Forehand backswing: Men vs. women

[GNIHT]

Why is there such a difference in the forehand backswing between men and women on the tour?

Here is a video of Nadal's forehand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeXRY...e=user&search=

And here is a video of Sharapova's forehand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKG11...e=user&search=

Most men (Nadal included) keep the racket head in front of them during the backswing, whereas most women take the racket head behind them.

Why the difference?

[tricky]

Men use a "pulling" FH stroke (more topspin, overall heavier shot.) Women use a "pushing" FH stroke (more pure racquet head speed, flatter shot.)

To use a "pushing" FH stroke, at unit turn, set up your racquet tip point perpendicular to the ground. You should feel a mild stretch under the thumb. When you take it back, it'll feel really different, and you'll want to take the racquet head behind your body.

Torso rotation is not as important with this stroke as with the men's. Mostly you use your hips in order to create a straighter or more linear swing arc. Most of the racquet speed comes from the feet, particularly with the weight transfer. This is why so many of the women look like they're lunging or jumping into the shots.

The different mechanics really spell out why the ATP and WTA games are so different. The women have impressive power nowadays relative to previous generations, and they're unusually good at playing true power baseline even with high-bounce surfaces like clay. BUT, they seem to generate much higher error rates because the spin they create with their shots isn't naturally as high as the men's WW stroke.

Heck, even the grunting contextually makes sense. A pushing stroke is a bit like the bench press; it starts out "hard" and then gets easier as the racquet travels forward.

[GuyClinch]

Sharapova is a crappy example. Justine Henin has much better technique on her forehand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaoUTOnx-IM

Looks to me like the racquet points forward just like the guys, no?

Pete

[boojay]

Justine has man strokes though. She's so awesome.

[GuyClinch]

Sharapova is actually noted for her suspect forehand though. It breaks down if you can pound at it like Justine can. The problem is Robert Landsdorf screwed her up teaching her old school style strokes, IMHO. She has some power but technique wise its a decade behind guys like Nadal, Federer or Justine.

Pete

[krz]

you picked the player with arguably the ugliest strokes in tennis not to mention she hits an extremely flat ball and nadal is the total opposite, but that would account for the difference in the swing styles.

Justine does play like man, thats probably why shes so good.

[boojay]

Justine's just ridiculously good though. I wonder how she would do on the men's tour. In terms of stroke mechanics, she's far above anyone in the WTA, and even compared to many players on the ATP, her shots are more technically sound, even if they're not as powerful.

[The Gorilla]

Originally Posted by GuyClinch

Sharapova is actually noted for her suspect forehand though. It breaks down if you can pound at it like Justine can. The problem is Robert Landsdorf screwed her up teaching her old school style strokes, IMHO. She has some power but technique wise its a decade behind guys like Nadal, Federer or Justine.

Pete

I wouldn't agree with that, robert lansdorp has developed davenport, austin, sampras and now sharapova.

From scratch.

I think the man knows what he's talking about.

I don't see what the point is in hitting with so much spin when your driving the ball to the corner is anyway, it just reduces the amount of mph's the ball travel's at.I maen, it's different if you want to hit an angled shot, but even then you can just use a reverse forehand

Sampras used 'WTA' strokes, and he had a huuuuuge forehand, not one ounce of effort wasted.He had the vertical take back too, just like davenport and sharapova.I mean, have you ever sat back and looked at how ridiculously powerful Sharapova's groundstrokes are?They're definitly travelling at similar mph to almost any of the men.


Here's a question for tricky, johnyandell, tennismastery et al.The consensus seems to be that
'spin x velocity = heaviness'
Or something like that, here's something I can't understand;

Ken rosewall's backhand has been described by countless retired pro's as the heaviest shot they'd ever faced, but every backhand he hit was sliced.It was actually spinning backwards when it hit the ground, so it would have picked up very little topspin after making contact with the court, and this in the era of laver.So doesn't this kind of put a spanner in the works of this theory?

[krz]

Well being more mechanically sound than most of the men I can agree with as anybody who hits as hard as she can being that small is pretty impressive. But, comparing power between men and women, well there is no comparison.

[Mountain Ghost]

Originally Posted by GuyClinch

The problem is Robert Landsdorf screwed her up teaching her old school style strokes, IMHO.

Robert Lansdorp (not Landsdorf) must be terrible. I wonder how many women would feel all screwed up if they were only #2 in the world.

MG

[lolsmash]

Originally Posted by The Gorilla

I wouldn't agree with that, robert lansdorp has developed davenport, austin, sampras and now sharapova.

From scratch.

I think the man knows what he's talking about.

I don't see what the point is in hitting with so much spin when your driving the ball to the corner is anyway, it just reduces the amount of mph's the ball travel's at.I maen, it's different if you want to hit an angled shot, but even then you can just use a reverse forehand

Sampras used 'WTA' strokes, and he had a huuuuuge forehand, not one ounce of effort wasted.He had the vertical take back too, just like davenport and sharapova.I mean, have you ever sat back and looked at how ridiculously powerful Sharapova's groundstrokes are?They're definitly travelling at similar mph to almost any of the men.


Here's a question for tricky, johnyandell, tennismastery et al.The consensus seems to be that
'spin x velocity = heaviness'
Or something like that, here's something I can't understand;

Ken rosewall's backhand has been described by countless retired pro's as the heaviest shot they'd ever faced, but every backhand he hit was sliced.It was actually spinning backwards when it hit the ground, so it would have picked up very little topspin after making contact with the court, and this in the era of laver.So doesn't this kind of put a spanner in the works of this theory?

well, im pretty sure spin still equals spin regardless of whether it is topspin or not. If you meant that there is less topspin once it bounces, the sidespin and underspin might still be there, and the sidespin might be greater than the topspin on some shots after the bounce. Anyway, the equipment used back then might have made it heavier as well because of the lack of shock reduction.

[boojay]

I think Gorilla's trying to point out that it's possible to hit heavy shots regardless of the type of shot (i.e. topspin, slice, flat, etc.), so the formula of "heaviness" being a combination of speed, power, and spin might not hold true.

Personally, I've only ever faced heavy topspin shots and maybe a heavy flat shot (I don't know many people who can do this, just one actually) so a heavy slice is news to me.

[The Gorilla]

Originally Posted by lolsmash

well, im pretty sure spin still equals spin regardless of whether it is topspin or not. If you meant that there is less topspin once it bounces, the sidespin and underspin might still be there, and the sidespin might be greater than the topspin on some shots after the bounce. Anyway, the equipment used back then might have made it heavier as well because of the lack of shock reduction.

The underspin and sidespin are lost when the ball lands.The ball spins in the direction in which it lands.

[GNIHT]

Without one exception, I have never seen a junior player age 11 or less keep the racket head in front of them on the backswing. They are all copying Sharapova (taking the head behind them).

I'm talking about every single eleven year-old girl AND boy I've seen at the highest levels of junior competition (ages 5-11). HOWEVER, the boys are clearly being trained (at some point) to keep the racket head in front of them. The girls, however, are not.

[The Gorilla]

Originally Posted by GNIHT

Without one exception, I have never seen a junior player age 11 or less keep the racket head in front of them on the backswing. They are all copying Sharapova (taking the head behind them).

I'm talking about every single eleven year-old girl AND boy I've seen at the highest levels of junior competition (ages 5-11). HOWEVER, the boys are clearly being trained (at some point) to keep the racket head in front of them. The girls, however, are not.

Who has a bigger forehand than Sharapova?

[GNIHT]

I was the one who started this thread --- and my question was NOT "Who has the better forehand" --- it was ----> Why do men keep the racket head in front of them, and women take it behind them?

Henin is an exception, of course.

I also wanted to note that universally, all young competitive juniors are taking the racket head behind them.

[The Gorilla]

well, men tend to whip there wrist,,(forearm really), from forward to back to down to up in a circular motion which is a verys teep down to up vertical angle whilst still moving the hitting arm straight through the ball.

[GuyClinch]

Who has a bigger forehand than Sharapova?

Justine's is bigger - and seeing she is so much smaller obviously Sharapova's form is not perfect. Also i don't care that Landsdorf developed some old time greats. The game changes - what was once the best technique is not always the best. People make changes and they improve. Time does not stand still.

As for being #2 in the world - I didn't say the rest of Sharapova's game is hopeless - just that her forehand is not representative of the very best in woman's tennis.

Pete

[mucat]

Originally Posted by The Gorilla

I don't see what the point is in hitting with so much spin when your driving the ball to the corner is anyway, it just reduces the amount of mph's the ball travel's at.I maen, it's different if you want to hit an angled shot, but even then you can just use a reverse forehand

Because topspin allows a low ball to go fast and still has time to dip into the court. Even for high ball, it allows for higher margin of error. Also, a heavily topspin shot is very difficult for the opponent to attack. Topspin only reduces the amount of mph when the user is not strong enough (ie. usually WTA players).

Originally Posted by The Gorilla

Sampras used 'WTA' strokes, and he had a huuuuuge forehand, not one ounce of effort wasted.He had the vertical take back too, just like davenport and sharapova.I mean, have you ever sat back and looked at how ridiculously powerful Sharapova's groundstrokes are?They're definitly travelling at similar mph to almost any of the men.

I agree with the bold portion.

Originally Posted by The Gorilla

Here's a question for tricky, johnyandell, tennismastery et al.The consensus seems to be that
'spin x velocity = heaviness'
Or something like that, here's something I can't understand;

Ken rosewall's backhand has been described by countless retired pro's as the heaviest shot they'd ever faced, but every backhand he hit was sliced.It was actually spinning backwards when it hit the ground, so it would have picked up very little topspin after making contact with the court, and this in the era of laver.So doesn't this kind of put a spanner in the works of this theory?

You never play against heavy slice before? Hit with players 1+ level above you, you will know. The ball just literally sticks to your racket.

[JohnYandell]

First, my thoughts on the racket direction. It's less where the racket points at the start and more how the motion is built. Justine has a really really strong turn with the left arm stretched across her body.

And that's correct about the "man" thing. Her coach Carlos R. reworked her forehand along these lines, on purpose.

I was honored because he used the high speed footage of Agassi that we gave him as a model here. I also had the privilege of meeting Justine a couple of years ago at Indian Wells and doing some filming for them there looking at these issues.

You can see the same thing with the bigger stronger turn working now with Vaidisova, Jankovic and others.

Very different than Maria or Venus.

By the way, I filmed Maria when she was first working with Robert and he didn't build her forehand. He was already dealing with the existing problems at age 13 or so. And yeah her forehand's not that bad either. Just problematic at times for various reasons.

That's a whole long different story, but if you look at it technically it's very different from the Justine/Agassi model.