Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Steven87, Jul 19, 2006.
Lets Get It Oooon
00's: Roger Federer - incredible racquet head speed and control. He can vary the spins, generate pace, create sick angles, and hit with precision.
90's: Andre Agassi - revolutionized the game with his hitting on-the-rise. Nothing but "a haircut and a forehand" according to Ivan Lendl.
80's: Ivan Lendl - ushered in the power game with his lethal forehand, esp. on the run.
70's: Bjorn Borg - started the extreme western grip trend, I think. Incredible spin and passing shots, even with them woody racquets.
I lean towards Agassi as having the biggest forehand of all time.
On the women's side, Hingis has the biggest forehead of all time.
It´s funny, I never considered Agassi´s forehand as great, let alone one of the best.
I have always thought his backhand was a better and safer shot, myself.
Ivan Lendl is a snob, he has no right to judge players that way.
Steffi Graf. Her ability to hit the forehand late and generate extra power inspired a generation of players (like me).
Men's . . . Federer . . . so much variety. I like Nadal's as well for it's ridiculous amount of spin. Sampras' on-the-run forehand was good (but both Nadal AND Federer have better on-the-run shots).
So yeah, my answer again was Federer for men. Steffi by a LONG shot for women. In fact, the women's game seems to be dominated by backhands lately. The Williams' sisters, Hingis, Clijsters, Henin-Harden, Sharapova . . . all have extremely consistent backhands . . . and forehands that can at time dominate but at other times can hit five straight errors. Seems like a strange trend in women's tennis.
Sampras' on-the-run forehand was good (but both Nadal AND Federer have better on-the-run shots).
Moya & Federer................
And I think Samps running forehand had more power and winner capability than feds against baseliners, but I don't know about when people were at the net, because fed can pass anyone on the run.
I prefer not to mention Nadal's name. He is a lefty, so he doesn't count
There have been many players with formidable forehands: Federer, Sampras, Lendl, Borg, Laver in modern times; Hoad, Kramer, Budge, Vines, Tilden before them. Some cite Fred Perry's unorthodox "table tennis" forehand as the most effective of its era, if not of all time. Kramer himself called Pancho Segura's two-handed forehand the single greatest shot in the history of tennis.
graf does in women's, cant argue
men's---agassi circa early 90's. everyone wanted that inside out. woot
I agree with you. But the best of all time: Ivan Lendl. For woman : Steffi Graf.
Federer probably has the best forehand I've seen. Seems like he almost never has to use it defensively. It's unbelievable reliable considering how difficult some of his offensive shots are, offensive shots which would be considered pretty risky coming off the racket of a less gifted ball striker.
Agassi and Courier for their big power hits and Federer's got the most versatile and best-looking forehand of all time.
My vote goes to Federer for an overall forehand, though I do think Sampras' running forehand was the best of that variety.
Everyone mentioned had a great forehand but the question posed concerns the single best forehand in history. That honor must be bestowed upon Roger Federer.
ivan lendll...that guy is one powerful dude
Federer has the best forehand ever. He has the power and variety on his forehand side.
federers forhand is simply unmatched....in my opinion...the only one who can beat fed in a forhand battle is nadal...fed just puts way to much spin, power,and accuracy into his shot
I'd say Federer has the best forehand of all-time.
A little early to say, but Fed said Nadal's was the hardest shot in tennis to read. It's a different shot than what we think of as a great forehand, though. I always thought Courier. He won matches with almost just his forehand sometimes.
Of this generation, I think Federer for right-handers and Nadal for left-handers.
Oldtimers say Bill Johnstons western grip forehand was a killer. Perry modelled his after Cochet with hitting early. Vines' swinging forehand was a classic. Segura's doublehander was tough to read. Lendl was the great influcence for the modern game: dominant forehand with inside out hitting.
any1 hoo says he defensive get lost
Nadal = heavy topspin + high percentage + very hard to read
Fed = variety + power + accuracy
choose one ? I'll go with Federer. His forehand looks more beautiful.
Best of the modern era (with the modern rackets) is Federer (for variety+power+spin blend).
I won't go into debates about great players from the past using woodies ...because they are not comparable really.
I can't understand people who say Agassi's FH was HUGE...very big ...etc because it WASN'T/ ISN'T.
Sampras had a far bigger forehand (I would have chosen him but he doesn't have Fed's variety/spins).
If anything...if you want to take a "Agassi type player" who was hitting the ball harder ...take Kafelnikov ^^.
Agassi was winning with well timed early taken balls and directional control ...not raw POWER !
It WAS huge. When he came on the scene McEnroe said nobody had ever hit the ball that hard at him, and this from a guy who got beaned by Lendl a few times. Back when he broke out, he was the hardest hitter in the game. Maybe Becker could occasionally unload one off the forehand side harder than anything Agassi could produce, but on a shot by shot basis, off BOTH sides, Agassi was a new type of player in how hard he hit EVERY shot. People forget that Agassi used to be a more talented version of Gonzo, that he really toned down his game in the past 10 years. But with that said, most knowledgeable people agree that Agassi's backhand is his true money shot.
Enqvist is right up there!
I agree that Agassi`s forehand was huge but that his backhand was even better then his forehand.
Sampras, Federer, Nadal, have the three best forehands I have seen in the last 15 years in no particular order. That is not counting Lendl who was at the end of his career then of course.
I'm surprised !Tym hasn't chimed in with Berrusategi [sic?].
Berasategui had a great forehand too most of all on clay, but also quite good on hard courts. He hit it with the strangest grip I have ever seen though. He was funny to watch.
I don't think I've ever seen better overall forehand than Federer's in about
20 years of following professional tennis although his running forehand
is surprisingly mediocre in terms of Federer's standard.
But in terms of overall accuracy, variety and power, it is unreal weapon.
Laver had a wicked forehand, but alas many have never seen it. Lendl's and Federer's are probably the best in modern times. I think they're tied. Courier honorable mention.
Agreed with those who said Agassi's backhand is better than his forehand. I dare anyone to go backhand to backhand with Andre in his prime.
And I'm surprised no one here mentioned 2003 Roddick's FH. Gotta give him credit.
Nadal's forehand is good on the clay surface, but doesnt excel on other courts. The reason why he can still play well on any surface is because of his energy, will, and mental stability.
He has a wild forehand that if most people tried to mimic, they would hurt their wrists, and not long from now, when nadal begins to age, his wrist wont be able to take the extreme action he puts on it.
Hehe Right on Mark! Enqvist had a badass forehand.
i disagree with people who say agassi's backhand was better than in his forehand (though both were very good). agassi's backhand gets a lot of respect b/c it's better than virtually everyone else's backhand and that's why he almost always wins backhand to backhand rallies. he also hits the down the line backhand very well. however, i still say his forehand is his money shot, especially his inside out forehand which he took to a new level (from where lendl left off). his forehand has more pace and i think it's more consistent, since i've seen agassi really off on his backhand from time to time, resulting in a lot of misshits when he's not in position.
el aynaoui had one hell of a forehand.
I'm pretty sure Gilbert AND Agassi have both said that his backhand is "better." By "money" I mean it's sort of the foundation of his game. You're right, his forehand is probably bigger and more of a pre-emptive weapon, but almost everybody's forehand these days is a weapon. It's almost a given that a top 100 pro has a big serve and forehand.
Same thing applies to me, my forehand is more of a weapon, but my slice backhand is my money shot. It's always there. It does most of the work so that my forehand can deliver the knockout blow. Ugh.
rafael nadal forehand...
Lendl would just camp on the left side of the baseline and whack forehands all day. His and Federers are the best.
Roddick is too tight with his forehand. Sure there's a lot of action but he doesn't utilize physics as well as he does with his serve.
Safin's forehand ain't too shabby. Haven't heard anyone mention his.
I'm too young to have seen Lendl play, so I can't vouch for him. But among certain grips, I would have to say...
Continental: Graf (she started the abbreviated follow-thru)
Eastern: Sampras (unexpected winners off the run)
SW: Federer (gorgeous - nuff said)
Western: Nadal (so much action on the ball)
Hawaiian: Berasategui (nice to watch something that different)
I felt Agassi's backhand, which was more consistent, was better than his forehand.
Ford of britain specifications
i think forehands these days are better because of the technology. look at blake's forehand, that thing is awsome,, federer's is unbelievable as well. but people these days roll there wrist over, and with that it is much easier to get those angles, and winners from awkward positions. so to compare forehands, as well as talent from different era's is just pretty much a waste of time.
also agassi has a great backhand, but in no way shape or form is it better than his forehand. his backhand sets up his forehand. he even thinks his forehand is his weapon. well atleast from this video i saw of him, he said that lol,, but this was back in 91 i think lol.
Agassi's forehand was huge, but I would say Courier's forehand was even bigger.
Agassi's forehand was like a pistol, extremely flashy, fast, and usually hit on the rise. But Courier's forehand was like a cannon. He could hold it till the last moment, and once he fired the forehand, it simply blew away his opponent. You could in fact hear it "thunder" (I am telling you from experience when I watched him play at a tournament held at UCLA). Not many people could come up with a good reply against his forehand.
In a way, I feel that Agassi's forehand lost some of its juice when he began to take the "Winning-Ugly" approach to the game. He switched to a consistent, meat-and-potato way to breaking down his opponents.
While he won a whole lot more matches using this method, he stopped hitting those huge forehands. Over time, I think this caused his forehand to slow down somewhat.
Like I said before ...Kafelnikov .
Might have been a pistol vs a cannon like you say (I don't agree ...but that's just me), but Agassi's FH is an example you can give to kids on how to play the game (so are Sampras', Federer's, Graf's and a number of other people mentioned here). Courier's, Berasategui's or Rodick's are NOT ! They are the kind of forehands that just worked for THEM (Rodick's less than the other two ) ...but you wouldn't want your son to use their technique (or lack of technique if I may say so).
Separate names with a comma.