Just Discovered New Forehand at 48!

[sundaypunch]

It's very simple. Professional athletes, by necessity, will use the method that gives the best results. There is no correct/incorrect - just what works. Try telling a high jumper or field goal kicker that they should be using the same technique as their counterparts from 1965.

[papa]

Originally Posted by sundaypunch

It's very simple. Professional athletes, by necessity, will use the method that gives the best results. There is no correct/incorrect - just what works. Try telling a high jumper or field goal kicker that they should be using the same technique as their counterparts from 1965.

Well, a good coach or instructor has to use and attempt to improve what any athlete brings to the table. Often that involves off court conditioning and strength training, on-court footwork, stroke adjustments, placement adjustments, attitude, and so forth.

IMO, lower level teaches generally have a one-method approach. This helps the newer player get going but not the seasoned athlete who "might" need a few minor adjustments that most players would see as non-important.

[LeeD]

Most coaches are the former rather than the later.
You gotta get them started and playing, before they can try more advanced technique which THEY have to understand.

[Frank Silbermann]

Originally Posted by papa

Well, its true that the game in constantly evolving

Not so. When Stan Smith was the greatest player in the world in 1973, his strokes were remarkably similar to those of Elsworth Vines forty years earlier. That's how we knew that tennis technique had attained its modern and final form by the early 1930s.

Don Budge won the boys 18s using a semi-western grip, when he reached the men's division and played on grass he was vulnerable to low, fast, deep shots into his forehand corner. He had to switch to an eastern grip to become #1; that's how coaches thereafter knew that use of the western grip was a bad idea.

Originally Posted by papa

and the driving force for much change is the equipment technological improvements. Although other sports are similarly effected, tennis racquets have undergone huge changes.

Rackets, court surfaces, and rules (e.g. tie-breakers, permission to jump and cross over the baseline before contact while serving).

Originally Posted by papa

So, the game has changed regardless of what some might think- it will continue to change into the future also.

Which means that the work all you guys are doing to master your strokes will soon, too, be wasted (as tennis again morphs into yet some other game).

Look, I don't mind changes within reason, but I get disgusted by monstrosities such as this:

http://www.secsportsfan.com/images/tennis-forehand.jpg

While some may point out that she is hitting this forehand using a continental grip, I would note that SHE'S HOLDING THE RACKET UPSIDE DOWN!!! If people can play college tennis standing on their heads or holding the racket upside down, there is just SOMETHING wrong.

[papa]

Originally Posted by Frank Silbermann

Not so. When Stan Smith was the greatest player in the world in 1973, his strokes were remarkably similar to those of Elsworth Vines forty years earlier. That's how we knew that tennis technique had attained its modern and final form by the early 1930s.

Don Budge won the boys 18s using a semi-western grip, when he reached the men's division and played on grass he was vulnerable to low, fast, deep shots into his forehand corner. He had to switch to an eastern grip to become #1; that's how coaches thereafter knew that use of the western grip was a bad idea.

Rackets, court surfaces, and rules (e.g. tie-breakers, permission to jump and cross over the baseline before contact while serving).

Which means that the work all you guys are doing to master your strokes will soon, too, be wasted (as tennis again morphs into yet some other game).

Look, I don't mind changes within reason, but I get disgusted by monstrosities such as this:

http://www.secsportsfan.com/images/tennis-forehand.jpg

While some may point out that she is hitting this forehand using a continental grip, I would note that SHE'S HOLDING THE RACKET UPSIDE DOWN!!! If people can play college tennis standing on their heads or holding the racket upside down, there is just SOMETHING wrong.

OK, lets take a look.

Stan Smith played in the 60's & 70's and used to be Bob Lutz's doubles partner played and won National NCAA titles - think with Lutz but not sure. He has been a Director of Tennis & coach at pretty high levels and has also authored articles and at least one book about doubles. Good guy, excellent player & coach - he knows his stuff.

So, if he were to say "tennis has changed quite a bit over the years due to equipment" and that players are now "bigger and and more accurate" then I guess you'd have to agree. Well, he has said those things several times.

Now if Stan were to acknowledge that most players (pros) use a semi-western or western grip for forehands today than his observations you would probably except to be true. I'm not aware that he has been critical of the SW grip although its use in doubles is rather limited and the more severe grips do in fact present difficulties on low balls.

I happen to know a guy who played the first tie breaker in pro tennis so yes, rules have changed. Not having to keep one foot grounded on the serve is another change which has altered the game. However, unlike equipment, the high majority of rules haven't changed much although they change, to a small degree" yearly it seems.

The bottom line is that as tennis professionals we are trying to help players with how the game is played today - not as it was played thirty years ago or thirty years from now. It will change and strokes will be modified as they have been in the past - we all realize that. All it would take is for the court dimensions, net or equipment to be altered/changed & we would have to modify our approach. Racquets and strings have become a tremendous variable under the current rules and could change the game overnight if some great new technology was unwrapped - and it will be.

Some of this is like the guy who hangs onto his old PC because his reasoning is that the industry is going to change and why get the latest thing/device because its just going to be outdated soon after he buys it. If you were to take a computer class, would you be satisfied with how the technology was taught years ago or would you rather learn how its used today?

Well, I know of some who feel their computers meet their needs just fine even though they are way outdated. That's ok with me but we can't pretend that there aren't are better ways or equipment today than there was twenty years ago. In many fields things don't change that much but in others there is constant change.

[papa]

Originally Posted by LeeD

Most coaches are the former rather than the later.
You gotta get them started and playing, before they can try more advanced technique which THEY have to understand.

Yes, I would agree with this statement. However, sometimes its easy to get someone started using outdated equipment or methods that can become difficult obstaclea to change into the future. As a tennis teacher and coach, I can tell you that there is a huge difference between "advanced techniques" and outdated methods.

You've been around this game for a long time and offer quality tips/suggestions so I know you know the difference but others probably don't follow/have the interest in sports like you do and might not recognize the difference.

[Frank Silbermann]

Originally Posted by papa

Yes, I would agree with this statement. However, sometimes its easy to get someone started using outdated equipment or methods that can become difficult obstaclea to change into the future. As a tennis teacher and coach, I can tell you that there is a huge difference between "advanced techniques" and outdated methods.

You've been around this game for a long time and offer quality tips/suggestions so I know you know the difference but others probably don't follow/have the interest in sports like you do and might not recognize the difference.

When I see beginners taking lessons, I see the pro with a basket of a hundred balls or so standing at the net and feeding them to the student one after another until, _eventually_, they could frequently hit the ball over the net into the opponent's side of the court.

I learned to play on the free tennis courts at a local jr. college. Only the "rich" kids whose parents belonged to the country club had the luxury of private lessons. For most of us, you bought a can of three balls and went out with another beginner, and when those three balls were hit, you had to go and pick them up. So it was very important to learn as rapidly as possible by any means possible to hit the ball into the court. Otherwise, tennis would be mostly just picking up balls (i.e. no fun at all).

Those of us who took Tennis 101 learned the proper eastern grips, and spent a lot of time chasing errant balls. Ironically, those who had no instruction whatsoever, however, tended to reach a reasonable level of performance much more quickly. Not knowing any better, they would: (1) pick the racket up in a frying-pan grip; (2) stand facing the net; (3) hold the racket vertically in front of them, and practically looking through the string bed they would (4) bop the ball over the net with a bit of unconscious backspin in semi-lobs back and forth to one another. The entire swing was about twelve inches long.

If the ball was to the right, they'd tilt the racket somewhat to the right. If the ball was to the left, they'd tilt the racket somewhat to the left. (Internationally famed teacher Dennis Van Der Meer called it the "windshield wiper" style). If they got a low ball, they'd have to bend down low for it. (Sometimes they'd have no choice but to drop the racket head below the hand -- another huge technical no-no.) They could rally and play rather quickly, but they'd fall apart if someone could hit the ball hard, low and flat. So they'd stay at that advanced-beginner level until they grew tired of the game.

That's why I was so shocked when, ten years ago, I began seeing photos of pros holding the racket just like those untutored beginners, in many cases also using the same side of the racket without changing grips for forehand and backhand, and hearing people talking about windshield-wiper follow-throughs. The bad tennis players had taken over!

So I'm also kind of skeptical when someone tells me that "old school" tennis is easier to teach beginners. Yeah, I understand that you don't want to introduce a beginner to heavy topspin, but if that old frying pan grip is the way of the future then why not just toss the student semi-lobs and have him bop the ball back while facing the net with a vertical racket? Nothing could be easier! The pre-turn of the shoulders, the drop of the racket, and the brushing upwards could all be added later.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Frank Silbermann

Don Budge's backhand and forehand were about as symmetrical as those shown in the textbooks. (He was one of the very few who drove their backhands routinely.) Obviously, they're not symmetrical when using today's so-effective incorrect technique.

What I said about serves was also true about approach shots. People did not try to avoid the backhand of any of the players you mention when hitting approach shots. I believe in all cases the majority of approach shots were also directed to the backhand -- even when the opponent was a left-hander.

Furthermore, all these players tended to take balls hit straight to them or down-the-middle using their forehands.

No, Budge's fh and bh were not symmetrical at all. Not that it needs repeating, but, groundstrokes are inherently asymmetrical as I explained previously. Nevertheless, they were traditionally (and erroneously), taught as if they were symmetrical. Looking at my copy of "The Game of Singles in Tennis" by W. Talbert and B. Old, all of Budge's strokes are depicted frame by frame, and the distinction between his groundstrokes, including his set up, are apparent.

[papa]

Well, I hear you Frank.

Isn't it an old Amish saying "that more things change, the more they stay the same" - something like that anyway.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Frank Silbermann

When I see beginners taking lessons, I see the pro with a basket of a hundred balls or so standing at the net and feeding them to the student one after another until, _eventually_, they could frequently hit the ball over the net into the opponent's side of the court.

I learned to play on the free tennis courts at a local jr. college. Only the "rich" kids whose parents belonged to the country club had the luxury of private lessons. For most of us, you bought a can of three balls and went out with another beginner, and when those three balls were hit, you had to go and pick them up. So it was very important to learn as rapidly as possible by any means possible to hit the ball into the court. Otherwise, tennis would be mostly just picking up balls (i.e. no fun at all).

Those of us who took Tennis 101 learned the proper eastern grips, and spent a lot of time chasing errant balls. Ironically, those who had no instruction whatsoever, however, tended to reach a reasonable level of performance much more quickly. Not knowing any better, they would: (1) pick the racket up in a frying-pan grip; (2) stand facing the net; (3) hold the racket vertically in front of them, and practically looking through the string bed they would (4) bop the ball over the net with a bit of unconscious backspin in semi-lobs back and forth to one another. The entire swing was about twelve inches long.

If the ball was to the right, they'd tilt the racket somewhat to the right. If the ball was to the left, they'd tilt the racket somewhat to the left. (Internationally famed teacher Dennis Van Der Meer called it the "windshield wiper" style). If they got a low ball, they'd have to bend down low for it. (Sometimes they'd have no choice but to drop the racket head below the hand -- another huge technical no-no.) They could rally and play rather quickly, but they'd fall apart if someone could hit the ball hard, low and flat. So they'd stay at that advanced-beginner level until they grew tired of the game.

That's why I was so shocked when, ten years ago, I began seeing photos of pros holding the racket just like those untutored beginners, in many cases also using the same side of the racket without changing grips for forehand and backhand, and hearing people talking about windshield-wiper follow-throughs. The bad tennis players had taken over!

So I'm also kind of skeptical when someone tells me that "old school" tennis is easier to teach beginners. Yeah, I understand that you don't want to introduce a beginner to heavy topspin, but if that old frying pan grip is the way of the future then why not just toss the student semi-lobs and have him bop the ball back while facing the net with a vertical racket? Nothing could be easier! The pre-turn of the shoulders, the drop of the racket, and the brushing upwards could all be added later.

Frank,

I grew up having been taught everything your talking about, and I have since come to learn that much of it was wrong, and much is no longer applicable to modern tennis. Further, much of the traditional technique taught from the 20's-80's was actually not the prevailing technique among the pros.

Don Budge forehand:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertmor...ve/4417736026/
http://www.amazon.com/Don-Budge-Tenn.../dp/B000J3WLHS

Bill Tilden forehand:
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=bill+...1t:429,r:2,s:0

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

No, no, Limpin, Don Budge was just 'incorrect', you fool, 'incorect'!

In fact, anyone who doesn anything Frank doesn't like requires 'correction'

hmmm...

[Frank Silbermann]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Frank,

I grew up having been taught everything your talking about, and I have since come to learn that much of it was wrong, and much is no longer applicable to modern tennis. Further, much of the traditional technique taught from the 20's-80's was actually not the prevailing technique among the pros.

Don Budge forehand:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertmor...ve/4417736026/
http://www.amazon.com/Don-Budge-Tenn.../dp/B000J3WLHS

Bill Tilden forehand:
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=bill+...1t:429,r:2,s:0

The Bill Tilden photo and one of the Don Budge photos does indeed show that the racket head could drop below the wrist, despite what we were told. That was indeed one teaching principle that was wrong (except maybe for full-continental forehands). Interestingly, one photo of Don Budge shows him as a junior using the western grip (before men's grass-court play forced him to change it, thereby establishing the principle that the western grip should not be taught).

Another item of teaching that was wrong was the idea of stepping towards the net on the backhand. The top players actually pointed their front foot directly towards the sideline when hitting the backhand with power. (In this sense, you are right that the forehand and backhand were NOT symmetrical. The only way they were symmetrical was in the shape of the motion made by the racket head (when hitting flat or with top spin).

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

No, no, Limpin, Don Budge was just 'incorrect', you fool, 'incorrect'!

In fact, anyone who doesn anything Frank doesn't like requires 'correction'

hmmm...

It wasn't me who wrote all those books declaring the "shake hands" grip to be the correct forehand grip. I merely read them.

[papa]

Originally Posted by Frank Silbermann

It wasn't me who wrote all those books declaring the "shake hands" grip to be the correct forehand grip. I merely read them.

I think the important thing here is when were they written and in what context. The "shaking hands" context is still valid but certainly not when hitting a top spin FH groundstroke.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Frank Silbermann

The Bill Tilden photo and one of the Don Budge photos does indeed show that the racket head could drop below the wrist, despite what we were told. That was indeed one teaching principle that was wrong (except maybe for full-continental forehands). Interestingly, one photo of Don Budge shows him as a junior using the western grip (before men's grass-court play forced him to change it, thereby establishing the principle that the western grip should not be taught).

Another item of teaching that was wrong was the idea of stepping towards the net on the backhand. The top players actually pointed their front foot directly towards the sideline when hitting the backhand with power. (In this sense, you are right that the forehand and backhand were NOT symmetrical. The only way they were symmetrical was in the shape of the motion made by the racket head (when hitting flat or with top spin).

It wasn't me who wrote all those books declaring the "shake hands" grip to be the correct forehand grip. I merely read them.

Frank, you have referenced Budge using a Western grip as a junior on several occasions. I'm not sure where you got that from, or what photo you're talking about. But, according to Budge himself, as I recall, he noticed a lot of California cement court players using a Western grip (probably equivalent to a SW grip by modern definitions), and he tried it (he didn't say when, or for how long), but didn't stay with it because it didn't work for him as well as his Eastern grip.

The point I was trying to make about the asymmetry of forehands and backhands is that they were taught as if they were symmetrical mirror images of each other, especially the footwork and set up. IMO, that convention is what caused so many players to be stronger on their backhand sides than on their forehand sides, and served as an example of what you characterized as correct technique actually being flawed. To be clear, IMO, an open stance fh is, and has always been, the correct way to set up for a forehand because of the inherent difference of a forehand - hitting with the back shoulder and the necessity of getting the upper body out of the way of the swing and the maintanence of balance throughout.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by papa

I think the important thing here is when were they written and in what context. The "shaking hands" context is still valid but certainly not when hitting a top spin FH groundstroke.

IMO, it's not just about producing topspin. Many players hit heavy topspin with a continental grip: Hoad, Laver, Okker, Nastase for example. Rather, the more neutral grips were the proper grip when playing on fast, soft, low bouncing grass which, to my knowledge, doesn't exist anywhere on the pro tour anymore. But, when taking balls near, or above, the shoulder, those grips are a disadvantage compared to a SW grip.

[Frank Silbermann]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Frank, you have referenced Budge using a Western grip as a junior on several occasions. I'm not sure where you got that from, or what photo you're talking about. But, according to Budge himself, as I recall, he noticed a lot of California cement court players using a Western grip (probably equivalent to a SW grip by modern definitions), and he tried it (he didn't say when, or for how long), but didn't stay with it because it didn't work for him as well as his Eastern grip.

You yourself provided the photo of Don Budge (I presume as a junior) using a western grip:

http://www.amazon.com/Don-Budge-Tenn.../dp/B000J3WLHS

If you click on the photo you get this larger version:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/ima...283155&s=books

You can tell it's Western because even though the racket face is vertical and the racket staff is horizontal, his elbow is lower than his wrist. Contrast that to this picture you provided:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertmor...ve/4417736026/

Here, he is using an Eastern grip. Even if he raised his arm so that the racket would be horizontal, his elbow would still be slightly higher than his wrist.

In the continental style, with the racket staff horizontal and the racket face vertical, the elbow is almost directly above the wrist:

http://www.espn.co.uk/onthisday/sport/story/164.html
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...r_1428240c.jpg

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

Frank, are you seriously suggesting the photo of Don Budge on teh cover of the green book entitled 'A Memoir' is of him as a junior?????

LOOK AT HIS FACE!!!!!!

[NLBwell]

You've got them all running, Frank.

[papa]

Frank, you should stay with what works for you. In most cases its rather difficult to change players strokes much as they get older. I've found that its frustrating for the teacher as well as the student and generally its very constructive for either. However, I've had many players who for one reason or another want to learn the "newer" strokes and do very well - they surprise themselves.

I've even had players (one in particular that I've quite inspired by) who has actually has had to learn the game all over using a different arm. His right shoulder is totally shot even after several operations. Quite a story and a great athlete and person.

[Frank Silbermann]

Originally Posted by Timbo's hopeless slice

Frank, are you seriously suggesting the photo of Don Budge on the cover of the green book entitled 'A Memoir' is of him as a junior?????

LOOK AT HIS FACE!!!!!!

I never said he was a good-looking guy! He was probably 18 there. Hey, red-headed guys with freckles who spend all day out in the California sun don't always have the freshest complexions! And people with no visible chin or cheekbones can have flabby faces even at a young age!

Originally Posted by papa

Frank, you should stay with what works for you. In most cases its rather difficult to change players strokes much as they get older. I've found that its frustrating for the teacher as well as the student and generally its very constructive for either. However, I've had many players who for one reason or another want to learn the "newer" strokes and do very well - they surprise themselves. ...

It might be easier for people like me, who were never any good to begin with. But if I had my way, I'd change the rules so that people with the newer techniques would have to learn the classic game -- if only so that the old tennis books would still be relevant.