Model yourself after the best of all times

[BevelDevil]

Originally Posted by 10isfreak

There are players using semi-western grips that can‘t top Federer‘s spin production...

But that's because Federer's forehand is radically different from most other forehands.

If Federer hit a textbook modern forehand (but with an Eastern grip), he would tend to hit flatter than his SW counterparts.

Originally Posted by 10isfreak

One of the thing the researcher noted is the difference between reality and beliefs regarding grips: a great array of different grips enable players to hit very comparable shots. It‘s actually a matter of swing path and racket tilt at impact.. It‘s their intention and habits, not their grips, which makes the biggest difference.

But grip affects the typical swing path and racket tilt at impact. Sure, someone with an extreme grip can flatten out, and vice versa. But it's a matter of what feels comfortable and natural. And different grips have different ranges of what feels natural.


Taken from a different angle: Sure, you can hit a low forehand volley with a semi-Western grip and put some underspin on it; but it would take more work and feel less "natural."

[boramiNYC]

Originally Posted by 10isfreak

As a small disclaimer, I do not think that grips have no influence; I think that this influence is very much exaggerated in tennis talks over the net or even by coaches from the USTPA.

not exaggerated but rather underestimated IMO. grip is the single biggest factor in determining the characteristics of one's game.

[10isfreak]

Originally Posted by boramiNYC

not exaggerated but rather underestimated IMO. grip is the single biggest factor in determining the characteristics of one's game.

Far from being this determining, as far as I can tell, but again, we need data and a lot of it to make conclusive statements regarding its real impact on the game.

To answer the poster above, your example is poorly chosen... I didn‘t say that any grip does the same job. Within a certain range, many grip produce very comparable results and that the differences the typical guy exposes do not actually exist. As for swing path matters, you can clearly see Nadal using a much more hroziontal swing without problem during hitting sessions and on faster courts... the difference seems, as farr as I can tell, to be much more the result of strategic purposes than grip. Yet again, only complex statistical tests would allow us to speak about facts clearly.

[10isfreak]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

why do 99% of players with western grips hit more spin than players with an eastern and why do players with eastern grips hit flatter that players with a western if the influence is very much exaggerated?

The problem with statistics is that you can‘t pull them out of an hat... you can‘t state as a fact that the population is characterized by a ridiculous bias in spin production which is favorable to western hitters without measuring it.

As for your assertion, again, I‘d need clear numbers to tell you exactly how much grip influences spin production... it‘s actually a perfect case for ANOVA, but 8 do not have tons of data to do the test.

[Cheetah]

yes i can. everyone already knows how grips produce different results. this is common knowledge and nothing new. I can post 100's of articles from other sites that say differently than the site you posted (that we've all seen posted here 100's of times). i can find videos of world class players and former and current atp coaches saying the same thing. I can find literally 1000's of posts on this website alone all agreeing.

i'm not sure why you think you can challenge the status quo after reading one article on a website.

And you cite Federer as an example. That's absolutely the worst example you could provide. It's Federer. The greatest player of all time who does most things differently and better than anyone in history. Take away Fed and Rafa from your 2 man sample and tell me that you see no difference or little difference in eastern vs western shot production from the rest of the tennis playing population.

[boramiNYC]

Another skeptical scientist among us...great.

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by boramiNYC

Another skeptical scientist among us...great.

haha. brilliant post.

[FrisbeeFool]

This guy has some good articles. I think some people on the talk tennis forums are skimming his articles, picking out terminology, taking that terminology out of context, and misconstruing his points.

Here is a great quote from one of his articles on forehand technique:

"The vast majority of tennis players hit their heaviest topspin forehands by attempting a wide variety of body movements to create the stroke geometry associated with high-speed, high-spin forehands. The commonality of the topspin-amplifying technique/movements used by the vast majority of players is that these involve consciously manipulating the racquet hand and arm during the 100 or so milliseconds before impact.


These contrived movements commonly include such movements known as: “windshield-wipering”, ” wrist action”, “wrist rolling” or “wrist flipping”, “brushing up at impact”, “reverse finishing", etc. , etc., etc.. All of these movements involve highly conscious, and often last-second, timing-intensive racquet manipulation where required stroke consistency can only be achieved with an inordinate amount of practice time that’s only really available to serious competitive players.


Yet, these moves probably represent the most common methods for generating heavy topspin for the vast majority of recreational and competitive tennis players alike."

In that article, his point is, on a rally ball where you have time to prepare, you want to set your hitting arm structure and keep it relatively the same through impact and your contact zone. You aren't going to be able to hit consistent, sound rally balls if you're consciously trying to manipulate your racket hand and wipe over the ball.

A lot of people in here are confused about his use of the word supinate. If you read his articles, he is advocating that you set your hitting arm structure with a closed racket face in your backswing, because as you swing out to contact your racket face will naturally open. He is saying that everybody's racket face upens up more, the farther they reach forward. This is when the supination happens. It's a natural part of the forehand stroke as you swing forward and follow through. It's not a conscious action, that you have to force to add power to the stroke, or an extra accoutrement that you tack onto the end of the stroke.

All he is saying is that when you swing forward the racket face will open up. Players need to counteract this by having a closed racket face at some point in their backswing. He believes the most consistent, sound way to do this is with a backswing and transition to the forward swing, where you set your hitting arm structure early, with a closed racket face, and then maintain this hitting arm structure as your swing to contact. And he wants you to have a simple compact backswing, where the racket doesn't get too behind the other side of the body, via more elaborate contrived movements.

[Ryoma]

Too much information. I understand why when people ask top player how they hit the ball, they usually say "I just hit it". The whole tennis instruction concept is completely backward.

When you make the ball travel to where you wanted in a certain speed, your stroke will look pro-ish to the 3rd person.

Just go out there and hit the ball for christ's sake.

[babyhagrid]

Originally Posted by Ryoma

Too much information. I understand why when people ask top player how they hit the ball, they usually say "I just hit it". The whole tennis instruction concept is completely backward.

When you make the ball travel to where you wanted in a certain speed, your stroke will look pro-ish to the 3rd person.

Just go out there and hit the ball for christ's sake.

+1
My brain is crippled by too many thoughts about how to swing, move my feet etc. Next im out on court my aim will be to just swing the racquet.

[10isfreak]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

yes i can. everyone already knows how grips produce different results. this is common knowledge and nothing new. I can post 100's of articles from other sites that say differently than the site you posted (that we've all seen posted here 100's of times). i can find videos of world class players and former and current atp coaches saying the same thing. I can find literally 1000's of posts on this website alone all agreeing.

I must apologize for my attitude then... it's certainly not appropriate for discussion to reject all thoughts, let alone for science and comprehension. As anyone on here, I am also passionate about tennis, which can be both bothersome and useful and I apparently slipped into exaggeration.

Of course, referencing only one article is not sufficient and a comparison of Federer versus some other pro does not support the point I was trying to make. Obviously, many factors influence spin production: from the racket tilt at impact, to the swing path, the ball's initial trajectory prior impact and it spin rate, the type of strings, the type of frame, the head size, the stringing pattern, etc.

Just using two or three players is precisely pulling statistics out of an hat... just like using numbers to qualify an impression we have -- it's not any better than what I criticized other people about. Fortunately for us, passion does not equate stupidity, although it produces common symptoms at times, so we can get back to talking in a more civilized manner -- and by "we," I mean "me."


I'll look through the posts and compile the possible answers in the next post I'll publish to update the discussion and allow us to move forward with it.

[Cheetah]

Good post.

[10isfreak]

Here is the resumé of our contentions regarding grips:

Originally Posted by BoramicNYC

Post 22
[G]rip is the single biggest factor in determining the characteristics of one's game.

Originally Posted by BevilDevil

Post 21
But grip affects the typical swing path and racket tilt at impact. Sure, someone with an extreme grip can flatten out, and vice versa. But it's a matter of what feels comfortable and natural. And different grips have different ranges of what feels natural.

Originally Posted by Cheetah

Post 20
[W]hy do 99% of players with western grips hit more spin than players with an eastern and why do players with eastern grips hit flatter that players with a western if the influence is very much exaggerated?

And, personally, I posted that grips were not this determining.
__________________________________________________ _
Regarding what BevilDevil posted on the first page:

I won't obstruct discussion with a detailed analysis unless required, but I'll answer each questions briefly.

For learning, I would advocate teaching macro elements first: provide them with a rough overall approximation of a great movement before asking them more nuance in their actions. I would teach the basic preparation, take back, swing and follow-through before telling kids about what their forearm need to do. It also answers your question regarding the learning curve: we build it in steps, adapting the simple structure by adding up new details every time.

For the amateur problem: can it be repeated? Well, the famous wrist movement is actually easier to replicate if you use a stretch-shortening cycle. It's that "natural pronation" people talk about on the forums. It simply requires that your forehand and hand are set in the right position as you swing forward and it's easier than actively trying to make it right every time.

Downsides? Well, if you close too much the racket face (like Nadal, most often), you also reduce the potential contact area -- it makes shanking likelier. Furthermore, on bad days, it's not impossible that you have troubles getting the hand position right which prevents the possibility of enjoying a super-humand pronation.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by Ryoma

Too much information. I understand why when people ask top player how they hit the ball, they usually say "I just hit it". The whole tennis instruction concept is completely backward.

When you make the ball travel to where you wanted in a certain speed, your stroke will look pro-ish to the 3rd person.

Just go out there and hit the ball for christ's sake.

Very easy isn't it? Yet there are only a few real pros, and they did not get there by just hitting it, but by a decade or more of focused training.

The fallacy of your argument is that you ask a top player, and one who probably doesn't care whether you improve or not, but just wants you to collect your autograph and get out of his way. When the same top player retires and opens an academy, then you will see how much attention he pays to his students.

[nightfire700]

Originally Posted by Ryoma

Too much information. I understand why when people ask top player how they hit the ball, they usually say "I just hit it". The whole tennis instruction concept is completely backward.

When you make the ball travel to where you wanted in a certain speed, your stroke will look pro-ish to the 3rd person.

Just go out there and hit the ball for christ's sake.

++1.
Seriously, I have recently started looking at tennis and the amount of science jargon we throw around, it seems like it would be a better sport for physics PhDs. Most often physics thats talked here is not even taught to kids before high school and I wonder how they learn to play and build there foundation without knowing about it or maybe they learn because they dont know about it

[TennisCJC]

Originally Posted by FrisbeeFool

This guy has some good articles. I think some people on the talk tennis forums are skimming his articles, picking out terminology, taking that terminology out of context, and misconstruing his points.

Here is a great quote from one of his articles on forehand technique:

"The vast majority of tennis players hit their heaviest topspin forehands by attempting a wide variety of body movements to create the stroke geometry associated with high-speed, high-spin forehands. The commonality of the topspin-amplifying technique/movements used by the vast majority of players is that these involve consciously manipulating the racquet hand and arm during the 100 or so milliseconds before impact.


These contrived movements commonly include such movements known as: “windshield-wipering”, ” wrist action”, “wrist rolling” or “wrist flipping”, “brushing up at impact”, “reverse finishing", etc. , etc., etc.. All of these movements involve highly conscious, and often last-second, timing-intensive racquet manipulation where required stroke consistency can only be achieved with an inordinate amount of practice time that’s only really available to serious competitive players.


Yet, these moves probably represent the most common methods for generating heavy topspin for the vast majority of recreational and competitive tennis players alike."

In that article, his point is, on a rally ball where you have time to prepare, you want to set your hitting arm structure and keep it relatively the same through impact and your contact zone. You aren't going to be able to hit consistent, sound rally balls if you're consciously trying to manipulate your racket hand and wipe over the ball.

A lot of people in here are confused about his use of the word supinate. If you read his articles, he is advocating that you set your hitting arm structure with a closed racket face in your backswing, because as you swing out to contact your racket face will naturally open. He is saying that everybody's racket face upens up more, the farther they reach forward. This is when the supination happens. It's a natural part of the forehand stroke as you swing forward and follow through. It's not a conscious action, that you have to force to add power to the stroke, or an extra accoutrement that you tack onto the end of the stroke.

All he is saying is that when you swing forward the racket face will open up. Players need to counteract this by having a closed racket face at some point in their backswing. He believes the most consistent, sound way to do this is with a backswing and transition to the forward swing, where you set your hitting arm structure early, with a closed racket face, and then maintain this hitting arm structure as your swing to contact. And he wants you to have a simple compact backswing, where the racket doesn't get too behind the other side of the body, via more elaborate contrived movements.

Who are you refering too - is there a link I missed?

The set the hitting arm structure early and keep it consistent to contact was taught by Vic Braden in the 70s. I agree this is a very good approach for a basic stroke.

I think the paragraph about "contrived wrist movement" (WW, wrist roll, brushing, ...) has some good points but I think a WW finish and hitting up (brushing) should be learned at the very beginning. In other words, I think the strokes we see from Federer and Nadal can be used as models for beginners all the way to world class. These are simple efficient strokes that provide a good margin of error due to the topspin and the long extension thru the hitting zone.

Also, Federer is "setting the hitting structure early" in my opinion. Notice how in frame 2 his wrist is laid back a bit. Nadal too in the same frame. I think most of the wrist "movement" in the stroke pattern is natural and not consious thought.

[10isfreak]

Originally Posted by nightfire700

Seriously, I have recently started looking at tennis and the amount of science jargon we throw around, it seems like it would be a better sport for physics PhDs.

It's not that complicated and, well, reading stuff that you barely understand is a good thing for your intellectual development, ultimately making you able to understand it.

[10isfreak]

Originally Posted by TennisCJC

I think the paragraph about "contrived wrist movement" (WW, wrist roll, brushing, ...) has some good points but I think a WW finish and hitting up (brushing) should be learned at the very beginning. In other words, I think the strokes we see from Federer and Nadal can be used as models for beginners all the way to world class. These are simple efficient strokes that provide a good margin of error due to the topspin and the long extension thru the hitting zone.

Also, Federer is "setting the hitting structure early" in my opinion. Notice how in frame 2 his wrist is laid back a bit. Nadal too in the same frame. I think most of the wrist "movement" in the stroke pattern is natural and not consious thought.

Actually, the WW forehand involves a forearm action that is not a necessity for the completion of the stroke... you can still hit very decently without using that.

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by 10isfreak

His usual swing on hard courts does involve a ww follow-through. As for the swing itself there is not a lot of difference between the reverse forehand and a standard ww forehand. The point being that both players show extensively similar mechanics, contrary to common beliefs.

As for the sake of comparison, we‘d have to compare Federer and Nadal both doing a reverse forehand to get a real idea... whether Nadal uses it more often or not is of no relevance here because we compare swings, not tactics.

I don't think he uses the WW more on HC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cfB4FAvAgQ

he mostly uses it when he hits winners against high balls. I have never seen him hit a WW Forehand below net cord Level.

[FrisbeeFool]

Originally Posted by TennisCJC

Who are you refering too - is there a link I missed?

The set the hitting arm structure early and keep it consistent to contact was taught by Vic Braden in the 70s. I agree this is a very good approach for a basic stroke.

I think the paragraph about "contrived wrist movement" (WW, wrist roll, brushing, ...) has some good points but I think a WW finish and hitting up (brushing) should be learned at the very beginning. In other words, I think the strokes we see from Federer and Nadal can be used as models for beginners all the way to world class. These are simple efficient strokes that provide a good margin of error due to the topspin and the long extension thru the hitting zone.

Also, Federer is "setting the hitting structure early" in my opinion. Notice how in frame 2 his wrist is laid back a bit. Nadal too in the same frame. I think most of the wrist "movement" in the stroke pattern is natural and not consious thought.

The OP in this thread is referencing a tennis blog by a high performance coach that is popular with posters on here. It's called tennisspeed. You can google it. I quoted one of his blog posts. Agreed, about Vick Braden, in one of the blog's posts the author actually quotes a Vic Braden article from 1977 I think. The blog has a lot of great info on technique and stroke production. The problem is, their are people on this forum skimming the blog, misconstruing his points, and then coming in here starting threads with thread topics like maximum supination and pronation, the keys to the modern groundstrokes.

They key point to make to these people is that when someone is supinating or pronating, it's only one link in the kinetic chain and it's the consequence of something that went on earlier in the stroke like coiling and preparing properly with the type of backswing and follow-through the author describes in detail in his blog. It's not some magic "modern" phenomenon that you can just somehow add to your "traditional" stroke. People like Vic Braden were using these terms decades ago before there were internet message boards, or Roger Federer, or Rafa Nadal.

If you read his blog he has some good sections about how players like Lendl, Sampras,and Agassi were already doing certain things on their forehand that are now common on the modern ATP forehands we see on TV. The blogs author believes that players like Del Potro and Gasquet are stilling hitting these transitional type forehands. One of his big points is that players imitating the modern topspin shots they see on tv are employing a variety of elaborate contrived suspect techniques in order to imitate the modern strokes, and they would be better off simplifying their backswing, prep and follow through, without all the herky jerky contrivances if they want to achieve a true "modern" forehand. I think this is a point lost on many of the posters here.

A lot of the wegnerite posters obsessed with things like windshield wipering over the ball are citing his blog and I can only conclude they haven't put much effort into reading his blog.

A huge point he makes is building consistent shots that don't break down. And then you have posters on here who have maybe skimmed his articles talking about how Sampras is part of the traditional game, don't be like him, maximize the supination on your shots by windshield-wipering. Frankly, it's shocking how bad some peoples reading comprehension is.