PDA

View Full Version : Another Question about Hitting a Hard FH


user92626
12-17-2009, 11:41 AM
Hi All,

It seems like I know two distinctly different ways of hitting a hard FH. They are distinct in term of the major focus. I can focus on hitting a "regular" forward which sort of like the racket face as the main force that propels the ball or I can focus on hitting in angular path causing the ball to veer off and go forward. The latter approach gives me tons of spin but kinda hard to "aim" and decisively direct the shot's placement.

If you do understand and do one of them, which one is more advanced and better in the long term?

Ripper014
12-17-2009, 11:49 AM
Hi All,

It seems like I know two distinctly different ways of hitting a hard FH. They are distinct in term of the major focus. I can focus on hitting a "regular" forward which sort of like the racket face as the main force that propels the ball or I can focus on hitting in angular path causing the ball to veer off and go forward. The latter approach gives me tons of spin but kinda hard to "aim" and decisively direct the shot's placement.

If you do understand and do one of them, which one is more advanced and better in the long term?

I am not sure what you are trying to say... but when I want to hit a hard forehand I just flatten out my stroke and generate more pace and less spin. But this is something that comes natural to an old school player.

CallOfBooty
12-17-2009, 11:52 AM
I am not 100% sure if I have this correct, but I think you are referring to hitting a hard shot coming at the ball diagonally. It is better to come at the ball diagonally than straight forward because you get more momentum and more power from the core. The absolute best example I can think of is in American football. The kicker always takes two steps back, and two steps to the side. Approaching the ball diagonally will get more power than approaching the ball dead on.

Netspirit
12-17-2009, 12:00 PM
Can you have both in your arsenal?

user92626
12-17-2009, 12:54 PM
I'm talking about the swing path and how you understand the swing path and the mechanic of propelling the ball dictates what you want to train on and rely on to play stably.

Let's see. You can propel the ball into a general direction by brushing (in low-high motion) against it heavily. The ball leaves the racket face in a severe angle. The topspin board kinda promotes this concept.

Or

You can drive thru the ball. Your racket more or less goes in the path that the ball will go. You already tend to do this when a ball is clearly above the net and can be easily hit directly into a spot. Most players I play with hit like this and I really could see their shot has minimal spin (the ball barely spin as it crosses the net).

Ripper014
12-17-2009, 01:10 PM
I'm talking about the swing path and how you understand the swing path and the mechanic of propelling the ball dictates what you want to train on and rely on to play stably.

Let's see. You can propel the ball into a general direction by brushing (in low-high motion) against it heavily. The ball leaves the racket face in a severe angle. The topspin board kinda promotes this concept.

Or

You can drive thru the ball. Your racket more or less goes in the path that the ball will go. You already tend to do this when a ball is clearly above the net and can be easily hit directly into a spot. Most players I play with hit like this and I really could see their shot has minimal spin (the ball barely spin as it crosses the net).



As I said for me it is a mix of the two... I deem topspin for control and hitting it flat for pace. So for me... I only use as much pace as I need to win the point or to do what I am trying to accomplish, there is no reason to overhit a tennis ball. I will hit a ball with as much topspin as I need to win the point, in some cases that might be very little to what someone might preceive as none.

user92626
12-17-2009, 02:14 PM
Ok, I think i should stop making too much of this. I'll just pick one concept and train on it. It's been really fun, albeit sometimes frustrating, for me to experience different hitting styles.

Has anyone tried Kutnetsova's or Nalbanian's FH? They look really cool

fuzz nation
12-17-2009, 03:18 PM
I'm pretty sure that you're talking about the classic vs. the modern forehand. The modern one depends on racquet head speed and angular contact with the ball (this one often demands a more extreme grip) while a more classic fh can have topspin, but it's more flat and "through" the ball by comparison.

I think that the true modern style is sort of tough for a brand new player to learn in a hurry because of the timing needed with that more angular contact, but the classic style can get a player stuck. If they're too used to maybe a continental or eastern grip, they may want to cling to more of a flat stroke with their contact point not too far out in front. When it's time to learn to hit with more pace and topspin, that can require a complete retooling of the stroke.

I don't like to hit with anything more extreme than a semi-western forehand myself. While it took a while to get used to it, it's certainly a useful stroke, especially on a higher ball, but I can also go so far as a slice fh with a continental grip. That's great if I'm really stretched or need to dig out a ball that's really low. With that "range" of forehands, I can hit the ball at different heights, produce different spins, and even take some balls early and hit them on the rise.

I agree that it's smart to learn a low-to-high swing path in the forehand with a mild angular contact to produce a little topspin rather early on. That way, as a player's skills develop, they cay shade toward a modern or flatter stoke as necessary to deal with a larger variety of balls. If you don't go too far in either direction with your style of forehand, you ought to be more adaptable to different opponents.

user92626
12-17-2009, 03:37 PM
Fuzz, I trust your observation as you've made many credible posts before.

I think you're right. Weeks ago, a very hard hitter who's physically smaller than I showed me his swing path when I asked. It was completely angular to the ball's trajectory. I showed him my swing path which he said he only used it if he needed to smack the ball down, usually close to the net. This angular swing style does not go near the shot's trajectory at all, but it causes the ball to dip faster and kick up more! My current swing has some brushing but more into the shot's trajectory. I wanna be able to crank more power into the swing and yet keep it in! I think I need to go toward the modern style :)

LeeD
12-17-2009, 06:43 PM
Always a balance between excessive and useless expentiture of energy hitting extreme topspin compared to flatter shots, which use less energy, but appear old fashioned.
Old farts, flatter shots.
Youngsters not ever injured, modern SW loop topspin.

paulfreda
12-18-2009, 09:12 AM
Can you have both in your arsenal?
This is the best advice here.
No reason to limit yourself to one way in hitting the ball.
I have 4 different reliable ways to hit my FH and I use them all.

This is what limits many players, especially youngsters.
Thinking there is one magic way to "do it right"
Look at how many different ways the various pros hit the ball.
Each technique has its advantages and disadvantages.
The more you play and have an open mind, the more there is to learn.

JMHO

user92626
12-18-2009, 10:12 AM
I was trying to see which was better in term of potentials and long term development. Basically, according to net and paul, they're more or less equally (hehe an oxymoron) effective but in different scenerios. Ok, that may be a good point. I'm gonna try to incorporate both and mix them up in my game. I hope that'll give my opponents a hard time before it does for me. hehe