Originally Posted by boramiNYC
a lot of times rec players using 1hbh extend their wrist on contact as the result of locking the wrist from the prep. This opens up the racquet face at the contact. If you hold your racquet in normal E bh grip and address the contact point and make sure your wrist is not extended but either neutral or slightly flexed, then the racquet face will be closed. Once you put this angle in your muscle memory and practice you'll be able to hit as hard as you want and balls won't fly. And you'll find the neutral wrist can be much more firmer than the extended wrist.
Intuitively, the grip defines the forearm-racket head relation and should directly affect the outcome. A more extreme grip makes, ceteris paribus, for more angle at contact (for a less vertical face) as well as a more vertical swing path... And extreme grip should result, given our knowledge to a higher spin/pace ratio (closed face) and a higher ball trajectory (more vertical swing path prior contact).
The problem is that it forces us to face incoherent facts. Federer and Berdych are great example.
For the sake of your knowledge, they both pronate during their forehand transition (the forearm pronation occurs in between the take back and the the beginning of the forward acceleration of the racket) which has been identified as the optimal transition move. Being both part of this limited club, their forehands are very comparable, mechanically speaking, at least.
Federer generates a greater spin/pace ratio than Berdych, yet it's Berdych who has the most extreme grip of the two. So, a third factor OUGHT to account for the variations... the relationship between grips and strokes is indirect and I suggest that what bonds the two is the player's identity.
The player's identity would be, under this framework, a context within which the grip influences the stroke. Bearing objective biological and anatomical limitations, some grips might be better for player A and, others, for player B.