Wrist snap question

[SystemicAnomaly]

Originally Posted by tennis_balla

Terms are useless in tennis without proper knowledge, feeling and a correct visual understanding of the stroke. The brain learns better and faster visually anyways.

The term snapping the wrist can have 100's of different meanings to each individual because they fill in the blanks on their own according to their knowledge. The term wrist snap is harmless because its just a term, just words. The harm comes from people not understanding whats actually going on. I can teach someone the serve and use the term wrist snap and there is nothing wrong with it. In fact growing up I remember countless coaches using this term, including ones I was taught by. What they did do which is key is show and explain to me the proper way to hit the serve. The fact that they used a term like wrist snap is insignificant.

The term can still be harmful even if a coach shows you what they mean. The problem arises when a student who has been told to "snap the wrist" will turn around an tell others that they must snap their wrist for more power. However, their suggestion will often not be accompanied by the proper instruction. This happen quite a bit -- I've heard it thousands of times from various players for both tennis and badminton. This is where the harm comes in.

After a while, "snap the wrist" just becomes a mantra -- a mantra that many do not really understand. Some players that repeat the mantra have the proper mechanics while others who repeat it, do not.

[bhupaes]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDJJS3d2N1c

Excellent video! This has the best illustration of timing the backswing off the bounce that I've seen. IMO, the importance of this (a matter of heavy dispute here, as you know ) cannot be overemphasized. The various positions of the racquet and hand are shown with superb clarity, illustrating how lag happens, and how the racquet is pulled. Some details regarding arm and wrist action after the forward swing starts are not discussed, but we've discussed them ad infinitum and should be able to recognize them in the video.

Thanks for posting this, Cheetah.

[toly]

Originally Posted by sureshs

That is why I said it is almost impossible to keep the wrist laid back and pronate the forearm. The wrist will rollover by itself.

Sorry, but I think your statement is incorrect.

Let’s analyze Federer straight arm forehand. FH with bend elbow is more difficult for explanation.

When Federer rotates the arm around shoulder, he creates centrifugal force which has normal component to the racquet string plane. This force normal component (motion dependent torque) automatically rotates the racquet about the wrist in counterclockwise direction, see Rod Cross article http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com...the_serve.html.

This normal component is function of angle (ϕ) between axes of arm and racquet. If ϕ=0, this component is zero.

On other hand, Federer usually applies arm pronation. This is also angular rotation, which also creates its own centrifugal force and motion dependent torque. Rod Cross completely ignored this fact. Moreover, this motion dependent torque pushes the hand to rotate the racquet about the wrist in clockwise direction, opposite to the torque created by arm rotation.

If the wrist is passive, pronation torque always prevails and the racquet string bed would be vertical after impact!!!

If active wrist ulnar deviation creates torque which is bigger than pronation dependent torque, then the racquet string bed will be horizontal!!!

So, Monfils is definitely hits the ball with strong active ulnar deviation, but Fish hits with passive wrist. That’s why there are so big differences in their follow through.

Originally Posted by toly

Sorry, but I think your statement is incorrect.

Let’s analyze Federer straight arm forehand. FH with bend elbow is more difficult for explanation.

When Federer rotates the arm around shoulder, he creates centrifugal force which has normal component to the racquet string plane. This force normal component (motion dependent torque) automatically rotates the racquet about the wrist in counterclockwise direction, see Rod Cross article http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com...the_serve.html.

This normal component is function of angle (ϕ) between axes of arm and racquet. If ϕ=0, this component is zero.

On other hand, Federer usually applies arm pronation. This is also angular rotation, which also creates its own centrifugal force and motion dependent torque. Rod Cross completely ignored this fact. Moreover, this motion dependent torque pushes the hand to rotate the racquet about the wrist in clockwise direction, opposite to the torque created by arm rotation.

If the wrist is passive, pronation torque always prevails and the racquet string bed would be vertical after impact!!!

If active wrist ulnar deviation creates torque which is bigger than pronation dependent torque, then the racquet string bed will be horizontal!!!

So, Monfils is definitely hits the ball with strong active ulnar deviation, but Fish hits with passive wrist. That’s why there are so big differences in their follow through.

Toly, you should join Tennisplayer and read Brian Gordon's articles on the forehand...I think you would enjoy is biomechanical perspective...Btw, if i understand you correctly, you are essentially correct with your observation.

Active wrist usage is a requirement to counter the rotational force created as the racquet rotates around the hand....Much of wrist movement is for proper racquet face orientation and for directional/shot line purposes.

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by bhupaes

Excellent video! This has the best illustration of timing the backswing off the bounce that I've seen. IMO, the importance of this (a matter of heavy dispute here, as you know ) cannot be overemphasized. The various positions of the racquet and hand are shown with superb clarity, illustrating how lag happens, and how the racquet is pulled. Some details regarding arm and wrist action after the forward swing starts are not discussed, but we've discussed them ad infinitum and should be able to recognize them in the video.

Thanks for posting this, Cheetah.

yup. it's a good video for sure.

[user92626]

There are these two ways that you can try and see an emphasis on wrist action. Maybe you'll find one works better for you than the other.

1. Keep your wrist firm and the angle between the forearm and the fist relatively fixed, hit the ball all the way into the followthrough with the configuration.

2. Keep your wrist loose like you can knock on a door with just moving your fist. On the forward swing, sort of stop your arm early, like while your elbow and forarm are aligning to your body, and then let your wrist joint move forward from that point.

For me, 2 seems to add more power

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by chico9166

Toly, you should join Tennisplayer and read Brian Gordon's articles on the forehand...I think you would enjoy is biomechanical perspective...Btw, if i understand you correctly, you are essentially correct with your observation.

Active wrist usage is a requirement to counter the rotational force created as the racquet rotates around the hand....Much of wrist movement is for proper racquet face orientation and for directional/shot line purposes.

haha. he won't. I've been telling him the same forever. This is the 'mental block' i was referring to regarding the subject at hand, literally. The inability to see other possibilities outside of one's own experience. No offense to you Toly.

[toly]

Originally Posted by chico9166

Toly, you should join Tennisplayer and read Brian Gordon's articles on the forehand...I think you would enjoy is biomechanical perspective...Btw, if i understand you correctly, you are essentially correct with your observation.

Active wrist usage is a requirement to counter the rotational force created as the racquet rotates around the hand....Much of wrist movement is for proper racquet face orientation and for directional/shot line purposes.

Thanks to JY, two months I was the member of the tennisplayer.net and drown in his absolutely incredible video library. There is too much information to consume for old man.

Active wrist usage can also contribute more than 50% to RHS. Monfils regularly hits 120 mph FH, but Fish cannot due to his passive wrist.

[toly]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

haha. he won't. I've been telling him the same forever. This is the 'mental block' i was referring to regarding the subject at hand, literally. The inability to see other possibilities outside of one's own experience. No offense to you Toly.

I like constructive negative comments about my posts. They usually wake me up.

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by toly

I like constructive negative comments about my posts. They usually wake me up.

i don't mean to be negative. my posts sound harsh because i usually leave out the qualifiers such as 'imho' and 'i think' etc. I only have time to spew my thoughts quickly.

[Dimcorner]

This reminds me of badminton . I play A LOT of badminton (state and out of state tournaments) and I just started getting into tennis recently.

In the old days they used to teach wrist snap but probably because the racquets back then were not as stable/stiff. Today they teach pronation (i'm talking overhead smashes here) to get the power because the racquet is much more stable and stiff. It adds LOADS more power to the shot.

Fu Haifeng hits about +300 kph smashes consistently during matches. It's interesting to watch just because the mechanics of a serve and smash are pretty similar. That and the sound of him hitting the shuttle is pretty wicked.

http://youtu.be/eH6qFJoySf8

I have only been playing constantly for about 5 months now and for some odd reason my best shots are serves, followed by overhead smashes, and then my one handed BH. I have crap for a forehand.

[Dimcorner]

Oh, where are my manners!

Hi everyone! I find this site very informative and very useful.
Hopefully I can take a vid one of these days for you guys to break down.

[SystemicAnomaly]

^ Welcome to the TW forum, DC.

Originally Posted by Dimcorner

This reminds me of badminton . I play A LOT of badminton (state and out of state tournaments) and I just started getting into tennis recently.

In the old days they used to teach wrist snap but probably because the racquets back then were not as stable/stiff. Today they teach pronation (i'm talking overhead smashes here) to get the power because the racquet is much more stable and stiff. It adds LOADS more power to the shot...

I started playing badminton in the late 70s with aluminum and early graphite racquets, altho' I did play a bit with wood. Everyone was talking about wrist snap and the wristy-ness of the sport. However I later discovered that the role of the wrist was not really as advertised -- it was grossly exaggerated.

Most coaches & players back in the day emphasized the wrist so much because they didn't know any better -- not because the racquets required it. As far back as the 1960s, Dr. James Poole (one of the last of the US world-class champions), wrote a PhD paper that indicated that pronation was a major contributor of power on badminton strokes. It was his contention the the role of the wrist was emphasized more than it should be. This information seemed to be ignored (or unavailable) to most of the badminton community for several decades.

I played a lot of badminton tournaments in the 80s. When I came back to tennis in the late 80s/early 90s, I found that my serves, overheads and volleys were all intact but my groundstrokes had atrophied. I have taught tennis to quite a few badminton players. Most of them master overheads/serves (and volleys) first and struggle a bit more with groundstrokes. This is just the opposite for most other novice tennis players. Overall, the badminton players have picked up tennis quicker than most other novices tho'.

[sureshs]

What I remember (not having played in the wood era) was that teaching in the wood era was heavily against using the wrist. It was considered very bad to play tennis like table tennis. Modern rackets made it possible to use the wrists more.

[Dimcorner]

Originally Posted by SystemicAnomaly

I started playing badminton in the late 70s with aluminum and early graphite racquets, altho' I did play a bit with wood. Everyone was talking about wrist snap and the wristy-ness of the sport. However I later discovered that the role of the wrist was not really as advertised -- it was grossly exaggerated.

Yeah I can agree with that. I think I ended up injuring my wrist/forearm every now and then when I was following the "wrist" technique. In fact when I stopped trying to do what my coaches told me and doing what felt a little more natural (pronation) I had less nagging on my elbow and wrist while at the same time having more power (a LOT more power).

[toly]

Originally Posted by SystemicAnomaly

^ Welcome to the TW forum, DC.



I started playing badminton in the late 70s with aluminum and early graphite racquets, altho' I did play a bit with wood. Everyone was talking about wrist snap and the wristy-ness of the sport. However I later discovered that the role of the wrist was not really as advertised -- it was grossly exaggerated.

Most coaches & players back in the day emphasized the wrist so much because they didn't know any better -- not because the racquets required it. As far back as the 1960s, Dr. James Poole (one of the last of the US world-class champions), wrote a PhD paper that indicated that pronation was a major contributor of power on badminton strokes. It was his contention the the role of the wrist was emphasized more than it should be. This information seemed to be ignored (or unavailable) to most of the badminton community for several decades.

I played a lot of badminton tournaments in the 80s. When I came back to tennis in the late 80s/early 90s, I found that my serves, overheads and volleys were all intact but my groundstrokes had atrophied. I have taught tennis to quite a few badminton players. Most of them master overheads/serves (and volleys) first and struggle a bit more with groundstrokes. This is just the opposite for most other novice tennis players. Overall, the badminton players have picked up tennis quicker than most other novices tho'.

There is example of Chanelle Scheepers serve, where wrist flexion is the major contributor to the RHS and arm pronation supplies virtually nothing.

[SystemicAnomaly]

Originally Posted by toly

There is example of Chanelle Scheepers serve, where wrist flexion is the major contributor to the RHS and arm pronation supplies virtually nothing...

Puzzling that you quoted a post about badminton strokes to discuss a tennis serve.

Nonetheless, I clearly see quite a bit of evidence of pronation in this photo sequence of Chanelle's serve. Look at the orientation of the racket face and the hand in #1 compared to #6 or #11. That change in orientation is due primarily to forearm pronation with ISR.

Yes, there is flexion as an action as well in the upward swing. However, we do not see a position of flexion in your sequence at all. The wrist moves from a c0cked position (extension + wrist deviation) to a neutral position. Quite often, when a player is asked to snap the wrist w/o a proper demonstration (and correction), the player will often exhibit a much more radical flexion than this -- the wrist ends up in an extreme position of flexion. This is my objection to the terminology.

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by SystemicAnomaly

However, we do not see a position of flexion in your sequence at all. The wrist moves from a c0cked position (extension + wrist deviation) to a neutral position.

Moving the wrist from an extended position in the direction towards neutral or flexed position is called flexation.

[SystemicAnomaly]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

Moving the wrist from an extended position in the direction towards neutral or flexed position is called flexation.

Are you pushing (sic) my leg? While I would welcome a word that distinguishes the action from the position, I could not find a definition on the interweb for your word, flexation.

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by SystemicAnomaly

Are you pushing (sic) my leg? While I would welcome a word that distinguishes the action from the position, I could not find a definition on the interweb for your word, flexation.

oops. flexion.
flexion (flek´shn),
n the bending of a joint between two skeletal members to decrease the angle between the members; opposite of extension.
n movement of a limb to decrease the angle of a joint.