PDA

View Full Version : open or closed stance


minisellars
12-30-2009, 03:16 PM
just wondering if i can generate more topspin with an open or closed stance on my forehand or does it not make a difference

LeeD
12-30-2009, 03:26 PM
Depends on a few things, like grip and whether or not you actually have enough power and speed in your rackethead.
Closed might be more accurate thos.
Open allows quicker recovery for most shots.

minisellars
12-30-2009, 03:50 PM
ok thanks so what you are saying is that i should find a balance between loose and stiff

Netspirit
12-30-2009, 04:06 PM
The open stance generates power from the upward leg drive / torso rotation. The neutral stance generates power from transferring the weight forward.

So, the open stance makes it easier to generate topspin. The neutral stance is easier for flattened winners.

Blake0
12-30-2009, 08:08 PM
Closed vs Open stance..
Linear vs Angular momentum.
In theory, angular momentum is used to generate more racket head speed then linear. Linear is used more to drive through the ball.

But in reality, it doesn't always work that way. It depends on the player and how you hit/how you've learned. It's a good thing to have both in your arsenal, but i'd recommend more of an open stance (atleast neutral) if you play more modern tennis then old school.

user92626
12-30-2009, 08:21 PM
Closed vs Open stance..
Linear vs Angular momentum.
In theory, angular momentum is used to generate more racket head speed then linear. Linear is used more to drive through the ball.



Interesting, Blake0

Angular momentum does generate more pace which I have seen, but we often get advice to hit more through the ball in order to drive the shot harder. Contradicting.

Back to "angular momentum" I have abandoned hitting it that way. Too hard and confusing to "aim" to send the ball in a particular direction while you're all focusing on hitting low to high!

Blake0
12-30-2009, 08:45 PM
Interesting, Blake0

Angular momentum does generate more pace which I have seen, but we often get advice to hit more through the ball in order to drive the shot harder. Contradicting.

Back to "angular momentum" I have abandoned hitting it that way. Too hard and confusing to "aim" to send the ball in a particular direction while you're all focusing on hitting low to high!

Well you can drive through the ball with open stance, and you can brush up with a closed stance, but they were meant to be the way i posted before. Open stance was meant to use your rotational power to get more racket head speed to achieve what people were looking for, heavy topspin. Closed stance was meant to hit with topspin, but with a flatter trajectory by hitting through the ball by driving straight forward and moving your weight into the ball. But, as we all know, you can hit both flat and topspin with both stances.

julian
12-31-2009, 06:52 AM
Interesting, Blake0

Angular momentum does generate more pace which I have seen, but we often get advice to hit more through the ball in order to drive the shot harder. Contradicting.

Back to "angular momentum" I have abandoned hitting it that way. Too hard and confusing to "aim" to send the ball in a particular direction while you're all focusing on hitting low to high!

You may see
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
for some data of speed of balls generated by open and close stances

SystemicAnomaly
12-31-2009, 07:52 AM
^ Thnx for bringing that to our attention.

julian
12-31-2009, 08:10 AM
^ Thnx for bringing that to our attention.

Replaced by "by"
See above

mike53
12-31-2009, 08:37 AM
I use both stances myself and I find that the open stance lets me get to the next shot a little faster. When I have the time, I think the closed stance has a little less strain on my elbow.

julian
01-01-2010, 08:31 AM
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

SystemicAnomaly
01-01-2010, 12:28 PM
please click...

Urgent. Please contact me by email (left-click on my user name).
.

julian
01-01-2010, 04:07 PM
Please check your E-mail

julian
01-01-2010, 04:24 PM
Please check your E-mail

SystemicAnomaly
01-01-2010, 05:41 PM
Please check your E-mail

Just saw it. Thnx for playing.

SystemicAnomaly
01-02-2010, 02:38 AM
I'm sure that some of you are puzzled by the series of cryptic posts above. Yesterday (mid-day) I came to the realization that a couple of the posted links in this thread should not have been posted. We have rectified this situation -- sorry for the confusion.


You may see
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
for some data of speed of balls generated by open and close stances

This refers to one of the deleted links. According to Yandell, there was no statistically significant difference in racket head speed between the open & closed stances. This conclusion applied both to teaching pros as well as to intermediate players. His excellent article went into a good deal of detail on the subject. There is also more discussion of the stances of elite players.

JohnYandell
01-04-2010, 08:44 AM
That article was actually my review of Duane Knudson's pioneering quantitative study on the subject.

Issues I raised about the results were: they were based on just one ball per person per stance measurements. Everyone had to hit with the same racket not their own.

There was no discussion of grips or contact height or the type stance most of these players used naturally left to their own devices. Finally no analysis of the amount of body rotation or torso rotation. The article is very interesting, but doesn't extrapolate to the top necessarily and may have raised as many questions as it answered.

charliefedererer
01-06-2010, 10:33 AM
Stances are not binary. They do not have to be always open or always closed.
For returns, relatively open stances can get you turned quicker to swat the return.
A running forehand out wide will need to be hit with a closed stance.
On an easy to reach ball, a fully open stance may tax your ability to hit a shot down the line. Therefore I like a semi-open position allowing me to go either cross court or down the line easily, and which will let me keep my head comfortably turned using binocular vision to follow the ball to the racquet.

JohnYandell
01-06-2010, 11:21 PM
Yeah that's another good point. What is "open"? And what was open in that study?

Most pro balls are hit the same way you describe--semi-open--and there are reasons for that. But I agree with your term (and may steal it)--it's not a binary deal--there are many variations. But the issue asked in the study was on the exact same type of ball would one stance yield more ball speed than the other.
The answer was probably not--though there was a hint that the neutral did.
But again the complicating issues were multiple.

Solat
01-06-2010, 11:26 PM
once again can we clarify whether closed refers to neutral stance or indeed closed stance? I cannot imagine being able to generate enough rotational momentum in a closed stance unless you pivot on the front foot as a point of rotation?

SystemicAnomaly
01-07-2010, 12:52 AM
once again can we clarify whether closed refers to neutral stance or indeed closed stance? I cannot imagine being able to generate enough rotational momentum in a closed stance unless you pivot on the front foot as a point of rotation?

I'll 2nd this. I prefer to used the terminology, closed stance, only where the front leg crosses over enough to reduce hip rotation (unless the back leg is swung around to facilitate body rotation). Anything close to a square or neutral stance should be referred to as a neutral stance rather than calling it closed.

papa
01-07-2010, 06:54 AM
I'll 2nd this. I prefer to used the terminology, closed stance, only where the front leg crosses over enough to reduce hip rotation (unless the back leg is swung around to facilitate body rotation). Anything close to a square or neutral stance should be referred to as a neutral stance rather than calling it closed.

Yeah, I agree. Unfortunately, terms are being used/misused on a regular basis now and it difficult trying to understand what is being discussed at times.

JohnYandell
01-07-2010, 09:35 AM
I agree--closed means stepping significantly across the target line. Neutral the feet are lined with the toes parallel to the target line. Fully open the feet are not staggered or minimally staggered--a line drawn across the toes of one foot to the toes of the other is basically parallel to the baseline.

Semi open is usually about half way between netural and fully open--usually the line is about 45 degrees to the target line.

charliefedererer
01-07-2010, 12:42 PM
Yeah that's another good point. What is "open"? And what was open in that study?

Most pro balls are hit the same way you describe--semi-open--and there are reasons for that. But I agree with your term (and may steal it)--it's not a binary deal--there are many variations. But the issue asked in the study was on the exact same type of ball would one stance yield more ball speed than the other.
The answer was probably not--though there was a hint that the neutral did.
But again the complicating issues were multiple.

Your "many variations" comment reminded me of a comment made by Martina Hingis, but could be applied to any advanced player. A commentator asked her what she thought made her backhand shot so good, and she sneered "Which one? I have a different backhand reply for every shot hit to me?"

This seems to be an explicit goal in the Spanish Tennis Training - to get players conditioned to extricating themselves from difficult positions when they can not play a textbook shot. But of course there is nothing really new here.