Teaching the Continental Grip first?

[NLBwell]

Pulled this out of a different thread but though maybe it could be it's own subject. It certainly isn't the traditional way, but wanted to get some comments from others who have taught tennis about it. Probably will get flamed upon, but thought it might be interesting.


I am beginning to believe, however, that perhaps beginners should be taught a Continental grip from the beginning - starting with the backhand volley and progressing through volleys, short balls (approach-type), backhand groundstrokes, and then finally a forehand groundstroke where there is a grip change to a SW. Don't know if any student would put up with this, since they wouldn't be able to rally with their friends until the end of the progression but it would solve a lot of problems where teaching the forehand (the only shot where you don't hit with a Continental - unless 2H BH drive) first results in the student having the wrong grip for every other shot.

Correct Strokes
FH Volley - Conti
BH Volley - Conti
Overhead - Conti
Serve - Conti
Midcourt FH - Conti (unless high ball you can drive)
Midcourt BH - Conti ( " " )
Backhand Slice - Conti
Backhand Drive - 1HBH - Conti or Eastern
Backhand Drive - 2HBH - varies, but not Conti
Forehand Drive - SemiW probably optimal but Western to Conti acceptable

This ties into the threads about Why people can not get beyond the 3.5 level no matter how much they practice. A big stumbling block is the incorrect grips most people use for most strokes. Teaching this way could also lead to a lot better capabilities for attacking tennis vs. only being able to hit from the baseline.

 

[SFrazeur]

You might find this of interest: http://www.tennisplayandstay.com/serve-rally-score/index.html See the 10 Step Rally video.

-SF

 

[Mountain Ghost]

Continental First

One BIG problem . . . it puts learning to change grips at the bottom of the development (and first-action) list, instead of near the very top, where it should be.

A better solution is to HEAVILY emphasize (and even drill) grips changes at the start, which promotes a truer reflection of what should happen during play . . . the grip changes before almost anything else happens.

I do support teaching volleys very early.

MG

 

[35ft6]

You have to make the game seem as accessible and fun right off the bat, and most people want to be able to rally from the baseline. Even they intuitively know that volleys and serves and even backhands are tougher to learn, so right off the bat you should teach forehands so they can have a bit of fun. What you're suggesting will make the game seem frustrating and maybe even boring. And I disagree with how continental for short balls, etc. Even on certain high backhand volleys, it's better to go more extreme than continental.

 

[crystal_clear]

One BIG problem . . . it puts learning to change grips at the bottom of the development (and first-action) list, instead of near the very top, where it should be.

A better solution is to HEAVILY emphasize (and even drill) grips changes at the start, which promotes a truer reflection of what should happen during play . . . the grip changes before almost anything else happens.

I do support teaching volleys very early.

MG

Very good advice~

 

[NLBwell]

You might find this of interest: http://www.tennisplayandstay.com/serve-rally-score/index.html See the 10 Step Rally video.

-SF

Pretty interesting video, but is exactly the opposite of what I am trying to do. It gets people hitting the ball with whatever grip and form they happen to try, so the will likely top out at the 3.5 level no matter how much they practice.

You have to make the game seem as accessible and fun right off the bat, and most people want to be able to rally from the baseline. Even they intuitively know that volleys and serves and even backhands are tougher to learn, so right off the bat you should teach forehands so they can have a bit of fun. What you're suggesting will make the game seem frustrating and maybe even boring. And I disagree with how continental for short balls, etc. Even on certain high backhand volleys, it's better to go more extreme than continental.

As I said, I don't know how many people would go for learning this way, where they can't really rally with their friends at the very beginning. It is teaching fun first without fundamentals that results in the bad habits I am trying to prevent.

One BIG problem . . . it puts learning to change grips at the bottom of the development (and first-action) list, instead of near the very top, where it should be.

A better solution is to HEAVILY emphasize (and even drill) grips changes at the start, which promotes a truer reflection of what should happen during play . . . the grip changes before almost anything else happens.

I do support teaching volleys very early.

MG

I do see your point here - it is an alternate way of emphasizing the correct grip for most strokes (in fact, in your case for all strokes). It is also emphasizing correct grip and form over quick fun - so you would also be accused of being boring. Of course, I don't think that's bad if you want long-term success.

 

[J011yroger]

I like the idea of starting to learn at the net, and moving back from there.

I am also in favor of teaching people to hit the ball squarely and drive it first, instead of teaching brushing up the ball and teaching topspin first.

Actually I cringe every time I hear someone say brush up, and get the urge to smack instructors that say it.

J

 

[mtommer]

Actually I cringe every time I hear someone say brush up, and get the urge to smack instructors that say it.

J

Oh sure, listen to the Jolly guy. Have you seen his strokes? Fugly I tell ya'. Everyone knows that how your strokes look is more important that how well you produce. Sure, you'd beat me 6, -12 in a set but since my forehand is prettier than your forehand you haven't a lick of good advice to impart upon the masses. You should just resign yourself to this fact and go back to playing with a broom. At least that way you could sweep all that junk you throw around on the court, off the court, so somebody else could use it.

 

[SFrazeur]

Pretty interesting video, but is exactly the opposite of what I am trying to do. It gets people hitting the ball with whatever grip and form they happen to try, so the will likely top out at the 3.5 level no matter how much they practice.

No. Hardly. It teaches the use of the continental grip in the "self-rally," it then progresses to an eastern for forehand when sending the ball forward, and so on. I would suggest looking at the video more closely. Sadly American Tennis curriculum does not show how to properly teach the self-rally.

What you are suggesting would not be conductive to retaining any real number of players. As well, what you are trying to get into is why Tennis lacks popularity in the USA and why players who try Tennis drop it quickly. . .Boring as hell and unnecessarily difficult.

Far too many instructors teach students to do little more than perfect strokes before playing. They lose interest from not having any fun. Players should be learning to rally, to play out points from day one. As they have more fun and gain interest they will want to gain better and better skills and technique.

Does that mean I think students should use whatever-the-hell grip they want whenever? No. They need to learn to use sound fundamentals. But no instructor should be boring students into leaving Tennis while keeping their strokes "sterile".

A beginner student can the have fun of rallying while practicing fundamentals with the use of quickstart 36'/60' courts and transition balls.

All new students, regardless of age, should be started out with the oversize foam balls or oversize felt balls as they travel more slowly and bounce lower allowing a student practice proper technique, to properly change grips, all awhile still having the having the fun of rallying.

-SF

 

[LeeD]

Player desire on different grips is huge. Gotta consider what they WANT to play with first, who their heros are, and how THEY hit.
If they know nothing, and are 6'4" tall or taller, conti would be a sure good first grip.
If they're short retriever people, conti not good.
If they're young and impressionable, you really gotta pay attention to the style THEY like to watch and emulate.
So NO one grip is the best to teach EVERYONE.
Why are you all so inflexible that you must standardize everything?

 

[NLBwell]

No. Hardly. It teaches the use of the continental grip in the "self-rally," it then progresses to an eastern for forehand when sending the ball forward, and so on. I would suggest looking at the video more closely. Sadly American Tennis curriculum does not show how to properly teach the self-rally.


-SF

Ok, maybe I missed it or looked at the wrong video. I do remember it looked like the instructor and maybe one of the students was using a continental, but I couldn't be sure. I'll look through all the videos.

 

[Djokovicfan4life]

You have to make the game seem as accessible and fun right off the bat, and most people want to be able to rally from the baseline. Even they intuitively know that volleys and serves and even backhands are tougher to learn, so right off the bat you should teach forehands so they can have a bit of fun. What you're suggesting will make the game seem frustrating and maybe even boring. And I disagree with how continental for short balls, etc. Even on certain high backhand volleys, it's better to go more extreme than continental.

Frustrating and boring............ sort of like struggling to change from a frying pan serve and topspin volleys for months after developing bad habits?

Just speaking from my experience with grip changes and bad habits concerning them. It isn't fun, in fact, it's excruciatingly painful to change grips once a certain technique is engrained.

NLBwell is not saying the forehand shouldn't be learned. It's when the student says "Hey, this grip feels great, let me try serves, volleys, and a pusher's one handed backhand with it" that the problems arise.

Matt

 

[tennisdad65]

depends on the 'kids' age too.

my son is 6 and he plays with Australian for everything and thats what is natural and fun for him . asking a 6 yr old to change grips is torture. The only thing I emphasized is NOT to serve with a frying pan grip.

I will teach him the eastern forehand/backhand if he is interested at a later stage.

 

[35ft6]

As I said, I don't know how many people would go for learning this way, where they can't really rally with their friends at the very beginning. It is teaching fun first without fundamentals that results in the bad habits I am trying to prevent.

Bad fundamentals isn't an intrinsic consequence of teaching a forehand first. All the people who have GREAT fundamentals weren't taught the way you're suggesting, too.

 

[Djokovicfan4life]

depends on the 'kids' age too.

my son is 6 and he plays with Australian for everything and thats what is natural and fun for him . asking a 6 yr old to change grips is torture. The only thing I emphasized is NOT to serve with a frying pan grip.

I will teach him the eastern forehand/backhand if he is interested at a later stage.

Well, the Australian grip shouldn't be too bad for him, given that the basic concept of the proper serve (i.e. pronation) is still there.

 

[35ft6]

I am also in favor of teaching people to hit the ball squarely and drive it first, instead of teaching brushing up the ball and teaching topspin first.

I'm the opposite, I teach top spin right off the bat because for some reason it seems to be easier for most people. My whole thing was to teach a forehand first from inside the service line with me dropping balls at their side, moving on to me tossing it to them from the other side.

Whatever. Lots of different ways to teach effectively, but above all, it has to be fun at the beginning because tennis is a really difficult sport when it comes down to it.

 

[35ft6]

Frustrating and boring............ sort of like struggling to change from a frying pan serve and topspin volleys for months after developing bad habits?

Very few players have perfect form. Even among the pros, guys like Nalbandian with perfect everything really stand out. Sure, improving at tennis can be frustrating and some proper techniques seem counterintuitive, but just saying that at the beginning, I think it's important it's fun and students taste success quickly. That's just me though.

 

[Djokovicfan4life]

I'm the opposite, I teach top spin right off the bat because for some reason it seems to be easier for most people. My whole thing was to teach a forehand first from inside the service line with me dropping balls at their side, moving on to me tossing it to them from the other side.

Whatever. Lots of different ways to teach effectively, but above all, it has to be fun at the beginning because tennis is a really difficult sport when it comes down to it.

Well, the problem is that some people, when introduced to terms like "brushing" and such, go all windshield wiper crazy and forget to hit through the ball, producing service line sitters that are begging to be pummeled.

 

[Djokovicfan4life]

Very few players have perfect form. Even among the pros, guys like Nalbandian with perfect everything really stand out. Sure, improving at tennis can be frustrating and some proper techniques seem counterintuitive, but just saying that at the beginning, I think it's important it's fun and students taste success quickly. That's just me though.

The problem is that "success" at lower levels turns into a crutch at the higher levels. If the point is to screw around once or twice a week and have fun with friends, then that's one thing. But in terms of proper instruction, I'd be screaming for my money back if you taught one of my kids a frying pan serve (not that you would).

Furthermore, the power of muscle memory should never be underestimated. People seem to think that they can learn something a different way, and then progress to the proper techniques when they're experienced enough to use them effectively. But in reality they are simply grooving poor habits and making changes to more "advanced" methods absolutely horrific.

David Smith's "Tennis Mastery" discusses this idea a lot more in-depth, if you're interested.

 

[NLBwell]

Bad fundamentals isn't an intrinsic consequence of teaching a forehand first. All the people who have GREAT fundamentals weren't taught the way you're suggesting, too.

I didn't mean to conflate the two (teaching FH first vs. not teaching good fundamentals). I think you inferred something that I didn't mean.
I am saying that letting students learn improper grips initially is not teaching good fundamentals. Just trying to get informed opinions on teaching Continental grip first since most types of shots are hit with that grip and the biggest barrier for many students to advance is learning the grip changes after they have played a while with improper grips.

 

[Solat]

What I do to solve this problem is how I warm up all my regular lessons, with people over about 10 or those under who are highly skilled.

We rally from the service line and they must hit with conti grip for all shots, no volleys allowed. This dictates that they learn racquet head control for direction and clean contact, power control by setting a boundary and eventually tactical awareness as we turn it into a competitive game of mini tennis.

Whilst being easy and fun they get to improve all these aspects, all it takes is the first 5 minutes of each lesson. The results often amaze me how quickly they learn the control, the fun then starts as they try to use it tactically to their advantage in the mini-tennis game.

After this warm up I will go onto whatever activities or skills we are working on. Which for all strokes except FH i get them holding conti ( i teach 2HBH with conti for dominant hand). Serves i don't mind if they are on eastern when learning the form but I will always incorporate some kind of serving activity with conti just to ensure an understanding of where we are heading.

 

[J011yroger]

I warm up that way before every practice. It is easier on my wrist, and helps get it loose, and lets me get a feel for the ball. I also finish off hard practice sessions with mini tennis games to 21.

J

 

[paulfreda]

I would teach the Cont grip but NEVER first.

No top player these days plays with it so why teach a beginner something he can not use ? Teach the Eastern or SW first.

An advanced player or beginner with good ability and committment to learn SHOULD be taught to hit with all grips including the Hawaiian as this teaches the many different ways to generate different type shots. Western teaches topspin but learning to hit flat with it is very valuable knowledge. Similarly, Eastern is naturally flat but learning to hit top with it is also useful. Swing types change. Use or lack of use of wrist/forearm changes. Ideal contact points change. Ball trajectories change. Placements in different parts of the court change. All this is invaluable. JMHO

 

[SFrazeur]

There is no damn reason for teaching the "Hawaiian" grip, please, it will not make a player more well rounded.

-SF

 

[paulfreda]

No reason to learn ??

There is no damn reason for teaching the "Hawaiian" grip, please, it will not make a player more well rounded.
-SF

You could say the same thing about the Continental for groundies.
No one uses it to my knowledge other than perhaps LeConte on the Senior tour. So why learn it if you wont hit with it ?
Learning to hit it teaches how to hit a FH late, and how to control a ball with a naturally open face.

You're right. If a student does not want to learn it he does not have to.
But learning to hit with what seems to be a nearly impossible grip will make a better hitter using a Western grip IMO.
The suppination technique is nearly identical.

And besides, hitting with a Hawaiian is loads of fun.
Don't knock it if you have not tried it.

 

[J011yroger]

You could say the same thing about the Continental for groundies.
No one uses it to my knowledge other than perhaps LeConte on the Senior tour. So why learn it if you wont hit with it ?
Learning to hit it teaches how to hit a FH late, and how to control a ball with a naturally open face.

Perhaps that is why the OP explicitly stated that he would teach the FH last because it was the only shot NOT hit with a continental grip. . .

Personally I disagree with your thought of having people learn to hit with multiple and varied FH grips. I think variety is one of the last things for a player to develop. And your thoughts of learning to hit with many different grips to promote versatility is one of those things that sounds nice in theory, but fails in practice.

I believe grip changes on groundies, volleys, and serves in order to hit certain balls in certain situations should come unconsiously.

J

 

[paulfreda]

All points well taken

 

[CoachingMastery]

I would teach the Cont grip but NEVER first.

No top player these days plays with it so why teach a beginner something he can not use ? Teach the Eastern or SW first.

An advanced player or beginner with good ability and committment to learn SHOULD be taught to hit with all grips including the Hawaiian as this teaches the many different ways to generate different type shots. Western teaches topspin but learning to hit flat with it is very valuable knowledge. Similarly, Eastern is naturally flat but learning to hit top with it is also useful. Swing types change. Use or lack of use of wrist/forearm changes. Ideal contact points change. Ball trajectories change. Placements in different parts of the court change. All this is invaluable. JMHO

I assume you mean no advanced player hits topspin groundstrokes with the continental?

Most all top players serve, volley, slice their backhands and hit overheads with a continental grip...in addition, most two-handed backhand players use a continental grip on their dominant hand on the backhand.

Typically, most beginners shun the continental grip for many reasons...and as such, have a very difficult time learning to execute the aforementioned shots that utilize the continental grip.

Understand too, that teaching beginners to learn to volley and serve first BEFORE they learn to hit full-stroked topspin shots with the eastern forehand or semi western grips, makes it far easier to learn to volley and serve well. For most players learning the topspin strokes are arguably easier to learn since most players have a natural tendency to swing. Establishing the continental grip and the proper stroke elements before they gain an affinity for full swinging or low-to-high swing patterns is easier when they have not learn or worked too heavily on these topspin strokes.

But, understand that the continental grip is a priority grip to develop your foundation from within all shots except the topspin forehand. Players can evolve this foundation over time to meet situational shots and embellish their perceptions and personal charicteristics within the game.

 

[CoachingMastery]

Perhaps that is why the OP explicitly stated that he would teach the FH last because it was the only shot NOT hit with a continental grip. . .

Personally I disagree with your thought of having people learn to hit with multiple and varied FH grips. I think variety is one of the last things for a player to develop. And your thoughts of learning to hit with many different grips to promote versatility is one of those things that sounds nice in theory, but fails in practice.

I believe grip changes on groundies, volleys, and serves in order to hit certain balls in certain situations should come unconsiously.

J

I can tell you from experience (37 years of teaching and over 3500 students), that EVERY player will develop variety within any foundation. A poor foundation usually will result in players stagnating at levels below their potential...but, even with this said, such players will evolve within a bad foundation and create personal variety and personality within their game.

You teach 100 players the exact same stroke, grip, and footwork patterns, you will see at the end of about a year or so, no two of these players will play exactly the same. Thus, it is important to learn a foundation that is based on skilled, advanced play. And then, these players will be free to embellish this foundation in ways that usually contribute to the effectiveness of the foundation.

This is why among all the pros over the years, you will see simularities while at the same time, you will see idiosyncracies that identify each and create recognizable differences in each player's game.

 

[J011yroger]

I can tell you from experience (37 years of teaching and over 3500 students), that EVERY player will develop variety within any foundation. A poor foundation usually will result in players stagnating at levels below their potential...but, even with this said, such players will evolve within a bad foundation and create personal variety and personality within their game.

You teach 100 players the exact same stroke, grip, and footwork patterns, you will see at the end of about a year or so, no two of these players will play exactly the same. Thus, it is important to learn a foundation that is based on skilled, advanced play. And then, these players will be free to embellish this foundation in ways that usually contribute to the effectiveness of the foundation.

This is why among all the pros over the years, you will see simularities while at the same time, you will see idiosyncracies that identify each and create recognizable differences in each player's game.

Ya, what I was saying was let variety develop to the degree that the player wants to develop it, trying to force feed them variety too soon will just slow developement.

J

 

[pushing_wins]

changing grips after the stroke is grooved is nearly impossible.

involves changing contact point, visualization. grip is the most fundamental element. it affects everything.

so i think this is a really bad idea

 

[rosenstar]

I would teach the Cont grip but NEVER first.

No top player these days plays with it so why teach a beginner something he can not use ? Teach the Eastern or SW first.

An advanced player or beginner with good ability and committment to learn SHOULD be taught to hit with all grips including the Hawaiian as this teaches the many different ways to generate different type shots. Western teaches topspin but learning to hit flat with it is very valuable knowledge. Similarly, Eastern is naturally flat but learning to hit top with it is also useful. Swing types change. Use or lack of use of wrist/forearm changes. Ideal contact points change. Ball trajectories change. Placements in different parts of the court change. All this is invaluable. JMHO

Actually teaching the continental grip first is how they teach tennis to kids in europe. Start with volleys, then go to two hands on each shot, then eventually drop a hand on the forehand (or both) side(s).

It's MUST easier to shift a continental to a more western grip than teaching someone with a fully developed (semi)western grip to a continental.