What is wrong with this picture

[sabala]

Kinda reminds me of the 1st FH in this vid, (maybe will be of some help)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ho3FRWm9Pw

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by sabala

Kinda reminds me of the 1st FH in this vid, (maybe will be of some help)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ho3FRWm9Pw

That is an excellent demonstration of the difference setup of a traditional vs. modern forehand. Thanks!

[treblings]

Originally Posted by sabala

Kinda reminds me of the 1st FH in this vid, (maybe will be of some help)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ho3FRWm9Pw

thanks, excellent.
fascinating what´s out there in terms of really good instructional tennis vids

[gindyo]

Originally Posted by sabala

Kinda reminds me of the 1st FH in this vid, (maybe will be of some help)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ho3FRWm9Pw

thanks sabala this is a great video in which you can see the difference between modern and traditional forehands, however I believe that one should not replace the other but rather it should be added to a player's arsenal, and used when appropriate given the situation. I had posted a video before hitting some wide FHs and people came out of the woodwork to comment how I hit every forehand off my right foot. What a lot of people on this forum do is analyse strokes after they take them out of context. Not suggesting that you are doing the same because you did add "maybe will be of some help" disclaimer, but just saying.
Thanks again for the video. I will take some pointers from it, when I go out to practice my open stance FH

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by gindyo

thanks sabala this is a great video in which you can see the difference between modern and traditional forehands, however I believe that one should not replace the other but rather it should be added to a player's arsenal, and used when appropriate given the situation. I had posted a video before hitting some wide FHs and people came out of the woodwork to comment how I hit every forehand off my right foot. What a lot of people on this forum do is analyse strokes after they take them out of context. Not suggesting that you are doing the same because you did add "maybe will be of some help" disclaimer, but just saying.
Thanks again for the video. I will take some pointers from it, when I go out to practice my open stance FH

In addition to the stance, there's a much deeper knee bend in the setup of the modern forehand, AND there's a noticable difference in the swing that isn't discussed by the coach. In the traditional forehand, the upper body rotation and arm are pushing the racquet through the shot from behind. In the modern forehand, the rotation leads the swing and the racquet and drags it through the shot and the ball from in front.

For me, the only time to hit with a closed stance is when you're on the dead run parallel to the baseline and you don't have the ability to set up with an open stance.

[gindyo]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

For me, the only time to hit with a closed stance is when you're on the dead run parallel to the baseline and you don't have the ability to set up with an open stance.

If you are talking about the closed stance where your inside foot (left for a righty) goes across the outside then I would agree, but if by closed you mean the one in my video where the line between your feet is perpendicular ( or close to perpendicular ) to the net, I would disagree and add that I would try and hit with that stance every time when I have the time to set up.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by gindyo

If you are talking about the closed stance where your inside foot (left for a righty) goes across the outside then I would agree, but if by closed you mean the one in my video where the line between your feet is perpendicular ( or close to perpendicular ) to the net, I would disagree and add that I would try and hit with that stance every time when I have the time to set up.

That's fine. But, IMO, a neutral stance is irreconcilable with a modern forehand. You can't do what that 4.5 player demonstrates as a modern forehand with a neutral stance.

[5263]

Originally Posted by gindyo

If you are talking about the closed stance where your inside foot (left for a righty) goes across the outside then I would agree, but if by closed you mean the one in my video where the line between your feet is perpendicular ( or close to perpendicular ) to the net, I would disagree and add that I would try and hit with that stance every time when I have the time to set up.

gindyo, hey, just saw the thread.
I think you are referring to the neutral stance above (perpendicular),
which is by the way, a subset of the closed stance IMO.

I'm going to have to go against you above I'm afraid and go with limpin.
I think you have an attractive stoke on the video, but
one that to an extent, exemplifies the challenges of mixing classic and modern.
I expect you will have great days, when you can play aggressively, but also lack
the consistency to do it most every day against a broad array of opponents.

LeeD commends you for it, and I caution you of it.
You hit from neutral and use that to move your wt foward and out towards
the target. This extra extension leads to hitting long, in the net, and backing off
on power to avoid the first 2, along with other more subtle problems.

With an open or semi open stance, along with a more vertical lift of your weight
into the shot, you can unleash the beast and take full cuts that allow for a blend
of copious spin and formidable pace! All while staying well within the lines.
Even when you get caught in a neutral or fully closed stance, you can simulate
the open stance technique by lifting and rotating to open in the air. This allows
you to keep that more vertical approach to contact and hit up and across the shot.

[LeeD]

No no no....
I don't ever recommend a closed stance and modern SW grips forehands.
I could not detect anything consistently wrong with OP's forehand except for unusual overall stroke from prep thru backswing thru forward swing, especially including timing. That's the comment on HIS style.
I have never seen ANYONE close their stance and hit a modern forehand on purpose, that's all. And OP does it conscously and does it well!

[5263]

Originally Posted by LeeD

No no no....
I don't ever recommend a closed stance and modern SW grips forehands.
I could not detect anything consistently wrong with OP's forehand except for unusual overall stroke from prep thru backswing thru forward swing, especially including timing. That's the comment on HIS style.
I have never seen ANYONE close their stance and hit a modern forehand on purpose, that's all. And OP does it conscously and does it well!

Fair enough Lee, but
while he does it well and looks great doing it I may add,
he is aware he needs to improve it IMO and
there is usually more improvement needed than
a player is aware of. Meaning that once you get better,
you then again see where you can improve even more!

[LeeD]

Yes, OP needs a quicker stroke from inception to finish, so he can adopt a semi open stance, using his modern grip and finish. Now, it's too linear, and too dependent on perfect timing and read.

[rkelley]

Originally Posted by sabala

Kinda reminds me of the 1st FH in this vid, (maybe will be of some help)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ho3FRWm9Pw

I've always been a bit ambivalent about this video.

I agree the second forehand is superior and should be the form you strive for when you can get set-up for it.

However the first fh is not a traditional forehand and definitely has a place. The swing path on this forehand is basically the same as the second fh, and they are both modern strokes. Limp is correct that the player gets his shoulders turned more in the second fh and pulls the racquet around more. The first fh is the fh that one would hit for a shorter ball, especially low and short. You have to move forward, step into the ball and hit from a neutral stance. You swing and then bring the back leg around and end the stroke in an open stance. I just can't get to every ball in time to set-up open or semi-open, and I'm not the slowest guy on the planet.

[5263]

Originally Posted by rkelley

I've always been a bit ambivalent about this video.

I agree the second forehand is superior and should be the form you strive for when you can get set-up for it.

However the first fh is not a traditional forehand and definitely has a place. The swing path on this forehand is basically the same as the second fh, and they are both modern strokes. Limp is correct that the player gets his shoulders turned more in the second fh and pulls the racquet around more. The first fh is the fh that one would hit for a shorter ball, especially low and short. You have to move forward, step into the ball and hit from a neutral stance. You swing and then bring the back leg around and end the stroke in an open stance. I just can't get to every ball in time to set-up open or semi-open, and I'm not the slowest guy on the planet.

What is modern in the First Fh?

[gindyo]

Originally Posted by rkelley

I've always been a bit ambivalent about this video.

I agree the second forehand is superior and should be the form you strive for when you can get set-up for it.

However the first fh is not a traditional forehand and definitely has a place. The swing path on this forehand is basically the same as the second fh, and they are both modern strokes. Limp is correct that the player gets his shoulders turned more in the second fh and pulls the racquet around more. The first fh is the fh that one would hit for a shorter ball, especially low and short. You have to move forward, step into the ball and hit from a neutral stance. You swing and then bring the back leg around and end the stroke in an open stance. I just can't get to every ball in time to set-up open or semi-open, and I'm not the slowest guy on the planet.

I completely agree. I think that the only reason why open stance took over the use of neutral stance is because the pace of the game increased tremendously in recent times and players do not have the time to set up. But if you pay close attention many times when the pros have time to set up they will use neutral stance.
I didn't want to go there but I will have to pull the youtube card
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0f6gkc49qk
just watch what both of them do when the ball is in the middle and they attack it (Especially Fed)

[rkelley]

Originally Posted by 5263

What is modern in the First Fh?

The swing path.

[LeeD]

Certainly the swingpath is different than the traditional mid 70's forehand.
But grip and followthru makes the swingpath.

[rkelley]

Originally Posted by gindyo

I completely agree. I think that the only reason why open stance took over the use of neutral stance is because the pace of the game increased tremendously in recent times and players do not have the time to set up. But if you pay close attention the majority of the time when the pros have time to set up they will use neutral stance.
I didn't want to go there but I will have to pull the youtube card
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0f6gkc49qk
just watch what both of them do when the ball is in the middle and they attack it (Especially Fed)

Well, I didn't exactly mean that.

I think the open/semi-open stance is generally what you want to set-up in for most balls if you can. The open stance makes it easier to get your hips around to start the stroke and allows your follow through to go past "facing the net." Just like that video shows: set-up open, get those legs bent, left arm parallel to the baseline, racquet back and up. Turn those hips to start the stroke using the legs to drive that hip rotation, the shoulders follow aided by the left arm, and the power will just flow into the racquet as it whips into the ball.

But I've found that sometimes I can't get to the ball with that set-up, particularly low, short balls. I have to go neutral stance on those balls as I step into them to get to them, and then allow my right leg move around during follow through so that I end up in open stance - just like in the first fh in the video.

[gindyo]

here is another one. And this guy is the epitome of modern
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXnqH8qwqXA

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by gindyo

But if you pay close attention many times when the pros have time to set up they will use neutral stance.
I didn't want to go there but I will have to pull the youtube card
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0f6gkc49qk
just watch what both of them do when the ball is in the middle and they attack it (Especially Fed)

Well, imho, i think they use open stance over 90% of the time even when they have time to set up. They will use the neutral stance when they are moving forward and attacking. The vid you posted shows this. the neutral stance was used when they were inside the baseline moving forward on attack.

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by gindyo

here is another one. And this guy is the epitome of modern
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXnqH8qwqXA

and in this video too. rafa used neutral stance because he was 1 step inside the court AND was hitting an inside out fh.