Forehand Topspin Drive

[wihamilton]

Nice discussion here folks. Enjoyed reading the posts so far.

In the video referenced above I explain that the WWF is driven by the motion of the arm. Jeff Counts (hi-techtennis.com) compares this motion to lifting and turning over a lever. Roddick and Andreev are good examples of this type of WWF.

But there's another way to hit a WWF. Federer is a prime example. Where the path of the arm doesn't control the low-to-high motion of the racket as much and doesn't cause the WW follow through. Instead, it's pronation that does the trick.

So there are two types of WWFs. Each works just fine. BUT from a recreational player's standpoint, I think the "lever" one is preferable because it's easier to learn, doesn't require amazing timing, and is more stable.

(Ever wonder why Federer goes on "shank sprees" on his forehand? Even the GOAT goes cold occasionally and loses his timing. A good indication of how tough this technique can be.)

- W

[sureshs]

That is why I think Federer "uses" modern rackets effectively and does things which will not work with a wood racket, though people think the opposite (that he is a classic player). Many of his shots are hit with very little margin and look like flukes to me.

[boramiNYC]

Fed is the most consistently successful player in grand slams ever by a wide margin. I believe he could have done it precisely due to his technique and style not despite of the demanding nature of his technique and style. many rec players think hitting the soft pancake serve will prevent mistake and help consistency but in fact hitting high level second serve is much more consistent. again not despite but due to more difficult but correct technique.

[watungga]

Op meant that the topspin drive is similar to the ping pong.

Bad analogy.

In tennis, the art of forehand attack is based on WHEN the ball was hit. Ascending. Peak. Descending.

... and the discreet gap in between the 3 above stages.

Disregarding the player's arm, there are hundreds of angles in which a racquet face hits the ball.

Let's add the arm, add hundreds of styles.

Add the torso..

Add the feet...

Add the muscles...

Add the brain...

We will have thousands of sequences to hit the TopSpin Drive.

[Greg G]

Verdasco's forehand. Weird pov, but interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9aIrPpSt8I

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by Greg G

Verdasco's forehand. Weird pov, but interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9aIrPpSt8I

woah. that was ... weird.
interesting tho.
i like how you can see how square the contact is

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by wihamilton

Nice discussion here folks. Enjoyed reading the posts so far.

In the video referenced above I explain that the WWF is driven by the motion of the arm. Jeff Counts (hi-techtennis.com) compares this motion to lifting and turning over a lever. Roddick and Andreev are good examples of this type of WWF.

But there's another way to hit a WWF. Federer is a prime example. Where the path of the arm doesn't control the low-to-high motion of the racket as much and doesn't cause the WW follow through. Instead, it's pronation that does the trick.

So there are two types of WWFs. Each works just fine. BUT from a recreational player's standpoint, I think the "lever" one is preferable because it's easier to learn, doesn't require amazing timing, and is more stable.

(Ever wonder why Federer goes on "shank sprees" on his forehand? Even the GOAT goes cold occasionally and loses his timing. A good indication of how tough this technique can be.)

- W

others use pronation too but most others have that second hinge joint (elbow) which fed has not with his straight arm FH. so he has to do the WW with his forearm alone which is probably why his swing path is a little flatter.

[TheCheese]

Originally Posted by wihamilton

Nice discussion here folks. Enjoyed reading the posts so far.

In the video referenced above I explain that the WWF is driven by the motion of the arm. Jeff Counts (hi-techtennis.com) compares this motion to lifting and turning over a lever. Roddick and Andreev are good examples of this type of WWF.

But there's another way to hit a WWF. Federer is a prime example. Where the path of the arm doesn't control the low-to-high motion of the racket as much and doesn't cause the WW follow through. Instead, it's pronation that does the trick.

So there are two types of WWFs. Each works just fine. BUT from a recreational player's standpoint, I think the "lever" one is preferable because it's easier to learn, doesn't require amazing timing, and is more stable.

(Ever wonder why Federer goes on "shank sprees" on his forehand? Even the GOAT goes cold occasionally and loses his timing. A good indication of how tough this technique can be.)

- W

Hey Will, thanks for the reply. I've gone through FYB Premium, Tennis Ninja, and TennixRx. Great stuff not only for learning, but for teaching others.

I'm wondering if you're familiar with the tennis speed blog, which talks about the different types of forehands used by the top pros. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, it's a great read.

http://blog.tennisspeed.com/2011/05/...nd-part-1.html

Speaking from experience it seems like the Roddick style WWF is more suited to western or extreme western grips and relies on supination leading up to the forward swing, whereas the straight arm style is suited to semi-western(Nadal) to eastern style(Fed) grips and relies upon pronation leading up to the forward swing.

First off, I'll begin by saying I'm a 4.5-5.0 level player who's had a good amount of coaching as a kid, so I'm probably more advanced that your average target audience and I definitely understand the reasoning behind making things as simple as possible.

As someone with a extreme-eastern grip the Federer method feels extremely intuitive and simple in comparison. I think it's a common sort of cliche that coaches use when they say that what the pros are doing is just not possible for the average player. I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the recent top forehands in the game are all using the pronation technique. Rather, I think it's a recent advancement in technique that's a result of the advances in string technology among other things. For me, it's simply the easiest way to get maximum control (topspin) and speed, all while still being able to maintain a relatively flat trajectory. However, it's definitely not something the average weekend warrior club player is going to have the patience to learn and it's definitely a more advanced technique to apply than the other style, so the simplification is warranted.

It's pretty clear from watching the classic Federer vs Roddick matches. The difference between the two techniques is the crazy amount of topspin that Federer can generate while STILL maintaining high ball speeds and a relatively flat trajectory. He's able to hit the same speed of shot Roddick is hitting but with a TON more margin on everything. In fact, the harder Federer hits, the more topspin he's generating, whereas the harder Roddick hits the less topspin he's getting.

Agassi talks about it in the commentary booth at the 07 US Open Roddick vs Federer QF.

Yes, Federer and Nadal are very gifted athletes but I think part of their success is due to their technique, which is actually superior to the Roddick technique because of how much control it grants them due to the crazy amounts of topspin they can generate without sacrificing pace or trajectory.

[rkelley]

Originally Posted by wihamilton

Nice discussion here folks. Enjoyed reading the posts so far.

In the video referenced above I explain that the WWF is driven by the motion of the arm. Jeff Counts (hi-techtennis.com) compares this motion to lifting and turning over a lever. Roddick and Andreev are good examples of this type of WWF.

But there's another way to hit a WWF. Federer is a prime example. Where the path of the arm doesn't control the low-to-high motion of the racket as much and doesn't cause the WW follow through. Instead, it's pronation that does the trick.

So there are two types of WWFs. Each works just fine. BUT from a recreational player's standpoint, I think the "lever" one is preferable because it's easier to learn, doesn't require amazing timing, and is more stable.

(Ever wonder why Federer goes on "shank sprees" on his forehand? Even the GOAT goes cold occasionally and loses his timing. A good indication of how tough this technique can be.)

- W

Interesting thought about two different types of fhs.

I guess I think of it more as a continuum. The more Western your grip is, the more you're going to use "the lever" to achieve the swing path. The more Eastern, the more you need to pronate your wrist to achieve the swing path.

I don't know that one requires better timing than the other.

I do think there's a bit of "pick your poison" however. The more Western grips make top spin easier to achieve, but hitting through the ball can be harder. The more Eastern grips the opposite, hitting through the ball comes more easily but getting good topspin is harder. At the optimum I don't know that there's a difference in what can be achieved.

Watch the 2007 QF match at the USO between Fed and Roddick. Very different grips on the fh, but both of them are hitting very, very hard with lots of spin, and not missing much. Brutally honest guest commentary by Agassi as a bonus.

[5263]

Originally Posted by TheCheese

For me, it's simply the easiest way to get maximum control (topspin) and speed, all while still being able to maintain a relatively flat trajectory.

You got it here, where some seem to miss this about the ww.
I don't think it's that tough to learn though and actually sort of easy imo.
Maybe that's because I've hit a lot of balls thru the years, but I've also had
good luck in teaching it quickly.

[TheCheese]

Originally Posted by rkelley

Interesting thought about two different types of fhs.

I guess I think of it more as a continuum. The more Western your grip is, the more you're going to use "the lever" to achieve the swing path. The more Eastern, the more you need to pronate your wrist to achieve the swing path.

I don't know that one requires better timing than the other.

I do think there's a bit of "pick your poison" however. The more Western grips make top spin easier to achieve, but hitting through the ball can be harder. The more Eastern grips the opposite, hitting through the ball comes more easily but getting good topspin is harder. At the optimum I don't know that there's a difference in what can be achieved.

Watch the 2007 QF match at the USO between Fed and Roddick. Very different grips on the fh, but both of them are hitting very, very hard with lots of spin, and not missing much. Brutally honest guest commentary by Agassi as a bonus.

I have to very much disagree.

It's not a continuum, but two very distinct techniques and biomechanical movements that should not be confused.

It's supination vs pronation. Trade-off between ball speed and spin vs simultaneous production of both.

Someone with a semi-western using the Roddick technique vs the Federer technique produce a VERY different looking stroke and very different results.

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by TheCheese

I have to very much disagree.

It's not a continuum, but two very distinct techniques and biomechanical movements that should not be confused.

It's supination vs pronation. Trade-off between ball speed and spin vs simultaneous production of both.

Someone with a semi-western using the Roddick technique vs the Federer technique produce a VERY different looking stroke and very different results.

supination vs pronation? i think you made a mistake there.

[boramiNYC]

think I understand what cheese is trying to say between sup vs pro. comparing the two SW and E fh hit with much topspin, in SW contact occurs in more supinated position of the hand than that of E grip by nature of the more rotated grip. IOW, when the racquet face angles are similar at contact, SW hand is slightly more supinated than E hand. going from straight arm to bent arm the hand supinates slightly which is why SW generally has more bent arm for the same reason. and the feel is different as well. that's why E fh people sometimes say push fh because it feels the contact happens more toward pronated hand position while SW is more associated with pull from supinated hand position. sorry a lot of ideas all together but hopefully makes sense.

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by boramiNYC

think I understand what cheese is trying to say between sup vs pro. comparing the two SW and E fh hit with much topspin, in SW contact occurs in more supinated position of the hand than that of E grip by nature of the more rotated grip. IOW, when the racquet face angles are similar at contact, SW hand is slightly more supinated than E hand. going from straight arm to bent arm the hand supinates slightly which is why SW generally has more bent arm for the same reason. and the feel is different as well. that's why E fh people sometimes say push fh because it feels the contact happens more toward pronated hand position while SW is more associated with pull from supinated hand position. sorry a lot of ideas all together but hopefully makes sense.

that makes more sense. i asked because I'm assuming he knows that both types of fh's involve both supination and pronation during the stroke.

[TheCheese]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

that makes more sense. i asked because I'm assuming he knows that both types of fh's involve both supination and pronation during the stroke.

Yes, your forearm is going to always supinate as you come through. The amount of pronation vs supination BEFORE that happens (transition from backswing to forward swing) is what I'm referring to.





vs





As for Borami, what you said is true but not what I was getting at. Try comparing SW Roddick technique vs SW Federer technique. They would be very different. (See Roddick vs Nadal, both using SW)

[boramiNYC]

k, I see what you mean. more pronation in backswing means more snap in the sup-pro cycle during the forward swing. Dj has quite a bit of pronation in the backswing as well which gives him extra snap during forward swing. so it seems to makes sense.

[Greg G]

Wow this thread is really quite enlightening for me! The distinction between the 2 types of WW forehand cleared up some stuff in my head. Can't wait to apply it to my own strokes. Keep it coming guys!

[boramiNYC]

cheese, do you really think Fed uses SW? I think someone using SW trying Feds technique will find it difficult. unless you're nadal and can finish above the head all the time.

[rkelley]

Originally Posted by TheCheese

I have to very much disagree.

It's not a continuum, but two very distinct techniques and biomechanical movements that should not be confused.

It's supination vs pronation. Trade-off between ball speed and spin vs simultaneous production of both.

Someone with a semi-western using the Roddick technique vs the Federer technique produce a VERY different looking stroke and very different results.

Originally Posted by boramiNYC

think I understand what cheese is trying to say between sup vs pro. comparing the two SW and E fh hit with much topspin, in SW contact occurs in more supinated position of the hand than that of E grip by nature of the more rotated grip. IOW, when the racquet face angles are similar at contact, SW hand is slightly more supinated than E hand. going from straight arm to bent arm the hand supinates slightly which is why SW generally has more bent arm for the same reason. and the feel is different as well. that's why E fh people sometimes say push fh because it feels the contact happens more toward pronated hand position while SW is more associated with pull from supinated hand position. sorry a lot of ideas all together but hopefully makes sense.

So first a note, we're talking about producing a modern swing path, not hitting through the ball like with an old school E fh motion. With that said:

When I just shadow swing here at home one of the biggest things that I notice between a Western and an E. grip is that with the W grip upper arm rotation becomes way more of a factor in producing the swing path around the contact area. With the E. grip it's almost all pronation at contact. Upper arm rotation only comes into play after contact to decelerate the racquet. That upper arm rotation is the "lever" that I believe Will Hamilton was referring to.

In either case the forearm supinates quite a bit before contact. I think boramiNYC is probably correct in saying that at contact the forearm is more supinated with the W. grip than the E. I would think that this is because with the W. grip you have the upper arm also playing a big role in generating the racquet's swing path while with the E. grip the upward motion at the time of contact is almost all in the forearm. Check out any Fed video.

All of this still points to a continuum from what I can see. If there are two distinct techniques is there some grip where a player goes from one technique to the other. Can you cite examples that we can check out on youtube?

[TheCheese]

Originally Posted by boramiNYC

cheese, do you really think Fed uses SW? I think someone using SW trying Feds technique will find it difficult. unless you're nadal and can finish above the head all the time.

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was just using the comparison of a SW grip using the Roddick technique vs a SW using the Federer technique to show that it's the technique rather than the grip that causes the difference.

No, I'm pretty sure Federer uses a modified eastern grip. Nadal uses some form of semi-western with the Fed technique and you're right that it's difficult to do because it produces a more closed racket face than a typical SW.

Rkelley:

Take a SW grip and try pronating vs supinating at the transition between takeback and forward swing. That's one of the defining factors between the two techniques.

If you want an example of the two, check out Roddick vs Nadal on youtube. I'm sure FYB has some good videos.