Laver's Continental Forehand

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Sorry, too late. My career is already set.

I do think that as technology changes (racquet materials, strings, court surfaces "evolve"?), teaching pros will change their minds about what is best.

I helped out at a school tennis clinic a couple of years ago, and the coaches brought in this teaching pro from a local tennis club facility. He started at the very outset teaching the beginner kids Western forehand grips and extremely loopy windshield-wiper strokes (This was during the Nadal ascendancy phase). Because the kids' timing was not the greatest most of them had trouble even hitting the ball, then after a while when they did connect the balls were going almost straight up and over the fence. On the backhand, it was all about the superiority of the two-handed backhand.

I believe that teaching pros will teach whatever the "hottest" player is using. And people will convince themselves of the inherent superiority of same. In the case of tennis, the "best" seems to what works best for the pros at that time.

Theory follows practice. Explanation bows to reality.

All this X is the GOAT, and X uses this stroke. Ergo, this stroke must be the best. Case closed. (Until we have a new X with a different stoke.)

Except that with the academy tennis of today, these kinds of trends are more global and all-encompassing than in the past when there existed more unique styles from country to country.

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Sorry, too late. My career is already set.

I do think that as technology changes (racquet materials, strings, court surfaces "evolve"?), teaching pros will change their minds about what is best.

I helped out at a school tennis clinic a couple of years ago, and the coaches brought in this teaching pro from a local tennis club facility. He started at the very outset teaching the beginner kids Western forehand grips and extremely loopy windshield-wiper strokes (This was during the Nadal ascendancy phase). Because the kids' timing was not the greatest most of them had trouble even hitting the ball, then after a while when they did connect the balls were going almost straight up and over the fence. On the backhand, it was all about the superiority of the two-handed backhand.

I believe that teaching pros will teach whatever the "hottest" player is using. And people will convince themselves of the inherent superiority of same. In the case of tennis, the "best" seems to what works best for the pros at that time.

Theory follows practice. Explanation bows to reality.

All this X is the GOAT, and X uses this stroke. Ergo, this stroke must be the best. Case closed. (Until we have a new X with a different stoke.)

OK. But some players do use eastern (Haas), some players do use semi-western (Federer), and some players do use full western (Djokovic). All three major grips are represented (and in between).

Yet, why does no one use a continental?

[asafi2]

Originally Posted by Chopin

OK. But some players do use eastern (Haas), some players do use semi-western (Federer), and some players do use full western (Djokovic). All three major grips are represented (and in between).

Yet, why does no one use a continental?

Fed uses an eastern grip mainly and changes his grip based on the type of shot he wants to hit.

[35ft6]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I believe that teaching pros will teach whatever the "hottest" player is using.

In my experience, this is far from true.

And people will convince themselves of the inherent superiority of same.

I think novice players will try to imitate the top players. Also, they will buy Fed's racket and Nike clothes. But if you look around these boards, people hate on all kinds of pro strokes, from Roddick's slice to Murray's pushing to Nadal's forehand.

In the case of tennis, the "best" seems to what works best for the pros at that time.

Again, based on what goes on in these boards, Nadal is almost underrated, so I disagree with you. Not to mention Fed's "weak" backhand.

Anyway, as technology improves, people will still be using continental grip for serves and volleys, and we will never see a continental grip forehand in the top 10 again. Now it's more about "use what works." Dogma is the only reason I can explain the continental grip prevailing for so long.

[sp00q]

Originally Posted by Chopin

I can't help but wonder why not a single top ATP pro I know of uses continental today...

Richard Gasquet?

[35ft6]

Originally Posted by sp00q

Richard Gasquet?

He doesn't have a continental forehand.

Last guy I saw with one in the top 100 was Gianlucca Pozzi.

[Andres]

Originally Posted by Chopin

OK. But some players do use eastern (Haas), some players do use semi-western (Federer), and some players do use full western (Djokovic). All three major grips are represented (and in between).

Yet, why does no one use a continental?

Because they all start when they're kids. And when you're a kid, EVERY DAMN BALL is shoulder high. That's why the new trend is teaching them to hit with SW and W grips.

And look at your examples: The guy with the closer grip to Continental is the oldest one. And the guy closer to Western is the youngest one.

Uh-hmmm.

[jswinf]

I remember a book in the 1960's called "How to Play Championship Tennis" by Rod Laver and some ghost. It wasn't as much an instructional book as a reminiscense, but it talked about strokes and I don't think Laver considered his forehand a continental, maybe an eastern edging toward a continental.

And isn't a big part of this the oft-discussed demise of the net-rusher, who benefited by minimizing grip shifts, in favor of the baseline banger?

Anyway, Laver was great. I agree with others that in the modern game he would be using different technology and techniques that he did in the sixties. And Galileo would use a better telescope.

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by Andres

Because they all start when they're kids. And when you're a kid, EVERY DAMN BALL is shoulder high. That's why the new trend is teaching them to hit with SW and W grips.

And look at your examples: The guy with the closer grip to Continental is the oldest one. And the guy closer to Western is the youngest one.

Uh-hmmm.

Wouldn't one player use it though if it's such a great grip for the modern game?? Just one?

No one has answered my question so I'll give you the answer myself: the grip is a major disadvantage in this day and age and Laver would be trounced by today's pros if he made no adjustments to his technique.

I don't disagree that certain strokes are easier to learn as a kid (two handed backhand versus one) but I wouldn't say the western grip is easy to learn compared with an eastern, so I don't completely buy your logic. Regardless, the eastern, semi-western and western all have major advantages of a continental in the modern game and this is certainly the main reason why continental is not taught. It's a relic grip for a different era of faster courts, less spin producing racquets and strings and serve and volley tactics. Unless tennis changes dramatically in the opposite direction that it is going, we will never see it become a popular grip ever again.

[urban]

I think, the outgoing thesis is false. According to all kind of sources, including his own writings and a technical standard work by Paul Douglas, Laver didn't play with a pure continental grip, it was at least a semi-continental grip.

[Chopin]

Guys, don't think that I'm not sympathetic to the plight of this long lost grip (see the video posted in my signature).

Does anyone have a more definitive explanation of what grip Laver used. It certainly was not eastern. Perhaps it was in between continental and eastern, but regardless, it would limit his ability to compete in the modern game.

Kind regards,
Chopin