With the open stance fh the palyer tilts right at the start and then finishes tilted left. Is it not OK for this change in balance to be defined as rotation around an axis which passes through the front of the torso?
coming forward instead of pulling back
- Thread starter thursdayisgod
- Start date
With the open stance fh the palyer tilts right at the start and then finishes tilted left. Is it not OK for this change in balance to be defined as rotation around an axis which passes through the front of the torso?
Where is all the weight going at the point of contact? It is behind the ball, and propelling the ball FORWARD. I do agree that it IS called rotation around the axis, but for someone to say that there is no forward weight transfer is ridiculous.
You have no idea what you are talking about. By saying this, you are implying that a player should hit off his back foot, because the "transferring of weight" would compromise consistency.
What is this whole changing center of gravity bull coming from? Neither you or Quasar have any idea about what you are talking about. Weight transfer (in terms of sports) is simply moving weight from one part of the body to another. Pretty much EVERY professional player that I have seen transfers weight from their right foot, to their left foot. That is if they have time to setup. The one player that I do see purposely not do this is Nadal, who chooses to hit with his weight on his back foot, in order to get height and consistency.
At the point of contact, the ball is hit with the weight behind it; the weight of the entire body at that point and time is moving FORWARD. Contact lasts less then a split second. The reason why you rotate, is that you can generate greater speeds before the racquet meets the ball, and you have the entire body weight behind it, compressing and flinging it away from the player.
Essentially what you are saying is that a player can increase their power by just twirling around in a 360 in one spot, as they don't have to put any weight transfer into the ball. That's just not right.
Edit : And no, again this center of gravity bull crap is stupid. What you are implying is that I can just rip forehands standing there by just purely rotating my upper body and standing still while not moving my legs. Anyone that actually plays tennis knows that without the use of the legs to help transfer weight (either through the sit and lift or the "rotation" of weight from the right foot to the left foot), your forehand severely lacks in alot of aspects.
Last edited:
Yeah, that more or less is how it works. The key is in how you load. Instead of directly bending the hips flexors and knees, you sit "back" and allow your hip and trunk to coil as one unit. The footwork patterns themselves are the same. That said, it's not as simple as saying "okay, I'm going to use sit+lift for this shot and power-off-back-foot for a different shot." It also influences your actual stroke form as well as your choices with stance.
Weight transfer is not essential to the fh. At contact only the hitting side is moving forward (to hit the ball) and the non-hitting side is moving backwards.
Sure we can get weight transfering forward due to the momentum of moving to the ball. And also if the balance is forward when the foot is pushing against the court there will be a forward compontent to that force. (As in BB's example of Roddick's fh)
But to say that weight transfer forward is essential to hitting a ball forward is against basic science principles. It may be in tennis books but Isaac Newton also may not agree with you on this one.
Isn't weight transfer when you hit the ball like you normally would, but you move your body forward into the shot, giving that extra bit of power?
I thought it was to be offensive and possibly use the forward momentum to get to the net. Or am I thinking of learning forward into the shot?
Also, I think what the thread creator meant by "hitting off the back foot" was leaning or moving away form the shot and hitting it, thus losing some of the force.
I thought it was to be offensive and possibly use the forward momentum to get to the net. Or am I thinking of learning forward into the shot?
Also, I think what the thread creator meant by "hitting off the back foot" was leaning or moving away form the shot and hitting it, thus losing some of the force.
Look, the majority of ATP players transfer their weight into the ball. At the point of contact, their weight is going forward. If there was no "weight" transfer, then tell me what is generating all of the force? It isn't racquet head speed, because I definitely hit way faster when I load up on my legs and rotate forward into the ball, than when I just stand there still and try to rotate my upper body as fast as possible. Why is it ATP players load up and rotate quickly, driving with their trunk, hips, legs, and shoulder? Why is it the majority of players hit with their weight leaning forward into the ball if they have time to setup? Go ahead and say it's not essential. I'll be busy ripping forehands while you are hitting forehands off your back foot.
Sure, you can HIT the ball over the net without leaning forward, but you definitely aren't going to get any significant amount of pace on the ball. I can hit decently without using my legs, but does that mean I should do that constantly? No.
Your legs help you transfer the weight in the modern forehand. It's plays a relatively small part in comparasion to the rotation of the hips/trunk, but it is still one of the keys to significant power. Both you, EricW, and Quasar are promoting the idea that you don't have to rotate forward, thus moving your weight into the ball at the point of contact. Sure, you can hit off your back foot. You won't get any mustard on the ball though. And eventually, your shoulder WILL fall off, because you aren't Nadal.
Edit : The open stance has the majority of the player behind the ball. There is no weight moving backwards at the point of contact. Everything is squared up, with the hand, arm, and body behind the ball. The majority of the drive is created from the tremendous turn of the shoulders, hips, trunk, and legs. Once you have finished the follow through, yes, the weight is on the left foot and falls behind you. This is simply because you rotated your weight from your right foot, to the left foot.
Last edited:
Why do you keep saying I advocate hitting off the back foot?
Weight should remain balanced during the motion. As the hitting side of the body moves forward, the non-hitting side moves backwards. As any component of the players body moves in any direction, the opposite component will move in the opposite direction. If there was any weight transfer, there would need to be an imbalance in this idea. This imbalance would cause the player to change position in space. This change of position is the change in the position of center of gravity that me and Quasar were talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFibX-inICg&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-D32RwsD_w
Do these players ultimately change position in space? No.
Angular momentum. All motion in the modern forehand is used to increase angular momentum. You don't have an understanding of this term, and therefore cannot argue this subject.
Weight should remain balanced during the motion. As the hitting side of the body moves forward, the non-hitting side moves backwards. As any component of the players body moves in any direction, the opposite component will move in the opposite direction. If there was any weight transfer, there would need to be an imbalance in this idea. This imbalance would cause the player to change position in space. This change of position is the change in the position of center of gravity that me and Quasar were talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFibX-inICg&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-D32RwsD_w
Do these players ultimately change position in space? No.
Angular momentum. All motion in the modern forehand is used to increase angular momentum. You don't have an understanding of this term, and therefore cannot argue this subject.
Last edited:
Rickson
G.O.A.T.
You're absolutely correct in that many people are confusing the square stance for a closed stance. The closed stance is not used that often among players today on the fh side although it is the proper stance for a 1hbh. You can weight shift while in an open stance or you can keep it on the back foot. Personally, I shift my weight to the front leg when I'm in attack mode and keep it on the back leg when I moonball.
You should not shift your weight either way unless you are coming to net or want to hit a flatter forehand. And if you are hitting a flatter forehand you will hit more unforced errors if you swing hard.
Watch Djokovic rip a 90mph winner here with zero weight shift from an open stance. Ironically, something Djokovicfan4life knows nothing about. Having no weight shift allows him to swing hard with no worries because all the topspin increases the margin for error. His power comes purely from rotation aka angular momentum and zero percent from weight shift.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PbsQ8gZLWyc
Watch Djokovic rip a 90mph winner here with zero weight shift from an open stance. Ironically, something Djokovicfan4life knows nothing about. Having no weight shift allows him to swing hard with no worries because all the topspin increases the margin for error. His power comes purely from rotation aka angular momentum and zero percent from weight shift.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PbsQ8gZLWyc
Last edited:
MasterBruceTennis
New User
Thanks to THURSDAYISGOD started this thread
So long as a player moves (his c.g), besides 'rotational or angular momentum', there are always ‘linear momentum’ (more or less, in all three directions) apply to the ball. You can call them any 'name’ you like.
After 40 years, I say this:
(1) The name (of stance) means no more than just a name. When Agassi uses forehand to swing at the ball between his legs or above his left shoulder, he does not care what 'name' stance shoud be.
(2) Listen to pros in their coaching (including USPTA, PTR, …), you will hear “put (inject, load, ....) your body weight on to the ball” on forehand, backhand, serve, volley,...virtually everywhere. You might also find the same sentence written all over...
(3) Too many jargons and ‘names’ have confused and misleaded tennis players. So i decide to start three new thread right here: Are “step into the ball” and “keep your eyes on the ball at all times” good instructional slogans? How to 'follow-through' for all kinds of shots?
So long as a player moves (his c.g), besides 'rotational or angular momentum', there are always ‘linear momentum’ (more or less, in all three directions) apply to the ball. You can call them any 'name’ you like.
After 40 years, I say this:
(1) The name (of stance) means no more than just a name. When Agassi uses forehand to swing at the ball between his legs or above his left shoulder, he does not care what 'name' stance shoud be.
(2) Listen to pros in their coaching (including USPTA, PTR, …), you will hear “put (inject, load, ....) your body weight on to the ball” on forehand, backhand, serve, volley,...virtually everywhere. You might also find the same sentence written all over...
(3) Too many jargons and ‘names’ have confused and misleaded tennis players. So i decide to start three new thread right here: Are “step into the ball” and “keep your eyes on the ball at all times” good instructional slogans? How to 'follow-through' for all kinds of shots?
Djokovicfan4life
Legend
Are you blind? Open you eyes for a change! Djokovic IS transferring his weight into the ball, rotating DOES involve shifting one's body weight! Djokovic just chooses not to hit this shot using the old school method i.e. stepping into the shot. Besides, you did not mention all this angular momentum mumbo jumbo before experienced players (not me) and coaches came in and proved you wrong time and time again.
This video offers an excellent analysis of both methods. Seasoned players should be able to hit with both of them. Hell, I can do it, and I'm not all that good, haha: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ho3FRWm9Pw
Last edited:
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=pM0jYWfVFMw&feature=related
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=fE1JUYGY89c&feature=related
I think we might not be using common terms to describe what we mean. As I have mentioned over and over again, pros hit off the back and not off the back foot.
Pros hit with their body going up and forward, straight up, and up and slightly back. Perhaps we aren't considering momentum as well?
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=n30yc9hd8GM&feature=related
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=b8f2dPzVWnU&feature=related
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=b8f2dPzVWnU
Based on the information provided on angular momentum, perhaps the discussion is incomplete without considering momentum/force/torque.
We are not simply standing still on a court and just spinning like a top on every shot we hit. Many times we are moving in a direction before we utilize angular momentum and many times need to counter balance our direction.
If we are going to talk about angular momentum then we would need to bring in things like force/torque, muscles, influence, direction, etc...otherwise it is like saying that flicking a penny and have it spin should remain in one spot only when indeed it does not. It moves in the direction you flicked it.
Whatever it is, angular momentum isn't the only thing that is happening in an open stance shot. I think it is a little more complicated then just saying "angular momentum".
Last edited:
Rickson
G.O.A.T.
Are you blind? Open you eyes for a change! Djokovic IS transferring his weight into the ball, rotating DOES involve shifting one's body weight! Djokovic just chooses not to hit this shot using the old school method i.e. stepping into the shot. Besides, you did not mention all this angular momentum mumbo jumbo before experienced players (not me) and coaches came in and proved you wrong time and time again.
This video offers an excellent analysis of both methods. Seasoned players should be able to hit with both of them. Hell, I can do it, and I'm not all that good, haha: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ho3FRWm9Pw
Djokovic absolutely transferred his weight forward. Just because he didn't step to his left foot, choosing to jump instead, doesn't mean there wasn't a weight transfer. That Quasar dude is buggin out.
C
chico9166
Guest
Said it before in another post, but Kerry Mitchells article 'true alignment" in tennisplayer.com is an absoulute must read and very pertinent to this "discussion."
Pay close attention to his thoughts on what the left leg, and hips are doing in and around contact, as we can hopefully all agree that unabated rotation is bad.
Pay close attention to his thoughts on what the left leg, and hips are doing in and around contact, as we can hopefully all agree that unabated rotation is bad.
C
chico9166
Guest
And you do it well I might add. Yea, this is a great piece of work.
Weight should remain balanced during the motion. As the hitting side of the body moves forward, the non-hitting side moves backwards. As any component of the players body moves in any direction, the opposite component will move in the opposite direction. If there was any weight transfer, there would need to be an imbalance in this idea. This imbalance would cause the player to change position in space. This change of position is the change in the position of center of gravity that me and Quasar were talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFibX-inICg&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-D32RwsD_w
Do these players ultimately change position in space? No.
--
Overall weight transfer - Difference between the end position (position at contact) and beginning position of a players center of mass in respect to the axis being described (X, Y, Z)
Individual weight transfer - Weight transfer between individual components of a players body.
Of course there is individual weight transfer (Which is what NamRanger was arguing about), but there is no overall weight transfer in respect to the X or Z axis. Any overall weight transfer can be considered negligible because a players position is essentially the same before and after the motion. In the old-school forehand, overall weight transfer was achieved by stepping into the ball. However, in the modern forehand, there is no overall weight transfer in respect to the X or Z axis.
Numerous posts directed at me or Quasar argued for the existence of individual weight transfer in the modern forehand. I never disagreed with this. The only argument that remains: Is there an overall weight transfer in respect to the X or Z axis in the modern forehand?
I say no:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-D32RwsD_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFibX-inICg&NR=1
Is the ending position of their center of mass different in respect to the X or Z axis than the starting position? No.
There has been a deep misunderstanding during this discussion with what me and other posters meant by "weight transfer". Hopefully this post clears things up.
Axis diagram:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFibX-inICg&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-D32RwsD_w
Do these players ultimately change position in space? No.
--
Overall weight transfer - Difference between the end position (position at contact) and beginning position of a players center of mass in respect to the axis being described (X, Y, Z)
Individual weight transfer - Weight transfer between individual components of a players body.
Of course there is individual weight transfer (Which is what NamRanger was arguing about), but there is no overall weight transfer in respect to the X or Z axis. Any overall weight transfer can be considered negligible because a players position is essentially the same before and after the motion. In the old-school forehand, overall weight transfer was achieved by stepping into the ball. However, in the modern forehand, there is no overall weight transfer in respect to the X or Z axis.
Numerous posts directed at me or Quasar argued for the existence of individual weight transfer in the modern forehand. I never disagreed with this. The only argument that remains: Is there an overall weight transfer in respect to the X or Z axis in the modern forehand?
I say no:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-D32RwsD_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFibX-inICg&NR=1
Is the ending position of their center of mass different in respect to the X or Z axis than the starting position? No.
There has been a deep misunderstanding during this discussion with what me and other posters meant by "weight transfer". Hopefully this post clears things up.
Axis diagram:
Last edited:
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
Tricky,
If this is what Kerry said (without reading the article) then I can't see how he can come up with this stuff.
It is clear that many forehands from an open stance are hit as a person is rising through the shot. I have cleaned my reading glasses squeeky clean and still see players in an open stance rise through the shot. Many have their feet off the ground as they make impact with the ball.
Some have their momentum going backwards, others forward, while still others planted well in time and simply rising as they make contact.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=qZWRAY_lTX8&feature=related
Regarding angular momentum, we are forgetting that there are other forces at play that have to do with a players efforts in a shot. Tennis is not played standing still with someone torquing our heads to put us into a spin. We are moving through and into the ball many times and do not always have the luxury to stop, stand still, and then create angular momentum like a figure skater bringing their arms in for a tight spin. Speaking of this, this is why I watch the non-dominant arm in players to see if it folds back into the body for more acceleration but that is another topic.
Many times like a figure skater moves through the ice and performs their double and triple axles, tennis players are also moving sending their momentum in a direction before performing angular momentum to execute a forehand. The body has to handle this momentum and for one to say that the feet need to be on the ground or else, well, is out there.
Last edited:
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
I just provided you with examples of a players position changing just by watching where their feet are before and after. Are you denying the change? I think you are forgetting that movement is also part of this whole thing and we can use movement to our advantage in the open stance forehand.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=n30yc9...eature=related : Stalls momentum, stores it, and then releases it forward into the ball.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=b8f2dP...eature=related : Rises up
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=b8f2dPzVWnU : Pushes body back from his toes.
Last edited:
The majority of modern forehands meet my criteria; in fact, I've posted tons that do. Of course you can find a forehand from a pro that will disagree with any idea. Only the first is against my criteria, and that type of forehand is rare.
I'll edit my post to clarify that there is overall weight transfer upward, I've mentioned that earlier in the thread but forgot to in my previous post.
I'll edit my post to clarify that there is overall weight transfer upward, I've mentioned that earlier in the thread but forgot to in my previous post.
Last edited:
Yeah, Kerry talks about this in the article too. I'm leaving out the portion where Kerry talks about how hips must not over-rotate as the stance becomes more open. Hip rotation helps to facilitate the weight transfer or the re-distribution of weight, causing you to step through the ball. So what he's saying is that -- for the open FH -- you have to learn how to rotate the hips and torso into true alignment (which is not a lot in an open stance) without your right hip and back foot moving into the line of shot as your racquet approach the contact zone. As a result, in his examples, weight transfer is not a significant part of what makes the open stance FH (or specifically the FH facilitated by "sit and lift") go.
That said, open stance FH can still be hit with weight transfer, or shifting of weight from back foot to front. It's not difficult to show examples of such, especially from the current women's game. There's a lot of situational context (movement patterns toward ball, kind of shot you're trying to hit, torso position relative to line of ball coming at you) that influences that as well as stance.
Are you blind? Open you eyes for a change! Djokovic IS transferring his weight into the ball, rotating DOES involve shifting one's body weight! Djokovic just chooses not to hit this shot using the old school method i.e. stepping into the shot. Besides, you did not mention all this angular momentum mumbo jumbo before experienced players (not me) and coaches came in and proved you wrong time and time again.
This video offers an excellent analysis of both methods. Seasoned players should be able to hit with both of them. Hell, I can do it, and I'm not all that good, haha: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ho3FRWm9Pw
You don't know what weight is. Weight is gravity pulling a mass to the earth. That is done through the center of gravity. If a person's center of gravity does not move then there is no weight transfer (transfer means move). The center of gravity in a human being is located in the lower abdomen about the belt line. If that doesn't move then there is no weight transfer. In Djokovic's 90 mph slow motion forehand video there, his center of gravity does not move anywhere but upward. Look at it and watch that again? Do you think his center of gravity moves forward?
Rotation is a different thing than weight. A person can rotate a lot without transfering weight (moving their center of gravity). The modern forehand rotates the body into the ball and swings the racket diagonally upward through it. That is not weight transfer. The center of gravity does not move (anywhere other than upward). If the center of gravity moved then that would be weight transfer. It's amazing that you posted a video that explains the exact same stuff I'm saying. In the before motion in the video watch the players center of gravity move forward as he steps into the shot, that is weight transfer. Then his pro explains to him a better way to hit a forehand, the exact same way I am advocating, and the same way Djokovic, Nadal, etc. hits it, which is to have no forward weight transfer, and only move his center of gravity up.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PbsQ8gZLWyc
Look at Gonzalez, his center of gravity stay a few inches behind the baseline the entire time.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lFibX-inICg&feature=PlayList&p=4A754E1E82DAFBB1&index=7
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yEjtLGMd2p8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVu9-c_sH98&feature=related
Last edited:
Weight should remain balanced during the motion. As the hitting side of the body moves forward, the non-hitting side moves backwards. As any component of the players body moves in any direction, the opposite component will move in the opposite direction. If there was any weight transfer, there would need to be an imbalance in this idea. This imbalance would cause the player to change position in space. This change of position is the change in the position of center of gravity that me and Quasar were talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFibX-inICg&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-D32RwsD_w
Do these players ultimately change position in space? No.
--
Overall weight transfer - Difference between the end position (position at contact) and beginning position of a players center of mass in respect to the axis being described (X, Y, Z)
Individual weight transfer - Weight transfer between individual components of a players body.
Of course there is individual weight transfer (Which is what NamRanger was arguing about), but there is no overall weight transfer in respect to the X or Z axis. Any overall weight transfer can be considered negligible because a players position is essentially the same before and after the motion. In the old-school forehand, overall weight transfer was achieved by stepping into the ball. However, in the modern forehand, there is no overall weight transfer in respect to the X or Z axis.
Numerous posts directed at me or Quasar argued for the existence of individual weight transfer in the modern forehand. I never disagreed with this. The only argument that remains: Is there an overall weight transfer in respect to the X or Z axis in the modern forehand?
I say no:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-D32RwsD_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFibX-inICg&NR=1
Is the ending position of their center of mass different in respect to the X or Z axis than the starting position? No.
There has been a deep misunderstanding during this discussion with what me and other posters meant by "weight transfer". Hopefully this post clears things up.
Axis diagram:
I mean, we are seriously at the point where we have to say "indivual weight" versus overall weight....wow. Obviously weight means overall weight. If weight meant individual weight and I was saying 'no weight transfer' then I would be saying that the player should be 100% still. Haha. This is ridiculous. Apparently we are two of very few people who have graced a science class around here, even a basic one.
Yeah, what Mark P is describing is a open stance FH facilitated by weight transfer, and his examples are a good description of such.
The "sit and lift" itself -- and mind you, this is an advanced technique -- is an alternative to that. Instead of loading the back foot and right hip to initiate the unit turn, you "sit back" using your lower back and glutes. Your body moves backwards and down, but your center of gravity primarily moves down. There isn't that shift in weight distribution, because the muscles facilitating hip rotation aren't being significantly loaded during the "sit back." As a result, it's mechanically unlikely for your hips or trunk to over-rotate out of your true alignment.
The footwork and movement patterns are still the same, though, including the recovery steps.
Last edited:
MasterBruceTennis
New User
Your Balanced stroke, I figure, means like a figure skater “spins at the same address” 100% (ideally) without moving c.g parallel to the ‘ice floor’. That will give a player a very good balanced stroke.
However, (1) It does not say ‘this’ will have more power than a stroke with combined both ‘angular’ and ‘linear’ momentum, (2) ‘this’ balanced rotation can be done in any ‘stance’—as long as the vertical axis does not ‘tilt’—it has nothing to do with how one stands his feet (one foot as the figure skaters, for instance).
MasterBruceTennis
New User
I believe, the forehand arm is 'out' and 'swing', thus the non-dominant arm 'better' not be floding 'in'.
In fact, i believe the left-side-body-strength is the most important factor for a stroke.
That is true but the little snag that your missing here is that power doesn't count for anything unless the ball goes over the net lands in the court, and you can't do that with power without topspin. The lack of linear momentum (weight transfer) allows for much greater topspin, which in turn allows for more power to be used while the ball still goes into the court via topspin, instead of long.
Wrong. Rotation is enhanced with the open stance. The closed stance blocks off the rotation of the body. This is obvious if you try it. And this is why Djokovic and Gonzalez in the the youtube where the set up to hit near 100 mph forehands choose an open stance to do so.
C
chico9166
Guest
Yep,
Left leg works back into alignment to slow down hip rotation, and empower the arm. Helps explains, how axis of rotation can occur over right leg,without any weight shift, or over rotation.
Look at EricW's earlier diagram (m=mxvxr). We can also say Force = torque x radius. ie at any point in time the (linear) force is proportional to Torque (rotational force).
Also EricW and Quaser explain the centre of gravity very well. Any incidental movement of the centre of gravity (apart from up) can be explained with the XYZ axis.
Last edited:
MasterBruceTennis
New User
I believe that one can bury a ball to the net with 3000 rpm topspin easily--with or without linear forces. Also, one can produce 2000 rpm topspin with proper linear forces and have the ball lands inside the court. Your snag is wrongful.
And, one can produce a 1500 rpm topspin anyway he want--with or without linear momentum. Meaning a good player can produce the same topspin regardless of he is ‘standing’ or ‘moving’ with whatever the stance is.
In fact, the centrifugal force in one’s angular momentum only relates to the ‘amount’ he had coiled his body—the stored energy in every cells of his body. This has been a bio-engineering research subject for years. And, I believe, for different genders, ages, … the stance should be natural for comfortable coiling.
Having said that, I simply cannot agree that ice skaters, ballerinas, warriors, fighters, … and tennis players can ‘only’ perform their spins by the so ‘named’ open stance.
Besides, on one hand you emphasis on keeping the ball inside the court, on the other hand you stress on hitting a rare low percentage 100 mph forehand stroke. Well, that is the challenge of tennis.
By the way, here is mine line to my students. “Power becomes a real asset only in proportion to your ability to control it, and vice versa."
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
Give me a break, deviation. What is the overall worth? In which ever direction I apply force, my center of gravity moves in that direction - hence weight transfer!
I am not talking about strict angular momentum. My examples are not RARE deviations. It is way too easy to pull more shots were players center of gravity is not only rising but moving in a direction! In tennis, people are MOVING for crying out loud.
I do not agree with you that you can isolate angular momentum without including force/torque, acceleration, and directional momentum.
I have provided examples of a player moving forward as the rise, being relatively stationary as they rise, and moving back as they rise. These are not rare and if you would like me to pull up a typical rally I will.
Last edited:
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
LOL!!!! Are you kidding me? You are shifting your view now? Oh, now there is weight transfer so how some way? LOL
You haven't done jack. You have finally moved into including "weight" in your lame explanations. The light is finally dawning on you regarding weight transfer and other factors in which you have either failed to include, ignored, or dismissed as irrelavent.
Tennis players move mass in a direction, there are other forces involved besides angular momentum that can shift a players weight in a direction other than up.
Angular momentum in tennis is not the only "science" that is happening in a stroke which is what we have been trying to drill in your head. You can barely understand what front foot and back foot mean.
Tennis players when hitting a ball are not only using angular momentum. This isn't the only thing at play here. There are other things involved such as force/torque, directional momentum, and acceleration, etc... that cause a player to be moving in a certain direction as they execute angular momentum to hit a ball.
As I have told you over and over again, tennis players hit the ball with angular momentum moving forward, backward, and while they have cemented their position. You need to account for this.
Last edited:
Bill,
As I have said 500 times now, you can find a forehand that disagrees with any idea. We are talking about the routine, or ideal back-court forehand in this discussion. The majority of modern back-court forehands meet my criteria and you have to be blind to not realize that.
A player who moves along the X axis is off balance, a player who moves along the -Z axis has no other choice, a player who moves along the Y axis is using the sit/lift technique. And an open-stance forehand which is hit moving along the +Z axis is rare. How often do you see a forehand like this?
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=n30yc9hd8GM&feature=related
Not often.
As I have said 500 times now, you can find a forehand that disagrees with any idea. We are talking about the routine, or ideal back-court forehand in this discussion. The majority of modern back-court forehands meet my criteria and you have to be blind to not realize that.
A player who moves along the X axis is off balance, a player who moves along the -Z axis has no other choice, a player who moves along the Y axis is using the sit/lift technique. And an open-stance forehand which is hit moving along the +Z axis is rare. How often do you see a forehand like this?
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=n30yc9hd8GM&feature=related
Not often.
Last edited:
MasterBruceTennis
New User
Be realistic. Execute a forehand with ‘zero’ linear movement? Either you are an idealist or an …. You are not playing golf—having plenty of time to set up for a ‘dead’ ball.
I don’t believe I can alter your 'zero' mind. No more debate, only suggestion.
Learn the ‘sliding stance’ forehand of Nadal, Djoker and .... It will benefit your game.
I don’t believe I can alter your 'zero' mind. No more debate, only suggestion.
Learn the ‘sliding stance’ forehand of Nadal, Djoker and .... It will benefit your game.
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
Eric, as I have said 500 times, we are not in disagreement about pure angular momentum. Angular momentum has been seen in strokes since the early 1900's. It is finally becoming critical mass in how we hit a ball and how we teach people how to hit a ball. I have already shown this.
The human body with its ability to imbalance and rebalance itself and that I have pointed out that pros hit going forward, backward, and straight-up using the slightest force implies that there are other things at work besides just angular momentum.
The reality is that players do indeed shift their weight forward, not at all, and back. There are other factors involved that can contribute to weight movement even though a player is using angular momentum to hit a ball. Here is proof again that players do move forward to hit a ball. Oh by the way, this happens much more often then you think.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=n30yc9hd8GM&feature=related
Players move, bend, shift, get out of the way, go into, move out of, and perform their strokes using angular momentum in ways that their position on the court, the ball they recieve, and what they want to do with the ball dicates.
You can not talk only about angular momentum in a tennis player without considering other factors because rarely is a tennis player completely still. You must include translation, force/torque, resistance, and that the center of mass can follow a parabolic path if a player wants to do it in a shot.
Last edited:
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, I haven't ever seen a pro hit using angular momentum while their center of mass is moving forward.
Oh, yeah, I showed Federer doing it. Yeah, but who cares it rarely ever happens.
Yeah, I haven't ever seen a pro hit using angular momentum while their center of mass is moving forward.
Oh, yeah, I showed Federer doing it. Yeah, but who cares it rarely ever happens.
I'm pretty sure Federer does it on a consistent basis, especially when moving towards a short ball. Oh wait, that's almost ever professional player.
BB, the the terms 'weight transfer' or 'weight movement' are not be ideal. You may not be saying this, but to many 'weight transfer' implies that linear momentum contributes to the essence of a good fh.
The true essence of a fh is the unwinding of the body around an axis which is continually changing.
If a player can apply and understand this tactically then the task is simplified and all is OK.
Bungalo Bill
G.O.A.T.
No, no, they never move forward - never. I showed a freak video of Federer moving forward. How foolish I was to think that anyone did this even occasionally.
Pros never move towards and away from the baseline - never. They never hit a short ball. They never hit groundstrokes with their center of mass moving in any direction. They just stand there and go up.
And remember, a person's center of mass moving in any direction is not called weight transfer. Nothing has hapened - nothing.
Oh and dont forget, never call the back foot the front foot. Call the back foot the back foot, and the other back foot, the back foot. Come on NamRanger get with the program.
Linear momentum schmomentum. Tell me, do you hit with better pace and depth when you lean your weight into the shot? Obviously the answer is yes.
TennisTrainee
New User
I'm sure you guys know more about physics and tennis than I do...
But don't you need weight transfer for leverage (probably wrong term) against the tennis ball? If you're swinging and moving backwards, and without pivoting into the ball+rotating shoulders, I'd think alot of the force would be wasted pushing your body backwards.
It's like pushing against a wall without bracing yourself. Except in this case, the bracing comes as forward/rotational momentum, to cancel out the force of the ball on you and transfer all the force of your swing.
Anyways, my 2cents. Let me know if I missed something glaringly obvious.
But don't you need weight transfer for leverage (probably wrong term) against the tennis ball? If you're swinging and moving backwards, and without pivoting into the ball+rotating shoulders, I'd think alot of the force would be wasted pushing your body backwards.
It's like pushing against a wall without bracing yourself. Except in this case, the bracing comes as forward/rotational momentum, to cancel out the force of the ball on you and transfer all the force of your swing.
Anyways, my 2cents. Let me know if I missed something glaringly obvious.
No, I don't hit better like that and my fh is better than Federer's. Well maybe not but I do OK at Sat morning social.
More then likely you developed your forehand as a defensive shot rather than an aggressive shot, thus why you hit off your back foot.
No he doesn't. He hits from a neutral stance mostly when he has to move forward to get to the ball, especially if he also has to move diagonally to his right as well.
Here is what he does when he gets a easy soft ball right to him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVyTbGQVHtY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqXmU9gEKuY&feature=related
The answer is no. What you don't understand is that for an advanced player pace and depth are not an issue. The issue is hitting that hard deep shot with a lot of topspin so it has a high margin for error and can be easily controlled. Leaning weight into the shot decreases topspin and therefore you can't swing as hard and still hit the ball in. When you see Djokovic hit that 90 mph forehand in that youtube he has an open stance and his weight does not go forward, only up. Pace is not an issue for him, he needs the big topspin to keep his 90mph pace in the court. But for a recreational player who has trouble creating depth and pace, like you apparently, then moving your weight forward with a neutral stance could be a good option. But for an advanced player or an athletic player, or a player who desires to be advanced the no weight transfer route is the way to go.
Quasar, why don't you go tell this to Vic Braden or John Yandell, and let's see how hard they laugh. Honestly. My stomach is hurting because I'm laughing that hard. Not to mention that you insult me also. I can create plenty pace, and probably hit harder then about 80% of the tennis population out there.
I don't see Yandell or Braden saying that you should not lean your weight forward into the shot. If anything, they say preach that you SHOULD lean your weight forward into the shot.
Nadal struggles with depth at times on HCs. Why? Because he hits off his back foot, causing his weight to fall backwards. It creates more consistency and allows him to really hit alot of topspin, but he trades off in depth and pace. Are you saying Nadal wouldn't hit deeper and with more pace if he was leaning forward?
Edit : I honestly don't know where you are getting half of this balony, but it's really funny. Almost as bad as jump pulse tennis LMAO!
Last edited:
