Originally Posted by wihamilton
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.)
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.