will be spinny. It lets you generate a heavy ball with less moving parts and less effort. It gives you a bigger strike zone. It requires less takeback.

In a loop-based approach, the sequence dictates that you wipe on a ball. The swing plane is dictated by both height and "level of topspin vs. flatness" you want on the incoming ball. Therefore there's stronger uppercut. The good thing about this swing is that it's also inherently more defensive. If the ball has a bad bounce or if you end up hitting way outside the strike zone, you have more control. By virtue of there being more moving parts, you have more direct control.

Yes, turn-based takeback is the more mechanically correct one. Technically, the Federer/Safin model of the FH is the "easier" (less effort, less moving parts), more mechanically correct one. However, most people are making a transition, and are already grooved into a loop-based takeback. (BTW, a "straight" takeback can still be a loop-based takeback.) Also, practically speaking, the Roddick/whatever style is a more balanced stroke in terms of defense vs. offense.

Wow, that makes a lot of sense! I have a "turn based" straight take back. But if I am pulled wide or if the ball takes a funny bounce, I automatically do the "loop". Excellent analysis!

mrcalon
11-09-2009, 04:23 PM
On the armchair theory side . . .


In terms of the larger question about why turn-based and loop-based takebacks may influence different WW FHs. Well, basically, the foundation for wiping movement is due to the combination of internal rotation and adduction in the forward swing. And the sequence in the kinetic chain essentially defines the nature of that WW action. In a turn-based takeback, the adduction comes after the internal rotation. This is important, because it means that the hand path of the wiping motion is primarily "right-to-left." Since internal rotation is essentially "right-to-left" this enables the WW action to be big and powerful regardless of the swing plane or timing of the swing.

.

Fascinating stuff Tricky. Does this mean that in the turn based style, internal rotation in the forward swing happens automatically as a result contractions from the muscles performing transverse flexion?

tricky
11-09-2009, 11:01 PM
--EDIT: Sorry posted in wrong thread --

Mmm . . . messed up on one import detail. I meant to say abduction through the forward swing, not adduction.

internal rotation in the forward swing happens automatically as a result contractions from the muscles performing transverse flexion?I'm not sure how right I'm on this . . . but I think the big difference between forward swings from loop-based and turn-based is that the former uses transverse flexion and the latter uses transverse adduction. The transverse flexion somewhat represses ulna flexion, so you don't get the same wiping action response. Also, it means that the racquet face doesn't stay open as long as you need it, which in turn shortens the line of the shot. Transverse adduction means elbow doesn't fan out, and so the line of the shot is much longer, and is somewhat independent of the other variables in the forward swing.

mrcalon
11-10-2009, 02:45 AM
--EDIT: Sorry posted in wrong thread --

Mmm . . . messed up on one import detail. I meant to say abduction through the forward swing, not adduction.

I'm not sure how right I'm on this . . . but I think the big difference between forward swings from loop-based and turn-based is that the former uses transverse flexion and the latter uses transverse adduction. The transverse flexion somewhat represses ulna flexion, so you don't get the same wiping action response. Also, it means that the racquet face doesn't stay open as long as you need it, which in turn shortens the line of the shot. Transverse adduction means elbow doesn't fan out, and so the line of the shot is much longer, and is somewhat independent of the other variables in the forward swing.

My mistake - I actually didn't even know the diff between transverse flexion and transverse adduction til you brought it up. Basically I was referring to the movement of the upper arm towards the midline. I was theorizing that the turn based style ends up loading the muscles such that internal rotation automatically happened once the upper arm is consciously pulled towards the midline. Whereas using the loop based style, the muscles aren't loaded the same way so the internal rotation is a little more forced.

I'm having a hard time seeing the correlation between transverse flexion/adduction and the backswing styles, because to me both methods end up using both flexion and adduction as a result of a rotating upper arm. However I'm using these descriptions as a reference so I maybe I'm just not reading you right
http://www.exrx.net/Articulations/Shoulder.html

Will give your theory some more thought though. Sometimes it takes a bit to settle in.
Thanks Tricky.

zapvor
11-10-2009, 08:09 AM
I just want to chime in and say I have met Will in person and he's one of the nicest and friendly person in tennis. he even hit with me for a couple and gave me some tips on my serve. its a pleasure to see them on court

tricky
11-10-2009, 08:39 AM
Yeah, in the exrx pictures, both internal rotation and transverse flexion are occurring in the transverse flexion picture. If the rotation is limited, then you have an overhand punching motion.

I was theorizing that the turn based style ends up loading the muscles such that internal rotation automatically happened once the upper arm is consciously pulled towards the midline. Whereas using the loop based style, the muscles aren't loaded the same way so the internal rotation is a little more forced.In the turn-based style, the internal rotation occurs before the upper arm is pulled toward the midline. As a result, as soon as you take a cut at the ball, everything else comes along for the ride. In both cases, however, movement through the line (upper arm toward mildine in horizontal/transverse plane) occurs later.

Basically, whatever comes first with the arm dictates how you want to swing. If the internal rotation comes over abduction and transverse movement, then you mostly focus on taking a cut at the ball. If the abduction comes first, then you focus on a ramp or gradient into the ball. If transverse movement comes first, then you think about straightening the arm and then swinging that "straight arm" at the ball, be it with a cut or on a gradient. The last point is interesting, because most people in trying to create a straight-arm FH try the last style in order to create it.

Ripper014
11-10-2009, 08:51 AM
please delete post...

GuyClinch
11-10-2009, 09:17 PM
I just want to chime in and say I have met Will in person and he's one of the nicest and friendly person in tennis. he even hit with me for a couple and gave me some tips on my serve. its a pleasure to see them on court


I believe it. I haven't really tested it yet but Will's new emailed video course on the forehand seems kinda awesome.. I got to admit. I love the part about correcting amateur players... It also seems his WW forehand videos are pretty much the "go-to" reference for that shot around the internet.

Its like he really wants everyone to play better tennis....not just make money (though of course its important that he does).

Pete

ttbrowne
11-11-2009, 10:57 AM
Not sure what you mean by an uppercut baseball swing. Baseball batters typically put underspin on the ball to hit deep, long balls. Are you talking about something else?


FYI: Actually an uppercut swing in baseball is very common. Usually you're trying to make any kind of contact and drive the ball, but if you can recognize, say, a hanging curve ball, you can use an uppercut swing and try to jack it out of the park.
Uppercut swings are almost always used in those Home Run Derbys where the ball is just 'tossed' to you at a very slow speed and you're trying to get the ball up.

SystemicAnomaly
11-11-2009, 12:08 PM
^ Domo arigato for the feedback on that.


.

Gee Willikers Batman!
11-11-2009, 12:51 PM
What is "MTM"

VaBeachTennis
11-11-2009, 01:00 PM
What is "MTM"

LOL, where have you been these past few weeks? It means My Tennis Method.

Just joking, it means Modern Tennis Method.

Gee Willikers Batman!
11-11-2009, 05:21 PM
LOL, where have you been these past few weeks? It means My Tennis Method.

Just joking, it means Modern Tennis Method.

I've been spending my time playing tennis, rather than talking about tennis on a forum.

5263
11-11-2009, 05:38 PM
I've been spending my time playing tennis, rather than talking about tennis on a forum.

Not a bad move, lol.

pushing_wins
11-11-2009, 08:34 PM
If you watch the FYB video it talks extensively about how you hit the ball by swinging up MORE on the ball then with a 'traditional" forehand and you can't "tac on" a WW to a tradtional swing.

However - perhaps my eyes are deceiving me but I would swear that Roger Federer DOES NOT use an uppercut swing - at least not any more then Warinka right next to him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuXiQRyN8Uc

The reason for the low finish with Roger is that he is swinging without much of an uppercut - and thus when he turns his forearm over it naturally finishes low. A low flat swing would have a lower flatter finish.

Whereas an uppercut swing (like a baseball player would take) would naturally finish over the shoulder.

For example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkMtdAb8lI8

Seems to me the WW does exactly the opposite of what Will says in FYB. It enables a flatter swing because you generate the spin with the pronation instead of the low to high movement..

Now don't get me wrong - you generate spin with all that pronation so the racquet itself is moving upward at a very rapid pace before contact. But the angle of arm path itself seems less then a traditional shot.

For example Kim Clisters - forehand drive (traditional finish)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AicCkXhp-c0

James Blake Forehand drive (WW)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5l6NiQ1Upg

If you look at the angle the arm travels Blakes looks far flatter then Kim's..which makes sense as the followthrough is lower.

Kim's has more low to high movement - and thus the follow through is higher.

I see the WW forehand as a flatter (though not flat) swing with alot more pronation whereas a traditional swing has more upper cut but less wrist turn.

Of course I don't hit a WW yet so I could be totally wrong.. I want to start learning it though.


Pete

yes!!!!!!!!!!

SystemicAnomaly
11-13-2009, 05:21 AM
(I am assuming that my last post here was removed because it referenced another post that was poking fun at a certain group. So I'll refrain from going there even tho' I thought that it was all in good fun and not really intended to be malicious, at least on my part).

Anyway, for anyone who might have wondered about the following:

Ha ha ha ha,
Ho ho ho ho
Chuckle chuckle chuckle chuckle
Snicker snicker snicker snicker
Guffaw Guffaw Guffaw Guffaw
Yuk yuk yuk yuk
Chortle chortle chortle chortle

This is the chorus of a song from an artist who had been featured in the TV series, M*A*S*H

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEoJlV003p4

(Sorry, no cookie awarded on this contest)

VaBeachTennis
11-13-2009, 07:01 AM
I've been spending my time playing tennis, rather than talking about tennis on a forum.

Well good for you man!!!!!!