Forehand footwork

[Curious]

What happens when you move the fulcrum of the pendulum (where the cable is attached) in various directions during various moments in the swing?

I suppose you would add momentum if you moved it forward, no?

 

[Knox]

I suppose you would add momentum if you moved it forward, no?

Depends on where in the swing you move it forward. You can also add momentum by moving it backwards or even sideways. It all depends on when you doing it during the swing. It's also possible to decelerate the pendulum by moving the fulcrum at the right moment.

You can test all this yourself with a racquet swinging freely between two fingers. Try hard mode would be actually tying a string to it.

 

[Curious]

Depends on where in the swing you move it forward. You can also add momentum by moving it backwards or even sideways. It all depends on when you doing it during the swing. It's also possible to decelerate the pendulum by moving the fulcrum at the right moment.

You can test all this yourself with a racquet swinging freely between two fingers. Try hard mode would be actually tying a string to it.

Whats the practical application of all this?

 

[StringSnapper]

Coincidence. You probably think step in = attack and attack = flat so every time you step in you hit flatter. Am I wrong?

Shape and trajectory is dictated by swing path and racquet face angle. Not stance.

Possibly. Are you suggesting anything, then? to always hit off the back foot when you have time to do so?

 

[Knox]

Whats the practical application of all this?

Tennis swings aren't exact pendulums, obviously, but the same principle applies where if you accelerate the fulcrum at the right time you can also accelerate the end of the pendulum. This is how shoulder-rotation works. The shoulder is the fulcrum of the pendulum.

Do you feel it?

 

[Knox]

Possibly. Are you suggesting anything, then? to always hit off the back foot when you have time to do so?

The glutes are mostly responsible for hip extension and also aid external hip rotation. This means on an outside-leg rotationally driven forehand you are recruiting one of the strongest muscle groups in the body to deliver power. Closed and square stances that exhaust energy into torqueing the inside leg are less powerful due to the hindered rotation and more likely to cause knee injury. Lifting off the ground with a little hop is actually much safer than planting the leg and absorbing all the rotation.

External rotation hip rotation and lift off the outside leg is the most potent (and probably the safest) way to deliver power into the ball on the forehand.

 

[StringSnapper]

The glutes are mostly responsible for hip extension and also aid external hip rotation. This means on an outside-leg rotationally driven forehand you are recruiting one of the strongest muscle groups in the body to deliver power. Closed and square stances that exhaust energy into torqueing the inside leg are less powerful due to the hindered rotation and more likely to cause knee injury. Lifting off the ground with a little hop is actually much safer than planting the leg and absorbing all the rotation.

Very interesting. I will try a neutral stance hop off the front foot next time I play! My right hip has been hurting for a few weeks now (i play left handed, so my right hip is a neutral stance forehand which i mostly hit before), perhaps the hop will help. I think hitting from the back leg (outside leg) has helped a lot, it didn't hurt much at all from playing last time.

External rotation hip rotation and lift off the outside leg is the most potent (and probably the safest) way to deliver power into the ball on the forehand.

What about the backhand? i use a 1 hander. I have trouble hitting cross court off the front foot using the 1 hander, but i hit DTL very well. I was finding it much easier to hit CC off the back foot last time i played, produced a much loopier ball too.

 

[Knox]

Very interesting. I will try a neutral stance hop off the front foot next time I play! My right hip has been hurting for a few weeks now (i play left handed, so my right hip is a neutral stance forehand which i mostly hit before), perhaps the hop will help. I think hitting from the back leg (outside leg) has helped a lot, it didn't hurt much at all from playing last time.




What about the backhand? i use a 1 hander. I have trouble hitting cross court off the front foot using the 1 hander, but i hit DTL very well. I was finding it much easier to hit CC off the back foot last time i played, produced a much loopier ball too.

It's definitely possible to hit a one-handed backhand off the back leg and utilize many of the same principles, although if I had to guess I'd say it's not as effective as pushing off the front leg. That being said it's definitely good to know how to do it off the back leg in emergencies.

You actually step in then push away from the shot on the 1hbh, pushing up and rotating with your front leg.

If you're trying to step in and put your bodyweight through the shot that could be why you're having 1hbh problems, you have to step in and then push back in synchronization with your swing.

 

[StringSnapper]

It's definitely possible to hit a one-handed backhand off the back leg and utilize many of the same principles, although if I had to guess I'd say it's not as effective as pushing off the front leg. That being said it's definitely good to know how to do it off the back leg in emergencies.

You actually step in then push away from the shot on the 1hbh, pushing up and rotating with your front leg.

If you're trying to step in and put your bodyweight through the shot that could be why you're having 1hbh problems, you have to step in and then push back in synchronization with your swing.

Yeah watching Stan play, he rarely hits off the back foot.

Thiem was doing it a bit at RG this year, and he was hitting massive loopy topspin off his backhand sometimes.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

Why do we want to stay sideways with the 1foot hop? Do you think this is just if we're super close to the net i.e. service line ot closer. or would you use this if u made contact in the back half of the court too?

for me, because i've already made the decision that the shot i'm making is a transition/approach shot...
so i'm typically taking a shorter backswing, relying on on precision, vs. power, with the intent to finish at the net
for me, staying sideways let's me keep the racquet path in the hitting zone, and allow a speedier transition to net.

if it were an above the net sitter, i'd stop and take a full stroke like i would at the baseline

 

[Deleted member 23235]

@nytennisaddict @Knox
Nyta ill answer for you just because i want to see where this goes.

Knox i think the purpose of forward weight transfer is to hit a more aggressive ball. Aggressive horizontally, in that its faster and flatter through the court. Often a winner or to cause a timing error from the opponent, or to set up a volley. Is this correct to you?

Also is the point you're trying to make that it isnt always the best idea to get forward weight transfer into the ball (that nyta seemed to imply it was)?

I feel like the simple basic tip of my man @ByeByePoly to hit off the back foot behind the baseline, and the front foot inside the baseline, makes sense in many ways. First off, i just want to give credit to how much of a genius this guy is. Hats off to you good sir.

But yes, lets look at this scenario: if im behind the baseline and unload a massive flat fast weight transfer forehand dtl there are a few things to note:
1. I will have much greater chance of hitting an error, as this flatter shot is less forgiving at least for me.
2. Even if my ball goes in, my opponent is also waiting at the baseline and ready to rally, they are very very likely to get to the ball.
3. If i hit a bullet and they get to it, theres every chance they will be able to redirect my pace for a winner against me while taking much less risk themselves, or at least make life difficult for me.

Ok another scenario:
Im behind the baseline and go to hit a fh off my backfoot (or one foot pivot). This seems to be the shot of choice for most atp players in this situation. It allows more forgiving timing, hitting on the rise, greater spin, and i would say a "heavier" more powerful ball. It doesnt allow for as much flatness and speed though. But perhaps that only wins matches if saved for oppourtune moments.
1. I will have very little chance of hitting an error. I just need to focus on getting it deep, a miss hit here will cause a short ball for my opponent, but i wont lose the point instantly.
2. If my ball goes in deep, theres every chance my opponent will return it too. However depth with spin means they will probably either back up deep in the court causing them to run and tire, and open angles for me to hit into. Or they hit it on the rise, hopefully bleeding some errors as the match goes on.
3. I thin theres a large chance they will struggle with the spin, hitting a short ball to me. Great chnce for me to come in and hit a weight transfer fh off the front foot to send a demoralising bullet past them, claiming the point with skill and patience


What do you think guys??

to me, weight xfer is about getting my skeletal structure aligned behind the shot, to allow a full transmission of energy from the ground up through my kinetic chain.
if you had to choose between someone punching you the face with a full/proper weight xfer, vs. "off their back foot" which would you choose.

the weight xfer, has nothing to do with whether i'm hitting an aggressive shot or not (interpretting what you mean as a "forcing shot", or "bigger than normal shot"). in general i'm always agressively attacking my contact point, even on neutral and defensive shots. having my skeletal structure aligned behind the shot/contact, will always make my overall stroke easier/consistent

in general, in a perfect world, when i have all the time i need... i'll probably always ttake a neutral or semi open stance, with full weight xfer into the ball. but since my opponent often has a say in how much time i have to hit the ball, i have to incorporate other footwork patterns, to be able to keep my skeletal structure behind the contact, as best as i can (despite the time my opponent is taking away from me).

 

[Deleted member 23235]

1.) OP liked the suggestion I made, disproving your claim that I haven't helped.

2.) I get that you've probably been out of school for a while and intellectual integrity is not the cultural norm here, but seriously, have some courage. Back up your claims. Ad homenim attacks, character assassination attempts, deflection and avoidance, from a grown man? You shouldn't need a 23 year old to remind you about this stuff.

and folks on ttw, post stuff to try to help others... rather than conduct quizzes.

 

[IowaGuy]

hahaha ... I am on a hot streak. I just won $4 on my Powerball lottery ticket and now I'm a genius. I should hop a plane to Vegas.

 

[ByeByePoly]

That dude is going to need some sunblock if his hot streak continues.

 

[Knox]

to me, weight xfer is about getting my skeletal structure aligned behind the shot, to allow a full transmission of energy from the ground up through my kinetic chain.
if you had to choose between someone punching you the face with a full/proper weight xfer, vs. "off their back foot" which would you choose.

Is there any research that supports your claim that 'weight transfer allows full transmission of energy'?

I'm not formally trained in Kinesiology, but I've done a fair bit of reading and research, and all my sources indicate that the open stance rotationally driven shot is far more powerful. It has to do with skeletal geometry and the hip rotation multiplier. This coincides with what I see at the pro level which is pretty much every pro hitting their most powerful shots by lifting and rotating off the back leg, rather than stepping in and 'transferring weight'.


"if you had to choose between someone punching you the face with a full/proper weight xfer, vs. "off their back foot" which would you choose."

I would definitely choose the linear 'weight transfer' shot. All the most powerful punchers do their most powerful punches open-stance style, generating huge power with using the legs and hips to explosively rotate their upper body.

Check out this legendary knockout by the hardest puncher on the planet, Frances Ngannou (skip to 2:00):

It's rotationally driven, off the outside leg. Rotation > weight transfer.

Have you learned about the hip rotation multiplier? That's the primary reason why rotation is more powerful than weight transfer.

"and folks on ttw, post stuff to try to help others... rather than conduct quizzes. "

I'm quizzing you so I can help you.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

Is there any research that supports your claim that 'weight transfer allows full transmission of energy'?

I'm not formally trained in Kinesiology, but I've done a fair bit of reading and research, and all my sources indicate that the open stance rotationally driven shot is far more powerful. It has to do with skeletal geometry and the hip rotation multiplier. This coincides with what I see at the pro level which is pretty much every pro hitting their most powerful shots by lifting and rotating off the back leg, rather than stepping in and 'transferring weight'.


"if you had to choose between someone punching you the face with a full/proper weight xfer, vs. "off their back foot" which would you choose."

I would definitely choose the linear 'weight transfer' shot. All the most powerful punchers do their most powerful punches open-stance style, generating huge power with using the legs and hips to explosively rotate their upper body.

Check out this legendary knockout by the hardest puncher on the planet, Frances Ngannou (skip to 2:00):

It's rotationally driven, off the outside leg. Rotation > weight transfer.

Have you learned about the hip rotation multiplier? That's the primary reason why rotation is more powerful than weight transfer.

"and folks on ttw, post stuff to try to help others... rather than conduct quizzes. "

I'm quizzing you so I can help you.

why does weight xfer have to be separate from rotational power?
whenever i throw a punch, there is rotation & weight xfer... at minimum from rear foot to front foot

i think you thought, that by "weight xfer" that i was referring to the old school "step into contact" type of weight xfer... which is not what i was referring to.

if you want to help me or anyone, that's great... then state your ideas, and let's discuss and debate. keep the quizzing to yourself.

 

[Knox]

why does weight xfer have to be separate from rotational power?
whenever i throw a punch, there is rotation & weight xfer... at minimum from rear foot to front foot

i think you thought, that by "weight xfer" that i was referring to the old school "step into contact" type of weight xfer... which is not what i was referring to.

if you want to help me or anyone, that's great... then state your ideas, and let's discuss and debate. keep the quizzing to yourself.

My main beef with the term 'weight transfer' is that it implies weight is being transferred into the ball, which is just not how physics works.

Transferring your weight forward or to the side for court position? I can totally get behind that. But at that point why not just call it recovery?

Transferring your weight into the ball for power? No. Just no.

It's worth noting that this entire engagement would have gone a lot more smoothly if you hadn't choked on my question and just answered forthrightly.

If I'm going to discuss ideas with you I've first gotta figure out where you're at in your understanding. That's like the whole purpose of asking questions. How can I help you if I don't know where you're at? If you've got a problem with people asking you questions... well... all I can say is that's your problem. Really.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

My main beef with the term 'weight transfer' is that it implies weight is being transferred into the ball, which is just not how physics works.

Transferring your weight forward or to the side for court position? I can totally get behind that. But at that point why not just call it recovery?

Transferring your weight into the ball for power? No. Just no.

i do martial arts (muy thai, jkd, bjj, fma/silat), so think alot about body mechanics
and when i throw a punch or kick their is always some sort of body weight xfer... whether it's rear leg to front leg (typical rotational) or linear (eg. jab, front kick, knee, etc...)
and it's not a "recovery", it's part of the movement... if anything the "recovery" part is say, after throwing a cross, then pivoting out to the side
in tennis, the fh, to me, is a weight xfer from rear to front foot,... and the recovery is if the rear foot comes around

the idea of "xfer wieght into the ball" works for volleys, but not groundies... the weight xfer from rear to front foot, IMO, is a better way to describe it for groundies.

but in general i do agree that throwing around the term "weight xfer" could be misleading, especially for folks (like i used about 15y ago), have a mental model of "stepping into contact".

It's worth noting that this entire engagement would have gone a lot more smoothly if you hadn't choked on my question and just answered forthrightly.

possibly, or you could have just said, "this is what i think about 'weight xfer'" - and i probably would have 'liked' your post.

If I'm going to discuss ideas with you I've first gotta figure out where you're at in your understanding. That's like the whole purpose of asking questions. How can I help you if I don't know where you're at? If you've got a problem with people asking you questions... well... all I can say is that's your problem. Really.

personally, on here, i just state my mental model...
some people agree. great
some people learn something knew. great.
some people don't get it, and they ask questions... i'll delve deeper (ie. hey you said X, but it conflicts with my mental model Y...)
some people don't get it, and say nothing... oh well.
some people disagree... sometimes, I'll learn something new...
some people disagree... sometimes, we'll just agree to disagree (eg. 360 serves, pomo, absorbing the ball, etc...)

but i'm not going around quizzing people on what they know.[/quote]

 

[Knox]

the idea of "xfer wieght into the ball" works for volleys

Nope.

There is nothing you can do with your body to increase the mass of the racquet. Weight transfer into the ball is a myth on all fronts.

 

[atp2015]

Stepping in does not add power or change the trajectory. 'Weight transfer into the ball for power' is a myth. Physics doesn't work that way.

In other words, no matter what you do with your body you cannot change the mass of the racquet. You can't 'add your weight' to the racquet. Physically impossible.

Whichever stance you're using, the power from the legs is in lift and rotation, not forward weight transfer.

Sure, you can't add weight but the racket can be pushed or pulled with more force if the body is acting on the racket.
The ball exerts pressure on the racket in the opposite direction. If the body is pushing(or pulling) the racket forward, the 'damage' the ball can cause on the racket has to be less. There's less ricochet effect on the racket and cleaner ( i.e., powerful) contact with the ball.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

Nope.

There is nothing you can do with your body to increase the mass of the racquet. Weight transfer into the ball is a myth on all fronts.

my best volleys, at contact, happen when my front foot is still in the air.
let's me keep my swing short, and focused on controlling direction...
what do you call that?

and this is the main "beef" i have with your style of dialog...
"nope... it's a myth"... yet you don't go on to explain what you mean, and why i'm wrong.
basically you're more interested in putting down ideas/descriptions/explanations, without offering a better one in return
i'd have fired you in my organization because you're just being negative, as opposed to contributing to the solution (ie. in this case, improving people's mental model's of how to play tennis).

 

[Knox]

Sure, you can't add weight but the racket can be pushed or pulled with more force if the body is acting on the racket.
The ball exerts pressure on the racket in the opposite direction. If the body is pushing(or pulling) the racket forward, the 'damage' the ball can cause on the racket has to be less. There's less ricochet effect on the racket and cleaner ( i.e., powerful) contact with the ball.

Velocity of the racquet at contact is all that matters. Stepping in doesn't add as much velocity to the swing as other methods. In fact stepping away from the shot unintuitively generates massive acceleration.

 

[Knox]

my best volleys, at contact, happen when my front foot is still in the air.
let's me keep my swing short, and focused on controlling direction...
what do you call that?

and this is the main "beef" i have with your style of dialog...
"nope... it's a myth"... yet you don't go on to explain what you mean, and why i'm wrong.
basically you're more interested in putting down ideas/descriptions/explanations, without offering a better one in return
i'd have fired you in my organization because you're just being negative, as opposed to contributing to the solution (ie. in this case, improving people's mental model's of how to play tennis).

You probably haven't tested other methods of volleying, and have probably stuck with whatever your favorite coach taught you. You think your singular piece of anecdotal evidence is enough to support an entire claim. What do you call that? Can you provide a biomechanical explanation as to how stepping in on volleys influences the length of your swing and the angle of your racquet face?

I have already explained numerous times why stepping in is a myth. I have provided ways for you to test it yourself, I have provided you references to scientific experiments that support my claims, I have explained what the valid alternative is on multiple occassions just in this thread. Yet you say I'm being negative and not contributing...

What I think is really going on here is that I've threatened your sense of self importance. That was pretty clear from the beginning when you started attacking my maturity rather than actually discussing tennis.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

You probably haven't tested other methods of volleying, and have probably stuck with whatever your favorite coach taught you. You think your singular piece of anecdotal evidence is enough to support an entire claim. What do you call that?

i call that my current mental model until something better comes along... so what is your suggestion for a better way to volley?

I have already explained numerous times why stepping in is a myth. I have provided ways for you to test it yourself, I have provided you references to scientific experiments that support my claims, I have explained what the valid alternative is. Yet you say I'm being negative and not contributing...

What I think is really going on here is that I've threatened your sense of self importance. That was pretty clear from the beginning when you started attacking my maturity rather than actually discussing tennis.

great, thx for the help...
i'm just a crappy rec player looking for some help... clearly i'm not gonna find any from you. thx professor.[/QUOTE]

 

[atp2015]

Velocity of the racquet at contact is all that matters. Stepping in doesn't add as much velocity to the swing as other methods. In fact stepping away from the shot unintuitively generates massive acceleration.

"stepping away from the shot unintuitively generates massive acceleration"?? sure, stepping away generates massive and possibly uncontrolled acceleration - but in some direction you may not want.
Hey, great work sucking in a few folks on this forum into your trolling exercise!

 

[atp2015]

i call that my current mental model until something better comes along... so what is your suggestion for a better way to volley?

great, thx for the help...
i'm just a crappy rec player looking for some help... clearly i'm not gonna find any from you. thx professor.

[/QUOTE]

He is taking people for a fun ride for sure. Knox gets the Sacha Baron Cohen award of the month.

 

[Knox]

so what is your suggestion for a better way to volley?

Let your hands do the talking. Hands are independent from the feet, and the feet work astonishingly well when freed from choreography and granted autonomy.

In other words, your feet have nothing to do with the swing path or racquet angle of your volleys. It's all in the hands. This frees up lots of mental RAM in my experience.

 

[Knox]

"stepping away from the shot unintuitively generates massive acceleration"?? sure, stepping away generates massive and possibly uncontrolled acceleration - but in some direction you may not want.
Hey, great work sucking in a few folks on this forum into your trolling exercise!

I'm not trolling. I've been studying pro level techniques since I was a boy. I'm a certified coach. I practice this and teach it to all my players. My players have tournament victories.

You can see what I'm talking about easily demonstrated in Federer forehand. Notice on many of his shots he shifts from right to left rather than forward to backward? Stepping away from the shot.That's what I'm talking about.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

He is taking people for a fun ride for sure. Knox gets the Sacha Baron Cohen award of the month.

sigh, i got sucked in... thx for shocking me back to reality.

 

[Knox]

sigh, i got sucked in... thx for shocking me back to reality.

You mean back to your fake-believe fantasyland where asking for evidence is negativity and the laws of physics don't matter? Yeah, I too think you're better suited to that realm.

 

[atp2015]

I'm not trolling. I've been studying pro level techniques since I was a boy. I'm a certified coach. I practice this and teach it to all my players. My players have tournament victories.

You can see what I'm talking about easily demonstrated in Federer forehand. Notice on many of his shots he shifts from right to left rather than forward to backward? Stepping away from the shot.That's what I'm talking about.

No "boy" has ever understood what Fed does - he is a super human athlete and a freak of nature - and one in many many million players in the last 200 years. Even if he did that occasionally, it does not change a thing for anyone else.
Here's a proposal for you - someone hit a lotto jackpot worth $500 million. Why don't you buy a million lottery tickets to increase your chances?

 

[Knox]

No "boy" has ever understood what Fed does - he is a super human athlete and a freak of nature - and one in many many million players in the last 200 years. Even if he did that occasionally, it does not change a thing for anyone else.
Here's a proposal for you - someone hit a lotto jackpot worth $500 million. Why don't you buy a million lottery tickets to increase your chances?

I mean, if kinesiology textbooks terrify you I'd understand why you'd think Federers forehand is unfathomable. But the fact is that the Federer forehand is not magic. It's operating within the same laws of physics as everyone else.

 

[atp2015]

I mean, if kinesiology textbooks terrify you I'd understand why you'd think Federers forehand is unfathomable. But the fact is that the Federer forehand is not magic. It's operating within the same laws of physics as everyone else.

Agreed, kinesiology textbooks could terrify me and many others. I think we can have more fun talking about winning lottery - think mega millions! Or you should study Sacha Baron Cohen some more.

 

[Knox]

Agreed, kinesiology textbooks could terrify me and many others. I think we can have more fun talking about winning lottery - think mega millions! Or you should study Sacha Baron Cohen some more.

One of the markers of a troll is attempts to derail the conversation.

This is the tennis forum.

Try the gamblers anonymous website.

 

[atp2015]

This is the tennis forum.

Sure, this is THE forum for tennis. I'm glad you realize it. Now let's get back to stepping way from forehand shot ( I mean stepping away from non-trolling)

 

[jch]

What about the scenario where the racquet is at the end of a pendulum? Think tennis racquet grandfather clock. What happens when you move the fulcrum of the pendulum (where the cable is attached) in various directions during various moments in the swing?

That's why I want to give inertial tennis to everyone. It would be very interesting to watch, what you can do with it

BTW. You can change the effective mass of the racquet - if you change the relative velocity between the racquet head and the ball. If the dwell time is 3 ms, you can't decrease the effective mass this way anymore. That's my HYPOTHESIS.

 

[Knox]

That's why I want to give inertial tennis to everyone. It would be very interesting to watch, what you can do with it

BTW. You can change the effective mass of the racquet - if you change the relative velocity between the racquet head and the ball. If the dwell time is 3 ms, you can't decrease the effective mass this way anymore. That's my HYPOTHESIS.

Do you have a progression system for developing inertial strokes?

 

[Knox]

That's why I want to give inertial tennis to everyone. It would be very interesting to watch, what you can do with it

BTW. You can change the effective mass of the racquet - if you change the relative velocity between the racquet head and the ball. If the dwell time is 3 ms, you can't decrease the effective mass this way anymore. That's my HYPOTHESIS.

Effective mass changes based on how deeply into the stringed the ball penetrates... That makes sense.

 

[Knox]

Sure, this is THE forum for tennis. I'm glad you realize it. Now let's get back to stepping way from forehand shot ( I mean stepping away from non-trolling)

Do you have any questions?

 

[jch]

Do you have a progression system for developing inertial strokes?

No. I have my own experience, I also helped a few of my friends to introduce some inertial techniques into their tennis. Other people should create the teaching methodology of IT, I do not want to do that. There is a lot of work to do here and I think many people will have a lot of fun and a lot of satisfaction.

Effective mass changes based on how deeply into the stringed the ball penetrates... That makes sense.

This is not so easy. In my opinion, physics is much more complicated here, we work in the area where physical phenomena transform between elastic and non-elastic regimes.

 

[Knox]

No. I have my own experience, I also helped a few of my friends to introduce some inertial techniques into their tennis. Other people should create the teaching methodology of IT, I do not want to do that. There is a lot of work to do here and I think many people will have a lot of fun and a lot of satisfaction.



This is not so easy. In my opinion, physics is much more complicated here, we work in the area where physical phenomena transform between elastic and non-elastic regimes.

I am very seriously interested in developing a progression system for Inertial Tennis. I have seen your development and I'm impressed. I think you and I have converged on a lot of the same conclusions regarding technique.

Can you point to me to resources where I can develop a comprehensive understanding of the IT fundamentals?

 

[ByeByePoly]

Some thoughts on closed 2hbh weight transfer strokes:

We (or at least pros) hit more than one type. Sometimes it's just getting weight up on front foot, sometimes it's a long stride like Zverev. I bet if we looked long enough, we would find some leaning back like a baseball batter.

The common elements are 1) weight bearing on front leg 2) rotating around front hip. Add to that if you like.

To me when I think "weight transfer momentum assist" from a weight transfer 2hbh, I don't think body weight momentum at the hands. I think body momentum delivered to the shoulders/arms/triangle pendulum. Repeating myself yet again ... we have 20+ lbs of arm triangle being set in motion and then delivered to contact. Our "physics guys" can fancy that up ... but that is something we all can see without beeing a geeky math/science major (says the ex-software guy ).

So many 2hbhs clearly do not give a momentum assist to that arm triangle. Simply get weight on front leg/foot, then use front leg as an anchor for the stroke.

Are there 2hbhs where the weight transfer does factor in the final rhs?

Exhibit young Zverev:

Start watching @00:43. I see his long stride providing initial momentum assist ... arm triangle at rest {physics yada yada} to an arm triangle in motion.

 

[atp2015]

Do you have any questions?

I did and you answered them to perfection.