PDA

View Full Version : Forehand Topspin Drive


KayFactor
11-29-2012, 10:11 PM
I'm having a tough time on how the topspin drive works. Am I really suppose to swing through the ball with a diagnol swingpath? Do I continue the diagnol path immediately after the ball leaves my racket?

vil
11-30-2012, 12:59 AM
It's a bit vague, the way you describe it but if moving diagonal means, moving your racket across in a fashion of a Winshield Viper forehand, then answer is yes, that's the way modern forehand stroke is. After impact you continue your motion across (follow through) the most natural way, you don't stop the racket right there.

ramos77
11-30-2012, 03:31 AM
a drive doesn't use much topsin IMO, it's a flatter shot

at least that's my understanding of a drive.

see agassi

5263
11-30-2012, 09:58 AM
I'm having a tough time on how the topspin drive works. Am I really suppose to swing through the ball with a diagnol swingpath? Do I continue the diagnol path immediately after the ball leaves my racket?

The swing for a good modern Fh is on an arc, but the arc is very flat leading to
the ball in a way that feels very straight to contact.
This is the alignment phase....dragging the racket, butt cap leading.
As you approach contact out front, the arc should begin to become more curved,
which gives more rhs and puts you on that diagonal patch "up and across"
the contact, and bringing the strings to contact.
More details for you if this description is helpful.

KayFactor
11-30-2012, 12:22 PM
The swing for a good modern Fh is on an arc, but the arc is very flat leading to
the ball in a way that feels very straight to contact.
This is the alignment phase....dragging the racket, butt cap leading.
As you approach contact out front, the arc should begin to become more curved,
which gives more rhs and puts you on that diagonal patch "up and across"
the contact, and bringing the strings to contact.
More details for you if this description is helpful.

Can you provide more details? I think this is exactly what I do. I got a pretty flat ball out of it, and I;m so use to the topspin shot I do that clears the net by like 3 feet, so it jut seems really flat to me.

Headshotterer
11-30-2012, 12:27 PM
i believe the follow throw affects the trajectory of the shot. high follow through means lots of spin, high net clearance. the same stroke but with a lower follow thru means lots of spin, dipping type shot.

PhrygianDominant
11-30-2012, 12:32 PM
moving your racket across in a fashion of a Winshield Viper forehand,

You have to power up to do that move.

5263
11-30-2012, 03:06 PM
You have to power up to do that move.

what is power up?

5263
11-30-2012, 03:10 PM
Can you provide more details? I think this is exactly what I do. I got a pretty flat ball out of it, and I;m so use to the topspin shot I do that clears the net by like 3 feet, so it jut seems really flat to me.

So you want to clear the net more or less?

Get the loop lower under the ball to clear the net higher and less loop
below the contact for less net clearance. The diagonal is steeper for
more clearance and can be nearly flat like - for less clearance.

There are lots of details about dragging the racket and shifting wt across an
open stance to accel the racket face.
More?

y11971alex
11-30-2012, 04:33 PM
a drive doesn't use much topsin IMO, it's a flatter shot

at least that's my understanding of a drive.

see agassi

I think a drive is opposed to a lob, pass, or drop-shot. You could hit a slice drive as long it is intended to be deep and pressing, and that your opponent is on the baseline.

KayFactor
11-30-2012, 05:38 PM
So you want to clear the net more or less?

Get the loop lower under the ball to clear the net higher and less loop
below the contact for less net clearance. The diagonal is steeper for
more clearance and can be nearly flat like - for less clearance.

There are lots of details about dragging the racket and shifting wt across an
open stance to accel the racket face.
More?

I want to be able to control this forehand drive shot.
So basically, for more net clearance, I get the racket under the ball more when I set up. Sothe more the racket is the under the ball, the more net clearance and vice versa? And when getting under the ball more, I'm still maintaining what FEELS like a straight swingpath to the ball, but it is actually traveling diagnolly which achieves the topspin. Right?

KayFactor
11-30-2012, 05:41 PM
i believe the follow throw affects the trajectory of the shot. high follow through means lots of spin, high net clearance. the same stroke but with a lower follow thru means lots of spin, dipping type shot.

Actually, I think what happens before the follow through does most of the work. I feel like when I'm hitting, the follow thru is a result of how I'm using my body to the shot.

5263
11-30-2012, 06:45 PM
Actually, I think what happens before the follow through does most of the work. I feel like when I'm hitting, the follow thru is a result of how I'm using my body to the shot.
You are right...work is before follow thru, but follow thru tells you a lot about
what that work was.

5263
11-30-2012, 06:49 PM
I want to be able to control this forehand drive shot.
So basically, for more net clearance, I get the racket under the ball more when I set up. Sothe more the racket is the under the ball, the more net clearance and vice versa? And when getting under the ball more, I'm still maintaining what FEELS like a straight swingpath to the ball, but it is actually traveling diagnolly which achieves the topspin. Right?

Yes, for more net clearance, come to contact from below the ball more...

Yes, feel like you are going straight to the ball with the butt cap, but NO, it's
not so diagonal at that point yet. As you approach the ball with the butt cap,
the hand starts to move more across on a tighter arc (while still going low to
high or upwards)
This up and across drags the racket face to the ball on a diagonal, giving a
slight side aspect to the topspin.

KayFactor
11-30-2012, 09:52 PM
Yes, for more net clearance, come to contact from below the ball more...

Yes, feel like you are going straight to the ball with the butt cap, but NO, it's
not so diagonal at that point yet. As you approach the ball with the butt cap,
the hand starts to move more across on a tighter arc (while still going low to
high or upwards)
This up and across drags the racket face to the ball on a diagonal, giving a
slight side aspect to the topspin.

This part that I bolded, I'm assuming it is naturally achieved by coming to conatact from below the ball more?

PhrygianDominant
12-04-2012, 10:08 AM
what is power up?

That was a joke. Viper forehand, like the snake, sounds like something from a video game, or a japanese cartoon. It was a beautiful typo that took on a whole meaning of its own.

5263
12-04-2012, 01:17 PM
That was a joke. Viper forehand, like the snake, sounds like something from a video game, or a japanese cartoon. It was a beautiful typo that took on a whole meaning of its own.

oh yeah, like Mario:)

dominikk1985
12-04-2012, 02:23 PM
the "across" is a function of body rotation and pronation. you are not trying to swing across (in fact you try to swing as much in line with the ball exit path as possible. but since the swing is rotational you will not be able to hold that line for more than a fraction and then it goes "across".

for a CC shot you really hit "across" but only compared to the side line not ball flight.

the across is just a combination of the upward brushing and rotation (of spine and arm) it's nothing you should do intentionally. FYB has a good video about that. they describe the WW forehand and the coach says the worst thing you can do is swing normally to the ball and then try to rip the rackethead across the back of the ball. the ww finish should be a natural consequence of the upward swing path and rotation it is an effect and not a goal.

sureshs
12-04-2012, 02:29 PM
the "across" is a function of body rotation and pronation. you are not trying to swing across (in fact you try to swing as much in line with the ball exit path as possible. but since the swing is rotational you will not be able to hold that line for more than a fraction and then it goes "across".

for a CC shot you really hit "across" but only compared to the side line not ball flight.

the across is just a combination of the upward brushing and rotation (of spine and arm) it's nothing you should do intentionally. FYB has a good video about that. they describe the WW forehand and the coach says the worst thing you can do is swing normally to the ball and then try to rip the rackethead across the back of the ball. the ww finish should be a natural consequence of the upward swing path and rotation it is an effect and not a goal.

Great post. Across is a very misleading term to teach.

TheCheese
12-04-2012, 02:37 PM
How much you brush across the ball diagonally determines the amount of topspin you generate.

How flat/vertical your stroke path is effects the trajectory of your shot.

To hit a flat topspin drive you brush diagonally across the ball with a flatter stroke path.

5263
12-04-2012, 02:37 PM
the "across" is a function of body rotation and pronation. you are not trying to swing across (in fact you try to swing as much in line with the ball exit path as possible. but since the swing is rotational you will not be able to hold that line for more than a fraction and then it goes "across".

for a CC shot you really hit "across" but only compared to the side line not ball flight.

the across is just a combination of the upward brushing and rotation (of spine and arm) it's nothing you should do intentionally.

And this is where we differ a bit. I respect the above opinion to see it that way,
but when I do the across part, I do intend to do it for a couple of important
reasons. Imo when you try not to follow the natural rotational arc, and seek to
extend further straight out, you tend to
get a push behind the ball that works against you.
also when you work across the ball with the natural arc, the swing is smoother
and you can control net clearnce better in my experience.

TheCheese
12-04-2012, 02:41 PM
And this is where we differ a bit. I respect the above opinion to see it that way,
but when I do the across part, I do intend to do it for a couple of important
reasons. Imo when you try not to follow the natural rotational arc, and seek to
extend further straight out, you tend to
get a push behind the ball that works against you.
also when you work across the ball with the natural arc, the swing is smoother
and you can control net clearnce better in my experience.

Exactly.

Trying to brush up while extending results in lower acceleration that comes from the shoulder. If you brush across you are pulling your arm in by bending at the elbow and this generates much more acceleration.

dominikk1985
12-04-2012, 02:45 PM
Exactly.

Trying to brush up while extending results in lower acceleration that comes from the shoulder. If you brush across you are pulling your arm in by bending at the elbow and this generates much more acceleration.

No. you are not trying to extend but also not bending. the across comes from internal rotation of the humerus and forearm. the arm angle remains mainly constant.

I agree that you should not try to force a linear path but you should not try to swing across abruptly. just a natural circular path around the body.

here is the vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtuTHsFlfGg

sureshs
12-04-2012, 02:50 PM
Exactly.

Trying to brush up while extending results in lower acceleration that comes from the shoulder. If you brush across you are pulling your arm in by bending at the elbow and this generates much more acceleration.

For powerful shots, you should not "brush."

chico9166
12-04-2012, 02:50 PM
Exactly.

Trying to brush up while extending results in lower acceleration that comes from the shoulder. If you brush across you are pulling your arm in by bending at the elbow and this generates much more acceleration.

Wait a minute. The acceleration is "built in" as the hand starts to move inside, or closer to the midline....(as a result of shoulder internal rotation, pronation) no need to force it in most cases

TheCheese
12-04-2012, 02:53 PM
No. you are not trying to extend but also not bending. the across comes from internal rotation of the humerus and forearm. the arm angle remains mainly constant.

I agree that you should not try to force a linear path but you should not try to swing across abruptly. just a natural circular path around the body.

here is the vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtuTHsFlfGg

As much as I love Will, he's talking about a different technique than what 5263 and I are. (Or is at least describing it very differently!)

His WW technique seems to be better suited to players that use a much more western grip. The technique I'm talking about is more applicable to players that are using semi-western to an eastern grip.

This is the technique I'm referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Qxz2Vc0g2I

sureshs
12-04-2012, 02:55 PM
As much as I love Will, he's talking about a different technique than what 5263 and I are. (Or is at least describing it very differently!)

His WW technique seems to be better suited to players that use a much more western grip. The technique I'm talking about is more applicable to players that are using semi-western to an eastern grip.

This is the technique I'm referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Qxz2Vc0g2I

That is a desperate on the run and stretched out wide forehand. Bad example.

TheCheese
12-04-2012, 02:57 PM
That is a desperate on the run and stretched out wide forehand. Bad example.

Why is that a bad example? It's typically how he hits his forehand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOKptwpu--0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVZVQMsb1AY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syd00cQVUj0


Watch any video of Federer or Nadal's forehand, really.

dominikk1985
12-04-2012, 03:01 PM
As much as I love Will, he's talking about a different technique than what 5263 and I are. (Or is at least describing it very differently!)

His WW technique seems to be better suited to players that use a much more western grip. The technique I'm talking about is more applicable to players that are using semi-western to an eastern grip.

This is the technique I'm referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Qxz2Vc0g2I

to me that is the same, fed is just using a little more forward and less up motion because it is a flatter shot. I know some people are trying to construct some magical moves (like the racket face closing because the ball is hit below center or some sudden direction changes) but IMO that is not really happening.

I think there are really only 3 factors that are combined in different doses:

1.up
2.forward
3.around (rotation)

there are no secret forces it just a combination of some well known biomechanical principles. There is a lot of "bro science" out there (even among good coaches and players).

dominikk1985
12-04-2012, 03:05 PM
see how federer swing through and then around:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ImeQaAyFPc

he is certainly not taking a "hard left" turn.

chico9166
12-04-2012, 03:08 PM
Why is that a bad example? It's typically how he hits his forehand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOKptwpu--0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVZVQMsb1AY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syd00cQVUj0


Watch any video of Federer or Nadal's forehand, really.

Actually the forehand as prescribed by 5263 and Oscar are what I consider quite old school.....Not many current pro's hit as they describe which is a quick break of the elbow (quick left) and over the shoulder finish..(which tends to limit rotation of teh arm/wiping action) No, most pros (at least on standard drives) allow the arm to move on it's natural arc, and wipe the hell out of it, which generally leads to a lower finish.

Cheetah
12-04-2012, 03:08 PM
Why is that a bad example? It's typically how he hits his forehand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOKptwpu--0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVZVQMsb1AY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syd00cQVUj0


Watch any video of Federer or Nadal's forehand, really.

So beautiful.

TheCheese
12-04-2012, 03:08 PM
to me that is the same, fed is just using a little more forward and less up motion because it is a flatter shot. I know some people are trying to construct some magical moves (like the racket face closing because the ball is hit below center or some sudden direction changes) but IMO that is not really happening.

I think there are really only 3 factors that are combined in different doses:

1.up
2.forward
3.around (rotation)

there are no secret forces it just a combination of some well known biomechanical principles. There is a lot of "bro science" out there (even among good coaches and players).

Maybe different ways of explaining it work a lot better for different people, then. The way Will explains it, it's a windshield wiper motion that turns at the elbow.

The technique I'm talking about is brushing up and across the ball, leading with the side of the racket and pulling inward and to the left.

dominikk1985
12-04-2012, 03:17 PM
Maybe different ways of explaining it work a lot better for different people, then. The way Will explains it, it's a windshield wiper motion that turns at the elbow.

The technique I'm talking about is brushing up and across the ball, leading with the side of the racket and pulling inward and to the left.

well that might work for some but to me your description is bro science. it might work as a cue but it is not what is actually happening. but the FYB vid is not describing it all correct too. the WW is pronation and internal rotation of the shoulder. the elbow has not much to do it. the leading with the edge comes if you have a little more forward and less upward component.


BTW fed is swinging in line with the ball longer than anyone else on the tour. he is the master of extension.
[img=http://s11.postimage.org/cui9o24nj/fed2.jpg] (http://postimage.org/image/cui9o24nj/)

dominikk1985
12-04-2012, 03:27 PM
And this is where we differ a bit. I respect the above opinion to see it that way,
but when I do the across part, I do intend to do it for a couple of important
reasons. Imo when you try not to follow the natural rotational arc, and seek to
extend further straight out, you tend to
get a push behind the ball that works against you.
also when you work across the ball with the natural arc, the swing is smoother
and you can control net clearnce better in my experience.

that is the key to me. extending past the natural arc (although fed seems to sometimes do that a little) is not good because it ruins rotational momentum but taking a hard left (more than the natural arc) is not good either.

TheCheese
12-04-2012, 04:02 PM
well that might work for some but to me your description is bro science. it might work as a cue but it is not what is actually happening. but the FYB vid is not describing it all correct too. the WW is pronation and internal rotation of the shoulder. the elbow has not much to do it. the leading with the edge comes if you have a little more forward and less upward component.


BTW fed is swinging in line with the ball longer than anyone else on the tour. he is the master of extension.
[img=http://s11.postimage.org/cui9o24nj/fed2.jpg] (http://postimage.org/image/cui9o24nj/)

He is swinging up and across AS he extends. Yes.

I don't know what you mean by it being bro science. I wasn't trying to be scientific at all... It's just a way of explaining the motion. I don't think explaining the exact biomechanics of it would be a helpful mental tool for most people.

5263
12-04-2012, 06:27 PM
Wait a minute. The acceleration is "built in" as the hand starts to move inside, or closer to the midline....(as a result of shoulder internal rotation, pronation) no need to force it in most cases

But when the bold above happens...you are working across.

You are right...no need to force...but force is not the same intending a certain type of motion.

LeeD
12-04-2012, 06:35 PM
Your shoulder's will always be attached to your arm, which is attached to your racket...that determines your swing path.
Just hit the ball fast, put some topspin on it, the mechanics don't matter, as we're all physically similar here.

5263
12-04-2012, 06:36 PM
Actually the forehand as prescribed by 5263 and Oscar are what I consider quite old school.....Not many current pro's hit as they describe which is a quick break of the elbow (quick left) and over the shoulder finish..(which tends to limit rotation of teh arm/wiping action) No, most pros (at least on standard drives) allow the arm to move on it's natural arc, and wipe the hell out of it, which generally leads to a lower finish.

You never heard me say to finish over the should unless talking of the basic
modern Fh or not to finish lower, which is just another flourish to that basic
Fh.
You never heard me or Oscar say quick break of the elbow, hard turn, or abrupt
bla, bla ....on and on of words you try to add to the basic correct description to
make it something it is not.
Most pros finish in about any position from low to bolo and everything in-between. There is no set low or any other finish. There is just a swing path
that will finish somewhere based on the shape of the swing.

5263
12-04-2012, 06:41 PM
He is swinging up and across AS he extends. Yes.

I don't know what you mean by it being bro science. I wasn't trying to be scientific at all... It's just a way of explaining the motion. I don't think explaining the exact biomechanics of it would be a helpful mental tool for most people.

Basically well said here. Wil does talk more about the elbow, but not much of
that talk in mtm or modern. Elbow is more a part of it when you don't use the
straight arm technique, but we still don't focus on much on the elbow movement.

wihamilton
12-04-2012, 06:46 PM
Nice discussion here folks. Enjoyed reading the posts so far.

In the video referenced above I explain that the WWF is driven by the motion of the arm. Jeff Counts (hi-techtennis.com) compares this motion to lifting and turning over a lever. Roddick and Andreev are good examples of this type of WWF.

But there's another way to hit a WWF. Federer is a prime example. Where the path of the arm doesn't control the low-to-high motion of the racket as much and doesn't cause the WW follow through. Instead, it's pronation that does the trick.

So there are two types of WWFs. Each works just fine. BUT from a recreational player's standpoint, I think the "lever" one is preferable because it's easier to learn, doesn't require amazing timing, and is more stable.

(Ever wonder why Federer goes on "shank sprees" on his forehand? Even the GOAT goes cold occasionally and loses his timing. A good indication of how tough this technique can be.)

- W

sureshs
12-04-2012, 07:18 PM
That is why I think Federer "uses" modern rackets effectively and does things which will not work with a wood racket, though people think the opposite (that he is a classic player). Many of his shots are hit with very little margin and look like flukes to me.

boramiNYC
12-04-2012, 07:28 PM
Fed is the most consistently successful player in grand slams ever by a wide margin. I believe he could have done it precisely due to his technique and style not despite of the demanding nature of his technique and style. many rec players think hitting the soft pancake serve will prevent mistake and help consistency but in fact hitting high level second serve is much more consistent. again not despite but due to more difficult but correct technique.

watungga
12-04-2012, 07:49 PM
Op meant that the topspin drive is similar to the ping pong.

Bad analogy.

In tennis, the art of forehand attack is based on WHEN the ball was hit. Ascending. Peak. Descending.

... and the discreet gap in between the 3 above stages.

Disregarding the player's arm, there are hundreds of angles in which a racquet face hits the ball.

Let's add the arm, add hundreds of styles.

Add the torso..

Add the feet...

Add the muscles...

Add the brain...

We will have thousands of sequences to hit the TopSpin Drive.

Greg G
12-04-2012, 08:05 PM
Verdasco's forehand. Weird pov, but interesting :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9aIrPpSt8I

Cheetah
12-04-2012, 08:19 PM
Verdasco's forehand. Weird pov, but interesting :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9aIrPpSt8I

woah. that was ... weird.
interesting tho.
i like how you can see how square the contact is

dominikk1985
12-05-2012, 08:00 AM
Nice discussion here folks. Enjoyed reading the posts so far.

In the video referenced above I explain that the WWF is driven by the motion of the arm. Jeff Counts (hi-techtennis.com) compares this motion to lifting and turning over a lever. Roddick and Andreev are good examples of this type of WWF.

But there's another way to hit a WWF. Federer is a prime example. Where the path of the arm doesn't control the low-to-high motion of the racket as much and doesn't cause the WW follow through. Instead, it's pronation that does the trick.

So there are two types of WWFs. Each works just fine. BUT from a recreational player's standpoint, I think the "lever" one is preferable because it's easier to learn, doesn't require amazing timing, and is more stable.

(Ever wonder why Federer goes on "shank sprees" on his forehand? Even the GOAT goes cold occasionally and loses his timing. A good indication of how tough this technique can be.)

- W

others use pronation too but most others have that second hinge joint (elbow) which fed has not with his straight arm FH. so he has to do the WW with his forearm alone which is probably why his swing path is a little flatter.

TheCheese
12-05-2012, 05:59 PM
Nice discussion here folks. Enjoyed reading the posts so far.

In the video referenced above I explain that the WWF is driven by the motion of the arm. Jeff Counts (hi-techtennis.com) compares this motion to lifting and turning over a lever. Roddick and Andreev are good examples of this type of WWF.

But there's another way to hit a WWF. Federer is a prime example. Where the path of the arm doesn't control the low-to-high motion of the racket as much and doesn't cause the WW follow through. Instead, it's pronation that does the trick.

So there are two types of WWFs. Each works just fine. BUT from a recreational player's standpoint, I think the "lever" one is preferable because it's easier to learn, doesn't require amazing timing, and is more stable.

(Ever wonder why Federer goes on "shank sprees" on his forehand? Even the GOAT goes cold occasionally and loses his timing. A good indication of how tough this technique can be.)

- W

Hey Will, thanks for the reply. I've gone through FYB Premium, Tennis Ninja, and TennixRx. Great stuff not only for learning, but for teaching others.

I'm wondering if you're familiar with the tennis speed blog, which talks about the different types of forehands used by the top pros. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, it's a great read.

http://blog.tennisspeed.com/2011/05/roadmap-to-hall-of-fame-forehand-part-1.html

Speaking from experience it seems like the Roddick style WWF is more suited to western or extreme western grips and relies on supination leading up to the forward swing, whereas the straight arm style is suited to semi-western(Nadal) to eastern style(Fed) grips and relies upon pronation leading up to the forward swing.

First off, I'll begin by saying I'm a 4.5-5.0 level player who's had a good amount of coaching as a kid, so I'm probably more advanced that your average target audience and I definitely understand the reasoning behind making things as simple as possible.

As someone with a extreme-eastern grip the Federer method feels extremely intuitive and simple in comparison. I think it's a common sort of cliche that coaches use when they say that what the pros are doing is just not possible for the average player. I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the recent top forehands in the game are all using the pronation technique. Rather, I think it's a recent advancement in technique that's a result of the advances in string technology among other things. For me, it's simply the easiest way to get maximum control (topspin) and speed, all while still being able to maintain a relatively flat trajectory. However, it's definitely not something the average weekend warrior club player is going to have the patience to learn and it's definitely a more advanced technique to apply than the other style, so the simplification is warranted.

It's pretty clear from watching the classic Federer vs Roddick matches. The difference between the two techniques is the crazy amount of topspin that Federer can generate while STILL maintaining high ball speeds and a relatively flat trajectory. He's able to hit the same speed of shot Roddick is hitting but with a TON more margin on everything. In fact, the harder Federer hits, the more topspin he's generating, whereas the harder Roddick hits the less topspin he's getting.

Agassi talks about it in the commentary booth at the 07 US Open Roddick vs Federer QF (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=TcZFVQCfOQg#t=886s).

Yes, Federer and Nadal are very gifted athletes but I think part of their success is due to their technique, which is actually superior to the Roddick technique because of how much control it grants them due to the crazy amounts of topspin they can generate without sacrificing pace or trajectory.

rkelley
12-05-2012, 06:44 PM
Nice discussion here folks. Enjoyed reading the posts so far.

In the video referenced above I explain that the WWF is driven by the motion of the arm. Jeff Counts (hi-techtennis.com) compares this motion to lifting and turning over a lever. Roddick and Andreev are good examples of this type of WWF.

But there's another way to hit a WWF. Federer is a prime example. Where the path of the arm doesn't control the low-to-high motion of the racket as much and doesn't cause the WW follow through. Instead, it's pronation that does the trick.

So there are two types of WWFs. Each works just fine. BUT from a recreational player's standpoint, I think the "lever" one is preferable because it's easier to learn, doesn't require amazing timing, and is more stable.

(Ever wonder why Federer goes on "shank sprees" on his forehand? Even the GOAT goes cold occasionally and loses his timing. A good indication of how tough this technique can be.)

- W

Interesting thought about two different types of fhs.

I guess I think of it more as a continuum. The more Western your grip is, the more you're going to use "the lever" to achieve the swing path. The more Eastern, the more you need to pronate your wrist to achieve the swing path.

I don't know that one requires better timing than the other.

I do think there's a bit of "pick your poison" however. The more Western grips make top spin easier to achieve, but hitting through the ball can be harder. The more Eastern grips the opposite, hitting through the ball comes more easily but getting good topspin is harder. At the optimum I don't know that there's a difference in what can be achieved.

Watch the 2007 QF match at the USO between Fed and Roddick. Very different grips on the fh, but both of them are hitting very, very hard with lots of spin, and not missing much. Brutally honest guest commentary by Agassi as a bonus.

5263
12-05-2012, 06:45 PM
For me, it's simply the easiest way to get maximum control (topspin) and speed, all while still being able to maintain a relatively flat trajectory.

You got it here, where some seem to miss this about the ww.
I don't think it's that tough to learn though and actually sort of easy imo.
Maybe that's because I've hit a lot of balls thru the years, but I've also had
good luck in teaching it quickly.

TheCheese
12-05-2012, 06:47 PM
Interesting thought about two different types of fhs.

I guess I think of it more as a continuum. The more Western your grip is, the more you're going to use "the lever" to achieve the swing path. The more Eastern, the more you need to pronate your wrist to achieve the swing path.

I don't know that one requires better timing than the other.

I do think there's a bit of "pick your poison" however. The more Western grips make top spin easier to achieve, but hitting through the ball can be harder. The more Eastern grips the opposite, hitting through the ball comes more easily but getting good topspin is harder. At the optimum I don't know that there's a difference in what can be achieved.

Watch the 2007 QF match at the USO between Fed and Roddick. Very different grips on the fh, but both of them are hitting very, very hard with lots of spin, and not missing much. Brutally honest guest commentary by Agassi as a bonus.
I have to very much disagree.

It's not a continuum, but two very distinct techniques and biomechanical movements that should not be confused.

It's supination vs pronation. Trade-off between ball speed and spin vs simultaneous production of both.

Someone with a semi-western using the Roddick technique vs the Federer technique produce a VERY different looking stroke and very different results.

Cheetah
12-05-2012, 07:15 PM
I have to very much disagree.

It's not a continuum, but two very distinct techniques and biomechanical movements that should not be confused.

It's supination vs pronation. Trade-off between ball speed and spin vs simultaneous production of both.

Someone with a semi-western using the Roddick technique vs the Federer technique produce a VERY different looking stroke and very different results.

supination vs pronation? i think you made a mistake there.

boramiNYC
12-05-2012, 07:42 PM
think I understand what cheese is trying to say between sup vs pro. comparing the two SW and E fh hit with much topspin, in SW contact occurs in more supinated position of the hand than that of E grip by nature of the more rotated grip. IOW, when the racquet face angles are similar at contact, SW hand is slightly more supinated than E hand. going from straight arm to bent arm the hand supinates slightly which is why SW generally has more bent arm for the same reason. and the feel is different as well. that's why E fh people sometimes say push fh because it feels the contact happens more toward pronated hand position while SW is more associated with pull from supinated hand position. sorry a lot of ideas all together but hopefully makes sense.

Cheetah
12-05-2012, 07:48 PM
think I understand what cheese is trying to say between sup vs pro. comparing the two SW and E fh hit with much topspin, in SW contact occurs in more supinated position of the hand than that of E grip by nature of the more rotated grip. IOW, when the racquet face angles are similar at contact, SW hand is slightly more supinated than E hand. going from straight arm to bent arm the hand supinates slightly which is why SW generally has more bent arm for the same reason. and the feel is different as well. that's why E fh people sometimes say push fh because it feels the contact happens more toward pronated hand position while SW is more associated with pull from supinated hand position. sorry a lot of ideas all together but hopefully makes sense.

that makes more sense. i asked because I'm assuming he knows that both types of fh's involve both supination and pronation during the stroke.

TheCheese
12-05-2012, 08:04 PM
that makes more sense. i asked because I'm assuming he knows that both types of fh's involve both supination and pronation during the stroke.

Yes, your forearm is going to always supinate as you come through. The amount of pronation vs supination BEFORE that happens (transition from backswing to forward swing) is what I'm referring to.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-THKMOT5VzFE/T7iQ2NZqPgI/AAAAAAAAAO0/DghiDRsGM9E/s400/RF+FHT-FFM+2012.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EJRpM6IdKLs/T7iSPdaPdhI/AAAAAAAAAPk/s3qakLpjolc/s400/Federer+FH+Pronation+FFM+side+view+002.jpg

vs

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Py0dTCxi5wk/T7iavJVxjwI/AAAAAAAAARg/deuKXk_QfjA/s400/Hewitt+FH+Supination+FFM.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pgNjgeDZCog/T7ijT5piEUI/AAAAAAAAAS8/lUnILcCaLhE/s400/RA+FHT+FFM.jpg

As for Borami, what you said is true but not what I was getting at. Try comparing SW Roddick technique vs SW Federer technique. They would be very different. (See Roddick vs Nadal, both using SW)

boramiNYC
12-05-2012, 09:06 PM
k, I see what you mean. more pronation in backswing means more snap in the sup-pro cycle during the forward swing. Dj has quite a bit of pronation in the backswing as well which gives him extra snap during forward swing. so it seems to makes sense.

Greg G
12-05-2012, 09:09 PM
Wow this thread is really quite enlightening for me! The distinction between the 2 types of WW forehand cleared up some stuff in my head. Can't wait to apply it to my own strokes. Keep it coming guys! :)

boramiNYC
12-05-2012, 09:23 PM
cheese, do you really think Fed uses SW? I think someone using SW trying Feds technique will find it difficult. unless you're nadal and can finish above the head all the time.

rkelley
12-05-2012, 09:43 PM
I have to very much disagree.

It's not a continuum, but two very distinct techniques and biomechanical movements that should not be confused.

It's supination vs pronation. Trade-off between ball speed and spin vs simultaneous production of both.

Someone with a semi-western using the Roddick technique vs the Federer technique produce a VERY different looking stroke and very different results.

think I understand what cheese is trying to say between sup vs pro. comparing the two SW and E fh hit with much topspin, in SW contact occurs in more supinated position of the hand than that of E grip by nature of the more rotated grip. IOW, when the racquet face angles are similar at contact, SW hand is slightly more supinated than E hand. going from straight arm to bent arm the hand supinates slightly which is why SW generally has more bent arm for the same reason. and the feel is different as well. that's why E fh people sometimes say push fh because it feels the contact happens more toward pronated hand position while SW is more associated with pull from supinated hand position. sorry a lot of ideas all together but hopefully makes sense.

So first a note, we're talking about producing a modern swing path, not hitting through the ball like with an old school E fh motion. With that said:

When I just shadow swing here at home one of the biggest things that I notice between a Western and an E. grip is that with the W grip upper arm rotation becomes way more of a factor in producing the swing path around the contact area. With the E. grip it's almost all pronation at contact. Upper arm rotation only comes into play after contact to decelerate the racquet. That upper arm rotation is the "lever" that I believe Will Hamilton was referring to.

In either case the forearm supinates quite a bit before contact. I think boramiNYC is probably correct in saying that at contact the forearm is more supinated with the W. grip than the E. I would think that this is because with the W. grip you have the upper arm also playing a big role in generating the racquet's swing path while with the E. grip the upward motion at the time of contact is almost all in the forearm. Check out any Fed video.

All of this still points to a continuum from what I can see. If there are two distinct techniques is there some grip where a player goes from one technique to the other. Can you cite examples that we can check out on youtube?

TheCheese
12-05-2012, 10:06 PM
cheese, do you really think Fed uses SW? I think someone using SW trying Feds technique will find it difficult. unless you're nadal and can finish above the head all the time.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was just using the comparison of a SW grip using the Roddick technique vs a SW using the Federer technique to show that it's the technique rather than the grip that causes the difference.

No, I'm pretty sure Federer uses a modified eastern grip. Nadal uses some form of semi-western with the Fed technique and you're right that it's difficult to do because it produces a more closed racket face than a typical SW.

Rkelley:

Take a SW grip and try pronating vs supinating at the transition between takeback and forward swing. That's one of the defining factors between the two techniques.

If you want an example of the two, check out Roddick vs Nadal on youtube. I'm sure FYB has some good videos.

rkelley
12-05-2012, 11:25 PM
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was just using the comparison of a SW grip using the Roddick technique vs a SW using the Federer technique to show that it's the technique rather than the grip that causes the difference.

No, I'm pretty sure Federer uses a modified eastern grip. Nadal uses some form of semi-western with the Fed technique and you're right that it's difficult to do because it produces a more closed racket face than a typical SW.

Rkelley:

Take a SW grip and try pronating vs supinating at the transition between takeback and forward swing. That's one of the defining factors between the two techniques.

If you want an example of the two, check out Roddick vs Nadal on youtube. I'm sure FYB has some good videos.

I looked at Nadal vs Roddick.

Roddick http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-D32RwsD_w
Nadal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inQvbT8uEGk

What I saw was that at the transition point between back swing and forward swing the wrist and forearm were in a fairly neutral position on both players. Roddick had a lot a pronation and the beginning of his backswing but by the time the racquet is down and the forward swing began the wrist and forearm were neutral. Likewise, Nadal does this funky supination thing at the beginning of his back swing but by the time the racquet's down the and forward swing is about to start the wrist and forearm are reasonably neutral.

In both cases the beginning of the forward swing supinates the forearm and loads it up. The forearm then starts to pronate before contact.

The big difference I saw was that on Nadal's stroke at contact the upward part of the swing path was generated mostly by forearm pronation, whereas with Roddick there's less pronation but more upper arm rotation.

What do you see?

TheCheese
12-05-2012, 11:34 PM
I looked at Nadal vs Roddick.

Roddick http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-D32RwsD_w
Nadal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inQvbT8uEGk

What I saw was that at the transition point between back swing and forward swing the wrist and forearm were in a fairly neutral position on both players. Roddick had a lot a pronation and the beginning of his backswing but by the time the racquet is down and the forward swing began the wrist and forearm were neutral. Likewise, Nadal does this funky supination thing at the beginning of his back swing but by the time the racquet's down the and forward swing is about to start the wrist and forearm are reasonably neutral.

In both cases the beginning of the forward swing supinates the forearm and loads it up. The forearm then starts to pronate before contact.

The big difference I saw was that on Nadal's stroke at contact the upward part of the swing path was generated mostly by forearm pronation, whereas with Roddick there's less pronation but more upper arm rotation.

What do you see?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=V-D32RwsD_w#t=13s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=inQvbT8uEGk#t=10s

I linked to specific times to pause where both players are about to transition to the forward swing. Note the direction the back of their hand is facing. Nadal's is facing skyward (pronation), Roddick's is facing the side fence (supination).

That's what I'm talking about.

If you want more details on it, check out the tennis speed blog.
http://blog.tennisspeed.com/2011/05/roadmap-to-hall-of-fame-forehand-part-1.html

boramiNYC
12-05-2012, 11:52 PM
k, no problem cheese.

Above Roddick's clip reminds me that everything about Roddick's fh is E fh except he's using SW. Terrible mismatch that doomed his fh. If he had E grip, he would have had a great fh and def still be playing. result of modern SW grip instinct with too much old school coaching. it's a great coaching failure of good ol USA.

Cheetah
12-06-2012, 12:06 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=V-D32RwsD_w#t=13s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=inQvbT8uEGk#t=10s

I linked to specific times to pause where both players are about to transition to the forward swing. Note the direction the back of their hand is facing. Nadal's is facing skyward (pronation), Roddick's is facing the side fence (supination).

That's what I'm talking about.

If you want more details on it, check out the tennis speed blog.
http://blog.tennisspeed.com/2011/05/roadmap-to-hall-of-fame-forehand-part-1.html

The nadal moment you linked shows nadal still in a supinated position. Nadal's pronation comes later in the swing.

Forearms pronate. Wrists do not pronate. Pronation can occur from either the elbow or the shoulder joint.

Also you shouldn't disregard the grip when comparing technique.

Another factor to be considered is that you are comparing a straight arm vs a bent arm. A straight arm will rely more on pronation than internal shoulder rotation.

KayFactor
12-06-2012, 06:19 AM
Exactly.

Trying to brush up while extending results in lower acceleration that comes from the shoulder. If you brush across you are pulling your arm in by bending at the elbow and this generates much more acceleration.

What do you mean by brush? Bcause I mistake it for literally brushing the ball upwards, creating this lobby topspin effect that is not penetrating at all.

I'm supposed to attempt hitting through the ball still right, and the brush effect will automatically tact on?

Is brushing a natural effect when you are swinging from below the ball and through contact?

KayFactor
12-06-2012, 06:23 AM
Oh by the way, then what does Novak Djokovic do on his WWF?

julian
12-06-2012, 07:33 AM
The nadal moment you linked shows nadal still in a supinated position. Nadal's pronation comes later in the swing.

Forearms pronate. Wrists do not pronate. Pronation can occur from either the elbow or the shoulder joint.

Also you shouldn't disregard the grip when comparing technique.

Another factor to be considered is that you are comparing a straight arm vs a bent arm. A straight arm will rely more on pronation than internal shoulder rotation.
A latest blog by tennisspeed addresses related issues
blog.tennisspeed.com blog of Oct 11

rkelley
12-06-2012, 07:55 AM
What do you mean by brush? Bcause I mistake it for literally brushing the ball upwards, creating this lobby topspin effect that is not penetrating at all.

I'm supposed to attempt hitting through the ball still right, and the brush effect will automatically tact on?

Is brushing a natural effect when you are swinging from below the ball and through contact?

Interesting note on this, I hit with Cheetah once or twice a week. He uses a fairly Western grip on his fh, while I use a modified Eastern, almost SW grip. We can both hit the ball very hard with lots of spin. We were chatting after a hit last weekend and I commented that Im always focusing on making sure I get the racquet below the ball and swinging up. I never think about hitting through the ball that kind of comes for free for me. Cheetah said he does the opposite, he thinks about hitting through the ball, the up part comes for free.

Cheetah, please correct me if I misspoke for you.

anubis
12-06-2012, 08:06 AM
I also notice in these vids that the pros are using pistol, rather than hammer grips. I'm sure that makes a big difference with how hard they hit the ball?

KayFactor
12-06-2012, 08:38 AM
Interesting note on this, I hit with Cheetah once or twice a week. He uses a fairly Western grip on his fh, while I use a modified Eastern, almost SW grip. We can both hit the ball very hard with lots of spin. We were chatting after a hit last weekend and I commented that Im always focusing on making sure I get the racquet below the ball and swinging up. I never think about hitting through the ball that kind of comes for free for me. Cheetah said he does the opposite, he thinks about hitting through the ball, the up part comes for free.

Cheetah, please correct me if I misspoke for you.

This actually makes a lot of sense because of the grips. Hopefully Cheetah can talk about this.

boramiNYC
12-06-2012, 08:49 AM
Oh by the way, then what does Novak Djokovic do on his WWF?

Dj has more wrist manipulation or snap than typical SW fh with flatter swing path, bent arm, and more open stance and very even balance with great balance control. his lever turning is more spread out horizontally from arm swing but well controlled.

boramiNYC
12-06-2012, 08:56 AM
I also notice in these vids that the pros are using pistol, rather than hammer grips. I'm sure that makes a big difference with how hard they hit the ball?

more leverage from spread fingers and safer for wrist too. both control and power are better with pistol due to control of hand grip at impact can contribute to both force transfer and shock absorption.

rkelley
12-06-2012, 09:32 AM
Interesting note on this, I hit with Cheetah once or twice a week. He uses a fairly Western grip on his fh, while I use a modified Eastern, almost SW grip. We can both hit the ball very hard with lots of spin. We were chatting after a hit last weekend and I commented that Im always focusing on making sure I get the racquet below the ball and swinging up. I never think about hitting through the ball that kind of comes for free for me. Cheetah said he does the opposite, he thinks about hitting through the ball, the up part comes for free.

Cheetah, please correct me if I misspoke for you.

This actually makes a lot of sense because of the grips. Hopefully Cheetah can talk about this.

One thing that's helped a lot for me and my more E. grip is to make sure that I keep the racquet more forward on the takeback and keep my wrist and forearm neutral. If I take it back too far it gets very hard to get that up feeling, which is where the topspin comes from. Also bending the legs, especially the outside leg, is huge in generating both power and topspin I suppose thats true for everyone.

Cheetah
12-06-2012, 10:52 AM
Interesting note on this, I hit with Cheetah once or twice a week. He uses a fairly Western grip on his fh, while I use a modified Eastern, almost SW grip. We can both hit the ball very hard with lots of spin. We were chatting after a hit last weekend and I commented that Im always focusing on making sure I get the racquet below the ball and swinging up. I never think about hitting through the ball that kind of comes for free for me. Cheetah said he does the opposite, he thinks about hitting through the ball, the up part comes for free.

Cheetah, please correct me if I misspoke for you.

Yes that's right. I was meaning to post about our convo the last couple of days but I've been insanely busy recently.

Cheetah
12-06-2012, 10:55 AM
One thing that's helped a lot for me and my more E. grip is to make sure that I keep the racquet more forward on the takeback and keep my wrist and forearm neutral. If I take it back too far it gets very hard to get that up feeling, which is where the topspin comes from. Also bending the legs, especially the outside leg, is huge in generating both power and topspin I suppose thats true for everyone.

Yes. when you pass that one point it's where the racquet becomes 'disconnected' as they say.

Cheetah
12-06-2012, 11:03 AM
A latest blog by tennisspeed addresses related issues
blog.tennisspeed.com blog of Oct 11

I'll take a look.

sureshs
12-06-2012, 11:06 AM
I also notice in these vids that the pros are using pistol, rather than hammer grips. I'm sure that makes a big difference with how hard they hit the ball?

By pistol, do you mean their forefinger sticks out and hooks around? I use that a lot myself. I used to think it was bad technique.

rkelley
12-06-2012, 11:09 AM
Yes. when you pass that one point it's where the racquet becomes 'disconnected' as they say.

Yes, that's exactly the feeling - disconnected. Perfect term. My arm and wrist feel really free and the racquet just whips, but I know exactly where they're going. My head is still and eyes locked on the ball.

Love that feeling when I can get it.

julian
12-06-2012, 11:54 AM
I'll take a look.

The basic criterion there is,as you know,supination vs pronation
The classification is different than one of JY
The blog produces some interesting indirect questions about double handed backhand as well

Cheetah
12-06-2012, 01:34 PM
Yes, that's exactly the feeling - disconnected. Perfect term. My arm and wrist feel really free and the racquet just whips, but I know exactly where they're going. My head is still and eyes locked on the ball.

Love that feeling when I can get it.

wanna hit tonight?

TheCheese
12-06-2012, 01:49 PM
Yeah, take a look at the tennis speed blog. I think it explains it better than I ever could.

All I know is that with my grip (extreme-eastern) the straight arm pronation dependent style works really well.

rkelley
12-06-2012, 02:03 PM
Yeah, take a look at the tennis speed blog. I think it explains it better than I ever could.

All I know is that with my grip (extreme-eastern) the straight arm pronation dependent style works really well.

So you're not using much upper arm rotation at contact to generate the swing path, right? The majority of the upper arm rotation comes later, after contact, to decelerate the swing.

dominikk1985
12-06-2012, 02:07 PM
Yeah, take a look at the tennis speed blog. I think it explains it better than I ever could.

All I know is that with my grip (extreme-eastern) the straight arm pronation dependent style works really well.

Isn't the tennis speed guy the guy that claims that fed and other pros hit intentionally below center so that the racket distorts at contact and "rolls over" the ball?

PhrygianDominant
12-06-2012, 02:07 PM
Will needs to do a gonzo forehand tribute course just for tt

julian
12-06-2012, 03:28 PM
Isn't the tennis speed guy the guy that claims that fed and other pros hit intentionally below center so that the racket distorts at contact and "rolls over" the ball?
NO
xxxxxxxxxxx

Cheetah
12-06-2012, 03:36 PM
NO
xxxxxxxxxxx

Yes he is.

+10ch

dominikk1985
12-06-2012, 10:58 PM
NO
xxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6icR4QaI84

PhrygianDominant
12-07-2012, 12:04 AM
I read the tennisspeed article and was suprised that gonzo's forehand racquetface was more perpendicular to the ground throughout the swing to contact and and contact. Just a comment....

TheCheese
12-07-2012, 12:27 AM
I read the tennisspeed article and was suprised that gonzo's forehand racquetface was more perpendicular to the ground throughout the swing to contact and and contact. Just a comment....

Probably why his FH is so streaky and relatively flat.

PhrygianDominant
12-07-2012, 12:44 AM
Probably why his FH is so streaky and relatively flat.

Probably. Closing the racquet face is pretty awkward for me, I don't think I really get it, have to keep practicing.

chico9166
12-07-2012, 01:47 AM
You never heard me say to finish over the should unless talking of the basic
modern Fh or not to finish lower, which is just another flourish to that basic
Fh.
You never heard me or Oscar say quick break of the elbow, hard turn, or abrupt
bla, bla ....on and on of words you try to add to the basic correct description to
make it something it is not.
Most pros finish in about any position from low to bolo and everything in-between. There is no set low or any other finish. There is just a swing path
that will finish somewhere based on the shape of the swing.

As I mentioned, I consider the MTM way of teaching the "modern forehand" to be a bit old school. I have yet to come across a video of oscar where he is demonstrating something other than, essentially, come to the ball slowly and then accelerate the racquet by "pulling up" and "across", (and backwards) to an over the shoulder finish..Please reference a video, where his elbow doesn't "break immediately" and move hard left..

Ironically, if you want to see how a more modern forehand is taught, look again at the Lansdorp video you posted (that got deleted), and notice what he's trying to get the kid to do.......Which is, shallow the path of hand, (to retain ball velocity) and windshield wipe the hell out of it.(low finish) for spin.

5263
12-07-2012, 06:10 AM
Ironically, if you want to see how a more modern forehand is taught, look again at the Lansdorp video you posted (that got deleted), and notice what he's trying to get the kid to do.......Which is, shallow the path of hand, (to retain ball velocity) and windshield wipe the hell out of it.(low finish) for spin.

I understand...if that is what you know of MTM, but yes... quite ironic since Oscar
was teaching that about 2 decades before RL.
I doubt you have his book, but it is on pg 92-93 as well as other places; also
used like that in several of his vids.

5263
12-07-2012, 06:17 AM
We were chatting after a hit last weekend and I commented that Im always focusing on making sure I get the racquet below the ball and swinging up. I never think about hitting through the ball that kind of comes for free for me. Cheetah said he does the opposite, he thinks about hitting through the ball, the up part comes for free.

Yes, this makes a lot of sense, as with the heavy western, it does take more
work to get thru the ball well. Also can tend to explain the 2 differing views on
this topic. My grip is more like rkelley's and I identify much more with his view
on it as well.

dominikk1985
12-07-2012, 06:22 AM
Probably. Closing the racquet face is pretty awkward for me, I don't think I really get it, have to keep practicing.

the racket face is closed passively by the ball rolling down the strings. but this doesn't have any effect on the spin just a result of the upbard brushing.

this closing is stronger when you hit below center but I think that those highlighted below center hits are actually misshits and not what the pros are striving for (remember fed is framing the ball quite a lot). it just can happen when you swing up so fast and you timing is a little off.

but if you film 10 fed FHs I guess most of them are actually hit in the center (of course when the ball leaves it will be slightly below center because the strings have brushed upwards but initially the ball will be at center with the racket face being relatively vertical.

PhrygianDominant
12-07-2012, 06:54 AM
.......Which is, shallow the path of hand, (to retain ball velocity) and windshield wipe the hell out of it.(low finish) for spin.

Now that sounds like gonzo

the racket face is closed passively by the ball rolling down the strings. but this doesn't have any effect on the spin just a result of the upbard brushing.

Yet another take, interesting.....and I thought the forehand was the easy one. Shows how much I know.

Geology_Rocks!
12-07-2012, 12:56 PM
Hey guys, just wanna share some ideas,

I was following the blog and studying all the pronation stuff and tried to add this to my game, here is something I observed, all these players are NOT pronating on the takeback, all they do to achieve the closed racket face is start the takeback by lifting the elbow and keeping the forearm in a neutral position.

Think about it, if you actually pronate on the takeback the racket tip would point straight to the ground.

That's all, hold your racket, lift the hitting elbow with a neutral forearm position. By just doing this the closed racket face showed in all the pics will appear, and THEN if you do pronate the racket tip will point to the ground.

Anyone agrees?

sureshs
12-07-2012, 01:00 PM
They don't pronate on the takeback. But I think they supinate at the end of the takeback and the beginning of the forward swing, and then pronate..

Greg G
12-07-2012, 01:11 PM
I believe the supination occurs at the start of the forward swing. Supination at take back is detrimental to the stretch shortening cycle, from what I understand of it, and it's the thing I've been trying to remove from my own swing. The way I do it is by being aware that my thumb is down during take back. Some people like palm down or knuckles to the sky- for some reason thumb down clicked for me.

Cheetah
12-07-2012, 01:13 PM
Hey guys, just wanna share some ideas,
...
Anyone agrees?

Nobody agrees.

What do you call this?
http://www.bloomberg.com/image/iED8LoLzdfh0.jpg

sureshs
12-07-2012, 01:18 PM
I believe the supination occurs at the start of the forward swing. Supination at take back is detrimental to the stretch shortening cycle, from what I understand of it, and it's the thing I've been trying to remove from my own swing. The way I do it is by being aware that my thumb is down during take back. Some people like palm down or knuckles to the sky- for some reason thumb down clicked for me.

At the start of the forward swing and sometimes at the end of the take back when the Nike swoosh starts to curve around, i.e., in the transition period between back and forward?

Geology_Rocks!
12-07-2012, 01:36 PM
Cheetah, look at his elbow pointing to the right, his forearm is in a neutral position.

His thumb/palm is also a good reference point, it's parallel to the court surface. Again, if he pronates from that position the racket would be upside down, with the tip pointing to the ground.

For example, stretch your arm to the side while facing the net. If you pronate your thumb points down and palm faces back fence, if you supinate, thumb points up and palm faces forward, and finally, if you keep it neutral, the thumb will point forward and the palm will face the ground, this is the position Fed shows.

''Nobody agrees'' sorry, wasn't aware that you speak for the whole board.

boramiNYC
12-07-2012, 01:42 PM
Hey guys, just wanna share some ideas,

I was following the blog and studying all the pronation stuff and tried to add this to my game, here is something I observed, all these players are NOT pronating on the takeback, all they do to achieve the closed racket face is start the takeback by lifting the elbow and keeping the forearm in a neutral position.

Think about it, if you actually pronate on the takeback the racket tip would point straight to the ground.

That's all, hold your racket, lift the hitting elbow with a neutral forearm position. By just doing this the closed racket face showed in all the pics will appear, and THEN if you do pronate the racket tip will point to the ground.

Anyone agrees?

not incorrect but lifting elbow is due to internal shoulder rotation which usually works together with forearm pronation. actually it's possible to take back with just ISR without forearm pronation as you describe but pronation adds a tiny bit more ISR and a little more of the sling shot effect during the forward swing.

Geology_Rocks!
12-07-2012, 01:52 PM
not incorrect but lifting elbow is due to internal shoulder rotation which usually works together with forearm pronation. actually it's possible to take back with just ISR without forearm pronation as you describe but pronation adds a tiny bit more ISR and a little more of the sling shot effect during the forward swing.

Yeah, I'm not familiar with all the terms, ISR it is.

The thing is, taking the racket back by using only ISR as you say seems to produce the exact takeback shape of the pros. All pronation seems to do is rotate the racket counter clock wise. (for a right handed)

Cheetah
12-07-2012, 02:11 PM
All pronation seems to do is rotate the racket counter clock wise. (for a right handed)

how so?
.....

TheCheese
12-07-2012, 02:22 PM
Cheetah, look at his elbow pointing to the right, his forearm is in a neutral position.

His thumb/palm is also a good reference point, it's parallel to the court surface. Again, if he pronates from that position the racket would be upside down, with the tip pointing to the ground.

For example, stretch your arm to the side while facing the net. If you pronate your thumb points down and palm faces back fence, if you supinate, thumb points up and palm faces forward, and finally, if you keep it neutral, the thumb will point forward and the palm will face the ground, this is the position Fed shows.

''Nobody agrees'' sorry, wasn't aware that you speak for the whole board.
I'm pretty sure nobody is going to agree with you there. It's clear that they're pronating at the end of their takeback when they're about to start swinging forward.

I don't see how you could argue otherwise unless you have some sort of confusion about the definition of pronation.

I have no idea what you mean when you say pronating during the takeback causes the racket tip to point towards the ground. I pronate during my takeback, it closes the racket face. It doesn't change which direction the top of the racket is facing, it's still pointing skyward.

I think you're confused about what is a neutral position. You're treating what is pronation as neutral, and treating what is actually neutral as supination.

What you say would be pronating is physically impossible to do while still hitting a proper FH. If you pronate that much you're going to be hitting the ball with the wrong side of the racket.

If someone is truly neutral, their hand is going to look like Del Potro's. If they're supinating, it's going to look like Andreev or Roddick. If they're pronating, check out Federer or Nadal or Djokovic.


Neutral vs Pronation:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mVxKyPAZ5Jg/UHcdwZQApoI/AAAAAAAAAVY/GdDG-HicL4c/s1600/JDP-ND+FFM+Racquet+Angle+-+markup2.jpg



Neutral vs Supination:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4M266bzaJnQ/UHceNt2_YGI/AAAAAAAAAVg/_npMuNOzefw/s1600/JDP-MSa+FH+FFM+Comparison.jpg

Cheetah
12-07-2012, 02:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soADAL_uGs8&t=22s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESFU2IR_Dj0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp_XHBXGbUs&t=31s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APTKk580TkM&t=36s

rkelley
12-07-2012, 02:33 PM
Hey guys, just wanna share some ideas,

I was following the blog and studying all the pronation stuff and tried to add this to my game, here is something I observed, all these players are NOT pronating on the takeback, all they do to achieve the closed racket face is start the takeback by lifting the elbow and keeping the forearm in a neutral position.

Think about it, if you actually pronate on the takeback the racket tip would point straight to the ground.

That's all, hold your racket, lift the hitting elbow with a neutral forearm position. By just doing this the closed racket face showed in all the pics will appear, and THEN if you do pronate the racket tip will point to the ground.

Anyone agrees?

They don't pronate on the takeback. But I think they supinate at the end of the takeback and the beginning of the forward swing, and then pronate..

I think the idea is to be neutral at the end of the take back. Don't consciously supinate. The supination occurs because of the forward swing. See below.

I believe the supination occurs at the start of the forward swing. Supination at take back is detrimental to the stretch shortening cycle, from what I understand of it, and it's the thing I've been trying to remove from my own swing. The way I do it is by being aware that my thumb is down during take back. Some people like palm down or knuckles to the sky- for some reason thumb down clicked for me.

This is what I try do and what I see pros doing. However you get there, right before the start of the forward swing the forearm and wrist are neutral. The beginning of the forward swing supinates the forearm and lays the wrist back. You don't actively move the forearm and wrist into those positions. The legs, hips, and shoulders starting the swing supinates the forearm and lays back the wrist. Then as the forward swing occurs the forearm naturally pronates and the wrist extends.

See that picture of Fed posted by Cheetah about 10 posts back? See how his forearm and wrist are relaxed and neutral - not pronated, supinated, flexed or extended? That's exactly the position I try to get my racquet and arm into before I start my swing.

TheCheese
12-07-2012, 02:40 PM
I think the idea is to be neutral at the end of the take back. Don't consciously supinate. The supination occurs because of the forward swing. See below.



This is what I try do and what I see pros doing. However you get there, right before the start of the forward swing the forearm and wrist are neutral. The beginning of the forward swing supinates the forearm and lays the wrist back. You don't actively move the forearm and wrist into those positions. The legs, hips, and shoulders starting the swing supinates the forearm and lays back the wrist. Then as the forward swing occurs the forearm naturally pronates and the wrist extends.

See that picture of Fed posted by Cheetah about 10 posts back? See how his forearm and wrist are relaxed and neutral - not pronated, supinated, flexed or extended? That's exactly the position I try to get my racquet and arm into before I start my swing.

I think you're confused here. That picture Cheetah posted is an example of Fed pronating at the end of his takeback. You want to be pronating, not neutral. From there, the forearm naturally supinates as you swing forward.

Cheetah
12-07-2012, 02:51 PM
i think we need some term fixing...

wrists don't pronate. the forearm pronates either by elbow joint or isr.
the wrist can be in radial/ulnar deviation and extended or flexed.
the wrist can be deviated or flexed/extended while the forearm is pronated or supinated.

so you can have an arm structure that has pronation w/ neutral wrist.
or you can have pronation with flexed wrist
or you can have supination with extended and radial deviated wrist
or supination w/ neutral wrist
or you can with this or you can go with that
etc etc

rkelley
12-07-2012, 04:01 PM
I think you're confused here. That picture Cheetah posted is an example of Fed pronating at the end of his takeback. You want to be pronating, not neutral. From there, the forearm naturally supinates as you swing forward.

While it happens often, I don't think I'm confused in this instance regarding the Fed photo. If his forearm were fully pronated in that photo the racquet would be pointed nearly at the camera. If fully supinated the racquet would be point back to the rear. In the picture the racquet is out to the side, so his forearm is approximately in the center of its range of motion, probably somewhat on the pronation side. I think you're better off thinking of the forearm as neutral, not pronated. You can see from the lack of muscle definition that his arm is fairly relaxed.

Likewise the wrist is roughly centered between flexed and extended.

I agree that the forward swing will naturally supinate the forearm (and extend or layback the wrist).

TheCheese
12-07-2012, 04:42 PM
While it happens often, I don't think I'm confused in this instance regarding the Fed photo. If his forearm were fully pronated in that photo the racquet would be pointed nearly at the camera. If fully supinated the racquet would be point back to the rear. In the picture the racquet is out to the side, so his forearm is approximately in the center of its range of motion, probably somewhat on the pronation side. I think you're better off thinking of the forearm as neutral, not pronated. You can see from the lack of muscle definition that his arm is fairly relaxed.

Likewise the wrist is roughly centered between flexed and extended.

I agree that the forward swing will naturally supinate the forearm (and extend or layback the wrist).
What do you mean by the racket would be pointed at the camera? The tip of the racket? The racket face? The buttcap?

Geology_Rocks!
12-07-2012, 07:00 PM
Yes, I know what pronation means.

I won't insist on the issue because I don't think I can describe it better than i did at post 101.

I'll say it just one more time, all the ''pronated'' and closed racket faces pics can be achieved by ISR only and a not pronated forearm.

BTW, on the Delpo/Novak comparisson, consider that they use different grips(close to eastern and western).

Imagine Novak's racket face rotated around 80 to the left to simulate a eastern grip like Delpo's, this would make them pretty similar. Would you agree now that both guys have neutral forearm positions before the forward swing?

The only thing those angles on the pictures show is the variation in their FH grips. Nothing to do with forearm pronation/supination.

Cheetah
12-07-2012, 07:07 PM
... despite the fact that I posted videos clearly showing the pronation occuring?

Greg G
12-07-2012, 07:43 PM
Wow, Rafa's pronation is pretty pronounced at the end of takeback.

rkelley
12-07-2012, 10:19 PM
What do you mean by the racket would be pointed at the camera? The tip of the racket? The racket face? The buttcap?

If Federer pronated his forearm (i.e. rotated his forearm about the axis in-line with his forearm) to its maximum extent the tip of the racquet that he's holding would be pointing towards the camera and down.

Does that make sense to you?

TheCheese
12-07-2012, 10:30 PM
If Federer pronated his forearm (i.e. rotated his forearm about the axis in-line with his forearm) to its maximum extent the tip of the racquet that he's holding would be pointing towards the camera and down.

Does that make sense to you?

Not at all.

Rotating his forearm wouldn't change the angle between the racket and his forearm, so there's no possible way for the tip to change where it's pointing.

Agree to disagree, but the way I'm describing it definitely works really well for me. Pronating with purely ISR would make no sense. Just try it... It's pretty obvious that they would do the motion the most effective way possible.

Greg G
12-07-2012, 10:35 PM
Is this the pic we're talking about? Can't see how the tip would point at the camera with more pronation...?

http://www.bloomberg.com/image/iED8LoLzdfh0.jpg

TheCheese
12-07-2012, 10:37 PM
Is this the pic we're talking about? Can't see how the tip would point at the camera with more pronation...?

http://www.bloomberg.com/image/iED8LoLzdfh0.jpg

Exactly. I don't see it.

We're defining the direction of the tip as the same direction a vector pointing along the handle would be pointed, I'm assuming. Pronation would only rotate the racket around that axis, it wouldn't change its direction at all.

If Fed wasn't pronating, a vector pointing upwards perpendicular to the plane of the back of his hand would be pointing backwards, rather than skywards.

toly
12-07-2012, 11:07 PM
how so?
.....
Definition – Forearm pronation is counterclockwise forearm rotation.

http://i54.tinypic.com/b6a3uw.png

rkelley
12-07-2012, 11:07 PM
Not at all.

Rotating his forearm wouldn't change the angle between the racket and his forearm, so there's no possible way for the tip to change where it's pointing.

Agree to disagree, but the way I'm describing it definitely works really well for me. Pronating with purely ISR would make no sense. Just try it... It's pretty obvious that they would do the motion the most effective way possible.

Rotating his forearm about the axis along his forearm (aka pronation or supination) by its very definition, would require any body perpendicular to that axis, namely his racquet in the picture, to change orientation. If Fed pronates his forearm in the picture, the racquet's tip (the axis from the handle to the tip) will go from pointing to the side to pointing at the camera and slightly down. I may not be communicating my meaning well, but it's not something you can disagree with.

I agree that this motion would not change the angle that the racquet makes with the forearm. Flexing or extending his wrist, or radial or ulnar deviation would do that, but not pronation or supination.

Since his arm is almost straight rotating his upper arm at the shoulder about the axis along his upper arm (aka ISR), would have a similar effect on the racquet's orientation as pronation/supination.

Whatever you want to call it, I personally try to get my racquet and arm in the position that Fed has in the picture.

Cheetah
12-07-2012, 11:38 PM
..................

TheCheese
12-07-2012, 11:52 PM
Rotating his forearm about the axis along his forearm (aka pronation or supination) by its very definition, would require any body perpendicular to that axis, namely his racquet in the picture, to change orientation. If Fed pronates his forearm in the picture, the racquet's tip (the axis from the handle to the tip) will go from pointing to the side to pointing at the camera and slightly down. I may not be communicating my meaning well, but it's not something you can disagree with.

I agree that this motion would not change the angle that the racquet makes with the forearm. Flexing or extending his wrist, or radial or ulnar deviation would do that, but not pronation or supination.

Since his arm is almost straight rotating his upper arm at the shoulder about the axis along his upper arm (aka ISR), would have a similar effect on the racquet's orientation as pronation/supination.

Whatever you want to call it, I personally try to get my racquet and arm in the position that Fed has in the picture.

I think you might be having a hard time getting a feel for where his racket is in relation to his forearm from this camera angle. Check out the side view.

Pronation isn't going to make his racket tip point at the camera. All it's doing is closing his racketface towards the ground.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EJRpM6IdKLs/T7iSPdaPdhI/AAAAAAAAAPk/s3qakLpjolc/s1600/Federer+FH+Pronation+FFM+side+view+002.jpg

julian
12-08-2012, 03:42 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soADAL_uGs8&t=22s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESFU2IR_Dj0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp_XHBXGbUs&t=31s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APTKk580TkM&t=36s
Hi,
could you explain thoughts behind these links?
Thank you

5263
12-08-2012, 04:54 AM
How much you brush across the ball diagonally determines the amount of topspin you generate.

How flat/vertical your stroke path is effects the trajectory of your shot.

To hit a flat topspin drive you brush diagonally across the ball with a flatter stroke path.

OP, above seems to be a pretty good post. Did it help you along with the other comments along these lines?

Geology_Rocks!
12-08-2012, 05:33 AM
Exactly. I don't see it.

We're defining the direction of the tip as the same direction a vector pointing along the handle would be pointed, I'm assuming. Pronation would only rotate the racket around that axis, it wouldn't change its direction at all.

If Fed wasn't pronating, a vector pointing upwards perpendicular to the plane of the back of his hand would be pointing backwards, rather than skywards.

No. Pronation would not rotate the racket around the handle axis, Not without ulnar deviation, and there is no ulnar deviation there, his wrist is neutral.

The closed racket face is caused by ISR. Please, from the ready position holding the racket with a eastern grip lift your right elbow to your side. The racket will stay parallel to the ground with a closed face, correct?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkUSTi4U7Io

Watch Monfils, he really exaggerates this movement, watch how his elbow goes up.

Geology_Rocks!
12-08-2012, 05:43 AM
... despite the fact that I posted videos clearly showing the pronation occuring?

If you hold a racket in front of you with your right hand and pronate what happens?

Do you disagree on what I said about the Delpo Novak comparison?

dominikk1985
12-08-2012, 07:22 AM
pronation only closes the racket face if your forearm and racket are in line.

however since you grip that racket in an angle and on top of that lay the wrist back the pronation will swing the racket around the long axis of the forearm creating upward movement.

if you use a conti grip pronation can even contribute to the forward acceleration of the racket.

julian
12-08-2012, 08:08 AM
Definition Forearm pronation is counterclockwise forearm rotation.

http://i54.tinypic.com/b6a3uw.png

1.Does it apply to a lefthander?
2.Does it apply literally for all three strokes:forehand,backhand and serve?

julian
12-08-2012, 08:18 AM
Definition Forearm pronation is counterclockwise forearm rotation.

http://i54.tinypic.com/b6a3uw.png

Is the definition below an acceptable one?
---->
Supination
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supination is a position of either the forearm or foot. When the arms are unbent and at the sides, the forearm is in supination when the palm faces to the front (anteriorly), or faces up. Supination in the foot occurs when a person appears "bow-legged" with their weight supported primarily on the lateral side of their feet (5th Metatarsal).[citation needed]

The hand is supine in the anatomical position (i.e., palms facing up during autopsy). This action is performed by the Biceps brachii and the Supinator muscle.

Supination is the opposite of pronation.

toly
12-08-2012, 08:18 AM
1.Does it apply to a lefthander?
2.Does it apply literally for all three strokes:forehand,backhand and serve?
1. No.
2. Yes.

julian
12-08-2012, 08:26 AM
1. No.
2. Yes.
Post #129 is more interesting

toly
12-08-2012, 08:40 AM
Is the definition below an acceptable one?
---->
Supination
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supination is a position of either the forearm or foot. When the arms are unbent and at the sides, the forearm is in supination when the palm faces to the front (anteriorly), or faces up. Supination in the foot occurs when a person appears "bow-legged" with their weight supported primarily on the lateral side of their feet (5th Metatarsal).[citation needed]

The hand is supine in the anatomical position (i.e., palms facing up during autopsy). This action is performed by the Biceps brachii and the Supinator muscle.

Supination is the opposite of pronation.

I dont like Wikipedia definition. There are too many useless words and I believe Supination is not position, but motion. :)

julian
12-08-2012, 08:44 AM
I don’t like Wikipedia definition. There are too many useless words and I believe Supination is not position, but motion. :)

Could you provide the definition of ELBOW SUPINATION ?
I believe the term is used in blog#7 of www.log.tennisspeed.com

So your definition would be:
The ELBOW SUPINATION is the motion which ....
Please feel dots

Questions:
1.Does Sharapova have ELBOW SUPINATION? (for forehand) or does she supinate?

2.Does Federer have ELBOW SUPINATION? (for forehand)

3.Does Del Potro have ELBOW SUPINATION (for forehand)

If #1,#2 and #3 answered correctly I will send you a chocolate bar by E-mail
Possible answers:
a) yes
b) no
c) maybe
d) Julian,you are such a pain
e)other to be specified

rkelley
12-08-2012, 08:47 AM
I think you might be having a hard time getting a feel for where his racket is in relation to his forearm from this camera angle. Check out the side view.

Pronation isn't going to make his racket tip point at the camera. All it's doing is closing his racketface towards the ground.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EJRpM6IdKLs/T7iSPdaPdhI/AAAAAAAAAPk/s3qakLpjolc/s1600/Federer+FH+Pronation+FFM+side+view+002.jpg

Check out the pictures that toly posted about forearm and wrist movements. This is my understanding of the definitions.

In the picture of Fed that you posted the racquet is making very roughly a 90 angle with the forearm, true? That means that the racquet, more specifically the line from the handle to the tip, is in a plane that is normal to the forearm axis. Let's define the positive direction of the forearm axis from the hand to the elbow. Let's define the positive direction of the racquet axis as from the handle to the tip. Pronation would therefore be a positive rotation (right hand rule) of the racquet axis about the forearm axis.

Because racquet axis and the forearm axis are normal, neither pronation or supination will cause a rotation about racquet axis, which would be required to open or close the racquet face.

In the picture you provided a human should be able to pronate their forearm about 90 from the position shown. The racquet would be point more toward the camera, though in this case not at the camera. In your picture Fed's racquet is not quite in the same position as in the other Fed picture. His upper arm as rotated so that the racquet is pointing a bit more backwards.

Please remember that I am making some approximations on some of these positions. His racquet and forearm are not exactly normal (90), but they are certainly not in-line. His forearm isn't pointed straight down but rather at an angle to the ground, so the plane normal to the axis of the forearm is not parallel to the ground.

Sorry for all of the engineering/math speak, but I don't know how else to unambiguously communicate my meaning.

julian
12-08-2012, 08:54 AM
Check out the pictures that toly posted about forearm and wrist movements. This is my understanding of the definitions.

In the picture of Fed that you posted the racquet is making very roughly a 90 angle with the forearm, true? That means that the racquet, more specifically the line from the handle to the tip, is in a plane that is normal to the forearm axis. Let's define the positive direction of the forearm axis from the hand to the elbow. Let's define the positive direction of the racquet axis as from the handle to the tip. Pronation would therefore be a positive rotation (right hand rule) of the racquet axis about the forearm axis.

Because racquet axis and the forearm axis are normal, neither pronation or supination will cause a rotation about racquet axis, which would be required to open or close the racquet face.

In the picture you provided a human should be able to pronate their forearm about 90 from the position shown. The racquet would be point more toward the camera, though in this case not at the camera. In your picture Fed's racquet is not quite in the same position as in the other Fed picture. His upper arm as rotated so that the racquet is pointing a bit more backwards.

Please remember that I am making some approximations on some of these positions. His racquet and forearm are not exactly normal (90), but they are certainly not in-line. His forearm isn't pointed straight down but rather at an angle to the ground, so the plane normal to the axis of the forearm is not parallel to the ground.

Sorry for all of the engineering/math speak, but I don't know how else to unambiguously communicate my meaning.
Do you know answers to questions in post #133?
I have one chocolate bar left

julian
12-08-2012, 08:59 AM
Check out the pictures that toly posted about forearm and wrist movements. This is my understanding of the definitions.

In the picture of Fed that you posted the racquet is making very roughly a 90 angle with the forearm, true? That means that the racquet, more specifically the line from the handle to the tip, is in a plane that is normal to the forearm axis. Let's define the positive direction of the forearm axis from the hand to the elbow. Let's define the positive direction of the racquet axis as from the handle to the tip. Pronation would therefore be a positive rotation (right hand rule) of the racquet axis about the forearm axis.

Because racquet axis and the forearm axis are normal, neither pronation or supination will cause a rotation about racquet axis, which would be required to open or close the racquet face.

In the picture you provided a human should be able to pronate their forearm about 90 from the position shown. The racquet would be point more toward the camera, though in this case not at the camera. In your picture Fed's racquet is not quite in the same position as in the other Fed picture. His upper arm as rotated so that the racquet is pointing a bit more backwards.

Please remember that I am making some approximations on some of these positions. His racquet and forearm are not exactly normal (90), but they are certainly not in-line. His forearm isn't pointed straight down but rather at an angle to the ground, so the plane normal to the axis of the forearm is not parallel to the ground.

Sorry for all of the engineering/math speak, but I don't know how else to unambiguously communicate my meaning.
If we go couple frames forward to you think:
a) a racket will be more closed
b) a racket will be more open
c) a racket will stay the same
d)Federer will shank a ball
A bottle of champagne available for you-one left

5263
12-08-2012, 09:01 AM
Maybe out of my league here, since I rarely use terms like this since most
students have NO IDEA in this area of terms, but...

aren't we really talking more ISR instead of pronation?

toly
12-08-2012, 09:03 AM
Could you provide the definition of ELBOW SUPINATION ?
I believe the term is used in blog#7 of www.log.tennisspeed.com

So your definition would be:
The ELBOW SUPINATION is the motion which ....
Please feel dots
IMO, Elbow Supination is forearm supination.

Forearm Supination is forearm clockwise rotation about forearm longitude axis.

julian
12-08-2012, 09:07 AM
IMO, Elbow Supination is forearm supination.

Forearm Supination is forearm clockwise rotation about forearm longitude axis.

You did NOT answer questions #1,#2 and #3
Terrible,just terrible
Do you think serve is supinated or pronated or both?
A can of caviar left

Geology_Rocks!
12-08-2012, 09:18 AM
rkelley, I think we are seeing the same thing (thank you!)

5263, yes, there is no pronation during the takeback.

Cheetah
12-08-2012, 09:19 AM
No. Pronation would not rotate the racket around the handle axis, Not without ulnar deviation, and there is no ulnar deviation there, his wrist is neutral.

The closed racket face is caused by ISR. Please, from the ready position holding the racket with a eastern grip lift your right elbow to your side. The racket will stay parallel to the ground with a closed face, correct?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkUSTi4U7Io

Watch Monfils, he really exaggerates this movement, watch how his elbow goes up.

look at your video of monfil here @ :08s. His elbow stays in roughly the same location. His bicep doesn't move. Yet his forearm rotates which causes the racquet face to close.
At :08s his racquet is pointing up. elbow is in postion E. Bicep is in position B.
At :10s his racquet is facing down. elbow is still in position E. Bicep is still in position B.
That's pronation. (and not from isr)

boramiNYC
12-08-2012, 09:21 AM
IMO, Elbow Supination is forearm supination.

Forearm Supination is forearm clockwise rotation about forearm longitude axis.

to be more precise, it should be hand pronation or supination. no wrist, no forearm, no elbow.

and for this discussion to go anywhere neutral position needs to be precisely defined and agreed upon. which is not easy at all cuz by just turning head the hands in effect are not in neutral any more.

sureshs
12-08-2012, 09:22 AM
I think the idea is to be neutral at the end of the take back. Don't consciously supinate. The supination occurs because of the forward swing.

I meant at the curve of the Nike swoosh, when the racket is still technically moving backwards but it has started curving towards the front.

julian
12-08-2012, 09:29 AM
to be more precise, it should be hand pronation or supination. no wrist, no forearm, no elbow.

and for this discussion to go anywhere neutral position needs to be precisely defined and agreed upon. which is not easy at all cuz by just turning head the hands in effect are not in neutral any more.
Tennisspeed uses the term "elbow pronation"

Geology_Rocks!
12-08-2012, 09:30 AM
Nope it's not, his forearm position is constant.

The racket face closes because of ISR. As his elbow goes up the internal rotation begins.

toly
12-08-2012, 09:35 AM
Questions:
1.Does Sharapova have ELBOW SUPINATION? (for forehand) or does she supinate?

2.Does Federer have ELBOW SUPINATION? (for forehand)

3.Does Del Potro have ELBOW SUPINATION (for forehand)

If #1,#2 and #3 answered correctly I will send you a chocolate bar by E-mail
Possible answers:
a) yes
b) no
c) maybe
d) Julian,you are such a pain
e)other to be specified
Sharapova front of the forearm is facing sky. To bring the forearm into this position she has to supinate forearm almost as much as possible.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2rwtjqd.jpg

Federer and Del Potro apply eastern grip, so they supinate much less than Sharapova (western grip).

Cheetah
12-08-2012, 09:37 AM
Nope it's not, his forearm position is constant.

The racket face closes because of ISR. As his elbow goes up the internal rotation begins.

No. Look again. Not at 8s. Monfil uses a bent arm, not a straight arm. That means if he were using isr there at 8s you would see his elbow fly out behind him in conjuction with the racquet face closing. but it doesn't. it stays in the same position and his bicep doesn't move. That's forearm pronation not isr.

If you have a bent arm and you use isr the elbow will move. the racquet is facing up. the elbow doesn't move. then the racquet is facing down. clear as day.

edit: actually it happens at 9secs

boramiNYC
12-08-2012, 09:37 AM
Tennisspeed uses the term "elbow pronation"

elbow pronation doesn't make any sense. in medicine definitions of pronation and supination are always irt hand. so what that guy uses the wrong term that doesn't make sense?

julian
12-08-2012, 09:42 AM
Sharapova front of the forearm is facing sky. To bring the forearm into this position she has to supinate forearm almost as much as possible.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2rwtjqd.jpg

Federer and Del Potro apply eastern grip, so they supinate much less than Sharapova (western grip).

Do Federer and Del potro pronate?
You may go to read blog #7 www.blog.tennisspeed.com
but reading will cost 50% of credit

Tennisspeed said that Sharapova has elbow supination ( or hand supination to avoid annoying other readers here)
Back to sleep after eating too much chocolate

boramiNYC
12-08-2012, 09:43 AM
Federer and Del Potro apply eastern grip, so they supinate much less than Sharapova (western grip).

I think Fed and delpo supinate just as much basically to the limit for the ssc. but their wrists are certainly more extended and arm more straight than Sha.

Geology_Rocks!
12-08-2012, 09:44 AM
No. Look again. Not at 8s. Monfil uses a bent arm, not a straight arm. That means if he were using isr there at 8s you would see his elbow fly out behind him in conjuction with the racquet face closing. but it doesn't. it stays in the same position and his bicep doesn't move. That's forearm pronation not isr.

If you have a bent arm and you use isr the elbow will move. the racquet is facing up. the elbow doesn't move. then the racquet is facing down. clear as day.

edit: actually it happens at 9secs

Thats ulnar deviation.....

Pronation does not close the racket face.

toly
12-08-2012, 09:51 AM
to be more precise, it should be hand pronation or supination. no wrist, no forearm, no elbow.

I disagree. The hand sits on the forearm (wrist) and during forearm pronation/supination just enjoys the ride. :)

Cheetah
12-08-2012, 09:51 AM
Thats ulnar deviation.....

Pronation does not close the racket face.

ulnar deviation?? ulnar deviation closes a racquet face??
ouch. ok. I think i see the problem here.
carry on.

julian
12-08-2012, 09:53 AM
I think Fed and delpo supinate just as much basically to the limit for the ssc. but their wrists are certainly more extended and arm more straight than Sha.

I do NOT want to awake an MTM dragon but are you saying :)
that Lansdorp did NOT teach Miss Sharapova to use her ssc.
Just terrible :)

Geology_Rocks!
12-08-2012, 10:12 AM
ulnar deviation?? ulnar deviation closes a racquet face??
ouch. ok. I think i see the problem here.
carry on.

At 10 seconds his wrist goes backwards is this what you are talking about? Because that is ulnar deviation.

the real ''outch'' is ppl thinking pronation during takeback will close the racket face.

boramiNYC
12-08-2012, 11:12 AM
I do NOT want to awake an MTM dragon but are you saying :)
that Lansdorp did NOT teach Miss Sharapova to use her ssc.
Just terrible :)

you are not understanding correctly. all three mentioned use ssc in their forearm by supinating max in their forward swing.

toly
12-08-2012, 11:45 AM
Do Federer and Del potro pronate?

Due to they hit with straight arm, to create topspin they use Arm Pronation.

Arm pronation is forearm pronation plus internal shoulder rotation.

julian
12-08-2012, 11:49 AM
you are not understanding correctly. all three mentioned use ssc in their forearm by supinating max in their forward swing.
I am just peachy :)
Thank you.
I was trying to take a jab at MTM but it backfired.
The issue is which of two (or three) options is more efficient.
i.e Ft-1 vs (Ft-2 or FT-3)
There is a belief (not mine) that FT-2 and FT-3 use ssc "better"
Now I have to have a drink before I will go to a Christmas party.

julian
12-08-2012, 11:50 AM
Due to they hit with straight arm, to create topspin they use Arm Pronation.

Arm pronation is forearm pronation plus internal shoulder rotation.

Can they use pronation WITHOUT having an arm straight?

julian
12-08-2012, 12:00 PM
Check out the pictures that toly posted about forearm and wrist movements. This is my understanding of the definitions.

In the picture of Fed that you posted the racquet is making very roughly a 90 angle with the forearm, true? That means that the racquet, more specifically the line from the handle to the tip, is in a plane that is normal to the forearm axis. Let's define the positive direction of the forearm axis from the hand to the elbow. Let's define the positive direction of the racquet axis as from the handle to the tip. Pronation would therefore be a positive rotation (right hand rule) of the racquet axis about the forearm axis.

Because racquet axis and the forearm axis are normal, neither pronation or supination will cause a rotation about racquet axis, which would be required to open or close the racquet face.

In the picture you provided a human should be able to pronate their forearm about 90 from the position shown. The racquet would be point more toward the camera, though in this case not at the camera. In your picture Fed's racquet is not quite in the same position as in the other Fed picture. His upper arm as rotated so that the racquet is pointing a bit more backwards.

Please remember that I am making some approximations on some of these positions. His racquet and forearm are not exactly normal (90), but they are certainly not in-line. His forearm isn't pointed straight down but rather at an angle to the ground, so the plane normal to the axis of the forearm is not parallel to the ground.

Sorry for all of the engineering/math speak, but I don't know how else to unambiguously communicate my meaning.
Your quote
--->
Pronation would therefore be a positive rotation (right hand rule) of the racquet axis about the forearm axis.
---->
Do you take a vector product of two vectors?
What do you mean by "right hand rule" ?

Greg G
12-08-2012, 01:42 PM
This thread is turning to a mess due to the lack of agreement on definitions. Rather than create new definitions, we should just use the medical terms as a standard. When you lie down on your back with the palms- the forearm is in a supinated position. Supination is a verb. The shoulder is also externally rotated.

In any case, I'll just say what I feel I do. When I put my thumb down on the take back, it is mainly elbow/hand pronation, with a veeery slight ISR.

dominikk1985
12-08-2012, 01:59 PM
pronation and internal rotation of the humerus are two independent motions.

Greg G
12-08-2012, 04:19 PM
Hot off the livestream. Check out the forehand return and the slow mo after.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3QhjP610rY&feature=player_detailpage#t=7233s

EDIT: weird the time stamp changed. here's the right one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=z3QhjP610rY#t=7130s

KayFactor
12-08-2012, 05:43 PM
OP, above seems to be a pretty good post. Did it help you along with the other comments along these lines?

Haha, yes. I read this post and it's helpful.
Right now, I'm getting confused reading about this pronation and supination stuff, but I'm beginning to understand it.

KayFactor
12-08-2012, 05:44 PM
By the way, what is internal shoulder rotation and what does it do to my stroke?

psv255
12-08-2012, 05:57 PM
By the way, what is internal shoulder rotation and what does it do to my stroke?

Internal shoulder rotation is the rotation of your upper arm at the shoulder. If you put your hand on a table, arm completely straight, and try to turn your elbow outward/inward, you're experiencing ISR.
see here: http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/anatomy/Image19.gif
ISR is used in the serve (along with forearm pronation) and sometimes the forehand (but it's not at all necessary and could be harmful to for the shoulder).

TheCheese
12-08-2012, 06:44 PM
This thread is turning to a mess due to the lack of agreement on definitions. Rather than create new definitions, we should just use the medical terms as a standard. When you lie down on your back with the palms- the forearm is in a supinated position. Supination is a verb. The shoulder is also externally rotated.

In any case, I'll just say what I feel I do. When I put my thumb down on the take back, it is mainly elbow/hand pronation, with a veeery slight ISR.

I agree. And even talking about medical terms doesn't even help anyone learn how to actually hit the ball.

5263
12-08-2012, 07:25 PM
I agree. And even talking about medical terms doesn't even help anyone learn how to actually hit the ball.

Also agree. These medical terms are not designed to use in such a dynamic reference,
and vary in the effect due to grips and other variances in style.

Also funny that the other poster wants to take a jab at others when he only asks goofy
questions and provides little to no insight?? :???:

dominikk1985
12-09-2012, 04:17 AM
here is a site describing the arm motion of the modern FH quite well. the motion includes both humerus IR and pronation.

http://www.revolutionarytennis.com/step8.html

(BTW I don't agree with that site regards the lower body since he doesn't seem to like rotation and the kinetic chain but he describes the arm and racket motion quite well (humerus IR, supination followed by pronation...)

julian
12-09-2012, 04:00 PM
This thread is turning to a mess due to the lack of agreement on definitions. Rather than create new definitions, we should just use the medical terms as a standard. When you lie down on your back with the palms- the forearm is in a supinated position. Supination is a verb. The shoulder is also externally rotated.

In any case, I'll just say what I feel I do. When I put my thumb down on the take back, it is mainly elbow/hand pronation, with a veeery slight ISR.
1.I have thought that "supination" is a noun.
2.I do NOT know a medical terminology

rkelley
12-09-2012, 04:40 PM
Do you know answers to questions in post #133?
I have one chocolate bar left

Hi Julian,

I'm happy to have a conversation with you. If you have some thoughts you'd like to express, the please do. If I don't agree I will as respectfully as possible attempt to state my position.

But I'm not going to play 20 questions with you and allow you to be the arbiter of what constitutes a correct or incorrect answer. I'm sorry.

rkelley
12-09-2012, 06:52 PM
I'm not doing a vector or cross product, I'm just rotating one vector about another.

Wikipedia has a nice article on the right hand rule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_hand_rule

Greg G
12-10-2012, 08:06 PM
All this technical talk has actually gotten me some useful insight into my own FH! I figured out that I sometimes have too much ISR after contact...probably residual from the older swing path. The result was I was finishing with a high elbow and the racquet pointed down. I was compensating for the early/excess supination with pronation and excess ISR. In other words 'arming it' :)

boramiNYC
12-12-2012, 04:22 PM
same thing with me. I got to examine my take back more closely again and feel like increasing pressure on the pinky heelpad in the air while lifting the elbow seems to make the swing less floppy and more weight behind the swing. and some other left hand motion.

sureshs
12-12-2012, 05:28 PM
I was watching a Vic Braden video on Youtube, and he says to get your chin to your shoulder for forehands - as a drill, put a colored dot on the shoulder and get your chin there. Apparently, it increases pre-stretching and makes for a straight arm forehand.

5263
12-12-2012, 07:14 PM
I was watching a Vic Braden video on Youtube, and he says to get your chin to your shoulder for forehands - as a drill, put a colored dot on the shoulder and get your chin there. Apparently, it increases pre-stretching and makes for a straight arm forehand.

May work as you say here, but I've always used that as a way of keeping the
head still and focused on the contact pt.

boramiNYC
12-12-2012, 07:20 PM
I was watching a Vic Braden video on Youtube, and he says to get your chin to your shoulder for forehands - as a drill, put a colored dot on the shoulder and get your chin there. Apparently, it increases pre-stretching and makes for a straight arm forehand.

but many times I find I don't need that much shoulder rotation. doing that every single time is overkill I think. but it sounds good for ball machine or just hitting session.

rkelley
12-12-2012, 08:08 PM
May work as you say here, but I've always used that as a way of keeping the
head still and focused on the contact pt.

This is so key, at least for me, especially as I've been taking bigger cuts and hitting harder in the past two years.

sureshs
12-13-2012, 06:27 AM
I think it is an overkill but it does seem to help the last time I tried it. I will try again tomorrow.

His other observation was that the center of gravity of the body moves with the racket in the forehand stroke. CG is just above the belly button in males and just below in females. If a line is drawn parallel to the racket through the belly button, it moves with it through the stroke. It also moves up into the stroke - he does not believe in the myth of always staying low.

KayFactor
12-16-2012, 05:22 PM
How much you brush across the ball diagonally determines the amount of topspin you generate.

How flat/vertical your stroke path is effects the trajectory of your shot.

To hit a flat topspin drive you brush diagonally across the ball with a flatter stroke path.

Sorry, what do you mean by "brushing?"

Francis27
12-16-2012, 05:32 PM
Sorry, what do you mean by "brushing?"

Brushing the ball upwards when you hit it to create topspin.

isilra
12-20-2012, 03:08 PM
A lot of vision broadening information here. In just half an hour, i have realized many things that i couldn't before.

5263
12-20-2012, 03:35 PM
A lot of vision broadening information here. In just half an hour, i have realized many things that i couldn't before.

That is the awesome thing about this forum!
:)

KayFactor
12-21-2012, 04:50 PM
I just realized that I have to load my left leg more (I'm a lefty) to generate spin and net clearance. Does anyone know why this works so well in adding a higher trajectory ball?

Mick3391
12-22-2012, 03:44 PM
I'm having a tough time on how the topspin drive works. Am I really suppose to swing through the ball with a diagnol swingpath? Do I continue the diagnol path immediately after the ball leaves my racket?

Practice and you'll find out what is best for you. Some hit topspin shots very deep and heavy to the baseline, others hit topspin just over the net to the line at no mans land, you need to learn it all, and that is only accomplished through right practice.

Relinquis
12-22-2012, 07:21 PM
Verdasco's forehand. Weird pov, but interesting :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9aIrPpSt8I

i love the POV. Shows you how far ahead of his body he hits the ball during his forehand.

Cheetah
12-22-2012, 07:28 PM
Doesn't the rhs on the verdasco vid look slow in the pov view? Especially on the fh. Maybe it's just me. I thought it should appear faster than that.

Relinquis
12-23-2012, 01:16 AM
i'm not sure if the frame rate of the camera settings or the fisheye lens distorts that, but the balls he hits sure are going fast!

look at the forehand "winners" he hits later in the video clip, not just the balls he feeds to start the rally; both from his POV and then from the courtside POV.

dominikk1985
12-24-2012, 03:19 PM
where is my post I made here regarding wegner? (I wrote a very constructive and civil post about what I like and don't like about his Videos)

I don't understand the mods here. sometimes they delete something for no reason and on the other Hand they allow harsh insults in the current Scene Forum. really no consistency here I think they Need to hire me:.

I really don't appreciate when I write a thoughtfull post here and the effort gets deleted for no reason. I think I can Claim that I write Quality Content and Analysis here so I don't want to waste my time with Posts that get deleted.

I admit that I sometimes do spam the current Scene Forum just because the People there are so fanatic and clueless but I really care for biomechanics and like to create toughtfull Analysis about this Topic.

rant over:D.