Abandoning the "modern forehand"

[dman72]

I give up. It's not worth the effort for a 3.5 35+ year old weekend warrior who plays 2-3 times a week. Too many moving parts, too many balls that land near the t and are easy angles for my flat hitting opponents. Sure I'd crank a few winners that might impress someone on the next court, or over power an Eastern grip guy with a deep high bouncing ball now and then, but overall results just weren't there.

Went out Saturday with the ball machine hitting forehands with a neutral (perpendicular to the net) stance. More of a "classic" style swing finishing over the shoulder, although still using semi-western grip to bring the ball down. Much easier to generate pace, more accuracy, less work, less stress on my bad right hip..weight transfer is more natural to me, more like a baseball swing than doing the hula... .

I guess the ww/modern forehand works for many people, and I know it's the way most young players are taught now, but for us weekend hacks, emulating the pros doesn't always work.

Yes, I know "you'll never be more than a 4.0!!!"..neither will most of the people I play (or most of the people on this board, for that matter), so why hinder my game trying to do something that pros have mastered by hitting thousands of balls day in and day out?

Just thinking out loud here, really, but flame away.

 

[ProgressoR]

I am a bit older and a bit worse than you, and agree that you should do what works for you. I only found out last week my FH is WW, and I wasnt sure what to make of it, i still dont know if that is a good or bad think but i know its comfortable for me as i resorted to it without being told to do it. Also open stance works a bit better than closed for me. So again i see no reason to work harder at closed stance (neutral) so i will keep on using the open. Whatever works for you, honestly, totally agree with you, if it is getting you adequate results, and is not liable to cause you an injury due to wrong mechanics, then go for it.

 

[aaron_h27]

The WW motion is a natural follow through for people with an extreme grip like semi-western or western. I was hitting WW forehands before I knew what it was called. One of my old coaches didn't like it and said I should follow through over my shoulder, but I told him it's natural I don't really think about it.

So the point of it all is you should do feel's good there's no correct way to do anything, you just have to experiment what works best for you

 

[aaron_h27]

Also you may not be getting the ball heavy and deep enough because you don't have enough shoulder turn maybe experiment with that?

 

[dman72]

Also you may not be getting the ball heavy and deep enough because you don't have enough shoulder turn maybe experiment with that?

I have and it's just led to way too much inconsistency..too much to think about. The classic forehand is just more natural to me......before TW and youtube, I hit from a neutral stance with a semi western to generate topspin, finish over the shoulder..this is how I naturally evolved from the Eastern while using more powerful racquets and getting stronger physically....I kept the ball in play by changing my grip to create spin, probably in my early 20's.

Funny thing is, I took a lesson at my club with a guy in his mid 20's last year, and he tried to convince me to change my forehand stance to be more closed...I didn't listen, but he was right and he must have seen something I wasn't "step IN with your left foot, just try it...".

So, the only thing "modern" about my forehand is my grip..and I'm fine with that.

By the way, where did you thoughtful understanding guys come from? I was expecting to be called and old fart and have a bunch of kids telling me how they'd destroy me on the court with my farty game.

 

[ProgressoR]

Also you may not be getting the ball heavy and deep enough because you don't have enough shoulder turn maybe experiment with that?

This... is exactly what i am working on to solve not hitting deep enough, hoping it works!

 

[ProgressoR]

By the way, where did you thoughtful understanding guys come from? I was expecting to be called and old fart and have a bunch of kids telling me how they'd destroy me on the court with my farty game.

That will follow shortly.....

 

[RedWeb]

Abandoning the modern forehand...

I understand your viewpoint.

When I started playing at 50 (54 now) I hit a much more traditional stroke and after 18 months of hearing and thinking that I'd never be able to reach full potential I started taking lessons and completely retooled my stroke to windshield wiper semi/western grip. This has been a challenge and I am thinking now I need to go slightly more closed and use less radical a grip.

No matter what we do however technical challenges need to be overcome and techniques mastered. I fear that I might be lazy and stick with what seems to be a more natural stroke but has limitations that prevents me from progressing and becoming better. Take for example attacking a short ball that bounces shoulder height or higher to your forehand. I've literally spent hours trying to learn how to attack that ball with a topspin western kill shot when my natural tendency is too take the racket back high with eastern/continental grip and slice through the ball to give it back spin into the court as opposed to penetrating topspin you see the pros hit with.

Good luck with your game.

 

[dman72]

I understand your viewpoint.

When I started playing at 50 (54 now) I hit a much more traditional stroke and after 18 months of hearing and thinking that I'd never be able to reach full potential I started taking lessons and completely retooled my stroke to windshield wiper semi/western grip. This has been a challenge and I am thinking now I need to go slightly more closed and use less radical a grip.

No matter what we do however technical challenges need to be overcome and techniques mastered. I fear that I might be lazy and stick with what seems to be a more natural stroke but has limitations that prevents me from progressing and becoming better. Take for example attacking a short ball that bounces shoulder height or higher to your forehand. I've literally spent hours trying to learn how to attack that ball with a topspin western kill shot when my natural tendency is too take the racket back high with eastern/continental grip and slice through the ball to give it back spin into the court as opposed to penetrating topspin you see the pros hit with.

Good luck with your game.

As a guy who plays people from 25-55 years of age...there's nothing wrong with that slice approach on a high ball..nothing. Just because Rafa doesn't slice it doesn't mean you shouldn't. I'm pretty sure starting at 50 years old you are not playing people who will exploit that slice shot the way a 25 year old pro would......getting to the ball very quickly and lifting with tremendous top spin, consistently? I don't know anyone in my league who can, even the younger guys ...a low sliced ball short of the service line is a headache for many, many people.

I look at it like I do with basketball..when I defend, I simply try to make a guy go to his weak hand, every time. almost any guy I play in a pickup game is 50% weaker on his weak hand. If I play somebody who isn't, I'm way outclassed anyway, they've probably played competitively and been coached.

 

[aaron_h27]

Don't give up on it yet. After you get it you'll be amazed you can flat and topspin balls it adds more variety to your game. Keep your non hitting hand on the throat of the racket, turn your shoulders early, take the racket back around shoulder level then loop it a little..point the butt cap of the racket at the ball then follow through. It's like a pulling motion like you pulling a towel out of someone's hand behind you. Bolleteri made that analogy. I know it sounds like a lot but it will become automatic if you practice working on the fundamentals

 

[anchorage]

To my mind, two of the keys to the forehand are to get the upper body fully side on in the preparation (i.e. a full shoulder turn) & then to time the shoulder turn to impact.

Getting the upper body side on helps to set up the correct swing path. With the shoulder turn, you need to make sure that you don't open up too soon.

It may be easier to accomplish both of these things with a neutral stance, but that's not essential.

 

[darthpwner]

I prefer the semi-western grip. It naturally closes the face of the racket and the wrist does its job naturally.

 

[fuzz nation]

I do a bit of teaching and coaching and I've always been a little bit leery of the modern forehand myself. While I applaud those who can make good use of it, that style of stroke is certainly not appropriate for everyone under the sun, including moderate level players seeking a measure of improvement.

If the open stance isn't learned and developed correctly, it can bring a higher element of risk to a player in terms of torquing or twisting excessively in the swinging shoulder, wrist, knees, etc. Nick Bollettierri has specifically said that youngsters should not be taught the open stance. That got my attention, considering the source.

The modern forehand can also demand more difficult timing compared with a somewhat traditional stroke because the modern option combines rather high racquet speed with more angular contact across the ball. A traditional stroke moves more through the ball, so its timing can usually be more easily managed. Then there's the maintenance. Players that don't log plenty of hours on the courts would probably notice the rust build up sooner on the more modern stroke.

There are shades of grey here and things like a mildly more extreme grip combined with a slightly more advanced contact point might add a little life to a rather old school stroke. In the same way that some players have more of a natural aptitude for either a one or two-handed backhand, it seems reasonable to me that many of us are destined for more success with either more of a modern or more traditional forehand.

 

[user92626]

dman,

Would u consider Nadal's FH as (your idea of) a "modern FH"?

 

[marosmith]

I am the opposite. I was trained classically with an efh grip and to follow through over the shoulder and naturally I started the ww finish. It started as being a push stroke and I'm trying to consistently hit a pull.

Based on what you said you have a natural classic stroke. What's wrong with that? Just don't play a counterpunching style. Go for flat winners, end points quick. The classic stroke is just as good as the ww as long as you play to your strengths. Sampras used it and had a top 10 all time forehand!

 

[crystal_clear]

You don't have to change if you don't want to improve.

You have to change if you do want to improve.

I am still working on my FH. Wish me good luck~

 

[dman72]

I do a bit of teaching and coaching and I've always been a little bit leery of the modern forehand myself. While I applaud those who can make good use of it, that style of stroke is certainly not appropriate for everyone under the sun, including moderate level players seeking a measure of improvement.

If the open stance isn't learned and developed correctly, it can bring a higher element of risk to a player in terms of torquing or twisting excessively in the swinging shoulder, wrist, knees, etc. Nick Bollettierri has specifically said that youngsters should not be taught the open stance. That got my attention, considering the source.

The modern forehand can also demand more difficult timing compared with a somewhat traditional stroke because the modern option combines rather high racquet speed with more angular contact across the ball. A traditional stroke moves more through the ball, so its timing can usually be more easily managed. Then there's the maintenance. Players that don't log plenty of hours on the courts would probably notice the rust build up sooner on the more modern stroke.

There are shades of grey here and things like a mildly more extreme grip combined with a slightly more advanced contact point might add a little life to a rather old school stroke. In the same way that some players have more of a natural aptitude for either a one or two-handed backhand, it seems reasonable to me that many of us are destined for more success with either more of a modern or more traditional forehand.

Can't argue with any of it, well said. I do believe that there is more margin for error in the classic stroke than the modern in terms of EXECUTION. Yes, the super high topspin looper has more net clearance when it is struck correctly, but if it's not deep enough in the court, it's much easier to punish than a flat hard shot hit to the same spot, and if the timing is off you can get catastrophic results. With a simple classic through the ball stroke, your timing doesn't have to be as good.

With me, I've found the torquing of the modern forehand detrimental to my hip..exploding off that one leg while twisting is much worse than just stepping into a stroke. Keep in mind I'm 6'1 190Lbs so forward weight transfer provides more than enough power at my level of play, which is why I switched to a semi-western grip to generate topspin, years ago.

Any 6'2 college level player blasting Nadal like forehands is out of my league anyway, why am I trying to play like him?

I have plenty of other things to improve on in terms of my game....my forehand used to be my strength and all this tinkering has f'd it up so that I'm tentative and error prone with it and my 2 handed backhand is now more consistent. No more!!

 

[dman72]

dman,

Would u consider Nadal's FH as (your idea of) a "modern FH"?

Yes, or Verdasco or just about any pro player on the tour...basically it's more about creating power through twisting rather than stepping in. Yes, I know there are times when Nadal steps in, but his rally stroke is twist.

 

[esgee48]

If you are comfortable using a more classical prep and turn, then do it. I find that I can hit harder and with more control using classic strokes and footwork. However, I can also hit the modern stroke with an open stance when needed or pressured by the pace of the ball. It's just not my go-to FH when I have time to set up properly.

 

[saigonbond]

Hi there,
I wrote this in another thread (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=4862675#post4862675) trying to give a few tips to another member and thought you might get some takeaways from it:
--------

Greetings,
Just fishished viewing your vids and here's some observations and tips that I use with my students and teams that may help you improve your forehand. I'll try to break down your other strokes in subsequent posts, so its not such a long read.
THE FOREHAND:
Your footwork and mechanics must work together.
I notice that many of your balls lack depth and power. They often end up simply "spinny" with no real penetrating topspin.
---------
1.) Your Grip.
As we get older, the Western grip gets more difficult to swing because of the racquet head speed needed to hit a penetrating ball (believe me I know). It also becomes an issue with balls below your knees and balls over your ears. I would suggest a slight change to a semi-western grip.
2.) Open stance: feet parallel to the baseline.
The foot work here is a bit more difficult than the closed (neutral) stance and takes a bit more athleticism.
You begin by taking a small step parallel (to your right) to the baseline with your right foot. This should lift your left heel off the ground slightly (toe still touching the court). Power begins by "loading up" on the right leg (with a knee bend). As you make your swing, the "uncoiling" and "load" from your right side get transferred over to the left leg and side. Many higher level players actually load up the right leg and then transfer the "load" by jumping and landing on their left leg.
3.) Closed (neutral) stance: feet perpendicular to the baseline.
With a history of back and foot issues, I would recommend this stance. You'll naturally hit through the ball better which will improve your depth and power.
You begin by simply taking a comfortable step forward into the court with your left foot and flexing the knee slightly. This should cause your right heel to come off the ground slightly (toe still touching the court). Simple as that. The "load" comes from your body moving forward into the shot as you step forward. You must, however, prepare earlier than you would with the open stance.
4.) Takeback, shoulder turn, and follow thru.
You currently take your racquet back with only one arm. This causes you to have very little shoulder turn, robbing you of depth and power and creates that "spinny" forehand.
From ready position (racquet out in front, right hand on the grip, fingers of left hand cradling the throat) take your racquet back with both hands. Don't release it until your left arm and racquet is parallel with the baseline (or even a bit past). You'll notice that your chest is facing right and your chin is touching your left shoulder. Your racquet hand should be ear high. As you make your backswing loop, trace the path of the letter "C." I call this the the "Power C." This will give you a nice full swing that's not too "loopy." Forget about the "winshield wiper" forehand-- it is widely overstated and badly taught. After you make contact out in front, follow thru to your left shoulder (some like to catch the racquet). You can tell if you've made a full follow thru if you chin is now touching your right shoulder. This is the completion of the "chin to shoulder" technique on the takeback and follow thru. If you've ever played baseball, you've heard this technique applied to the swing.
5.) Apply the footwork with the mechanics. You can't have one without the other.
When thes two things work in harmony, I guarantee that you'll notice that you're hitting with more depth, power, and more penetrating topspin, with less effort.
6.) Practice, practice, practice (what Allen Iverson hates).
Muscle memory must be developed, so it will take a bit of patience with practice.
--------
Good luck, CHEERS!

 

[Mr_Shiver]

If you play better then what's the problem? Do what makes you happiest, not what others say you need to do.

Hypothetical: Two guys (or gals) walk onto a tennis court. One has a classic forehand that he hits pretty darn well. The other has a modern forehand that lacks consistency and depth. Assuming all other aspects of their game are identical which do you think will win the match?

Besides you can always practice the modern fh but use your trusty classic fh in match play.

 

[5263]

If you play better then what's the problem? Do what makes you happiest, not what others say you need to do.

I agree very much with the above. You play to enjoy the game.

That being said, the modern Fh has come into use due to it's consistency, simplicity and natural use of human anatomy.
Getting power is not a big problem, but controlling that power is where the Modern strokes excel.

 

[BevelDevil]

If your natural inclination is to hit through the ball, that's great. Much better to err on that side. SW grip with classic swing is a great combination, imo.

However, I believe the problem you were having with the WW was that you were forcing the WW, rather than letting it happen as a result of rotation, lift, and rackethead speed.


2-3x per week is plenty of time to develop a modern swing, if you choose to do so. But it seems that you don't have to.

Perhaps it will evolve on your own as you play.

dman,
Would u consider Nadal's FH as (your idea of) a "modern FH"?

Fed and Nadal are more "post modern", in that they are a bit ahead of the modern swing. But I think the straight arm, wristy shot will become the new "modern."

 

[tlm]

I agree it does take good timing to hit the ww forehand, but it also takes good timing to hit a traditional one also.

I could never hit out with any consistency using traditional technique.Once i learned to hit topspin my game really improved.

To me using the ww forehand makes it much easier to be consistent.There is the problem of hitting the ball to short some times, but that is still better than hitting long or into the net.

Plus if you learn to hit the ww forehand really well you can get away with some shorter balls, if you can apply heavy ts that really kicks up even a shorter ball can be effective.

There are some players i face that can play the topspin really well off the rise.So i will purposely hit the ball just past the serve line so that when it gets to them it is at shoulder level or higher.But you have to put a lot of topspin on the ball to get away with this.

I would say that if you are not in good enough shape to perform this shot correctly+have a hard time using extremely fast racket head speed then it would be better to use the more conventional style.

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

weight transfer is more natural to me, more like a baseball swing than doing the hula... .



Yes, I know "you'll never be more than a 4.0!!!"..

Either way it should feel more like a baseball swing than hula. If you feel like it's hula then you need to REALLY get your form checked.

And Sampras got to 7.0. So did McEnroe, Lendl, and Stephanek.

 

[tlm]

I think some people are just more naturally flat hitters + some are more comfortable hitting with more loop.

 

[dman72]

Lots of good replies here.

Generating power has never been my issue...putting the ball through the back fence more so, which is why I initially wanted to switch to a more modern stroke..to harness my strength and put it into generating massive topspin as opposed to hitting long whenever I really try to swing out. I didn't want to have to hold back anymore. It's not an athleticism issue.

Believe me, I've seen what the results can be, but I've also seen how a slight difference in mechanics from point to point loses many points in a match because a weak spinny ball lands at the T. This doesn't happen to me with a classic stroke. Sure I'll clip the tape or hit a bit long once in awhile, I'm not a pro, but with the windshield wiper I became tentative much more easily after launching a few mis-hits...usually the result of my head pulling off too soon, or not completing the follow through. I feel there is much more margin for error with the classic stroke..not in the flight of the ball, but the execution of the stroke, again for me, maybe not for anyone else.

The bottom line is, I don't think it's necessary or beneficial at my stage of life to try to adapt this style....if I could hit everyday, I'd probably keep working at it.

So, for some of you it may be easy, but it wasn't for me.

 

[fuzz nation]

I agree very much with the above. You play to enjoy the game.

That being said, the modern Fh has come into use due to it's consistency, simplicity and natural use of human anatomy.
Getting power is not a big problem, but controlling that power is where the Modern strokes excel.

I also agree, but I think it's important to put a footnote or maybe a qualifier on the assumption that those modern strokes excel like they do. Getting power is not a big problem as long as a player can develop a full cut at the ball, but that's not a universal condition. A player must possess the skill and physicality to actually execute these modern strokes and that player also needs to have enough time in their calendar to develop and maintain them.

Modern strokes can be the answer for players of a higher level that need to control their power potential, but I don't believe that everyone under the sun is a candidate for a modern style of stroke. Sorry if I'm mastering the obvious... again!

 

[naylor]

... that style of stroke is certainly not appropriate for everyone under the sun, including moderate level players seeking a measure of improvement.
If the open stance isn't learned and developed correctly, it can bring a higher element of risk to a player in terms of torquing or twisting excessively in the swinging shoulder...
The modern forehand can also demand more difficult timing compared with a somewhat traditional stroke because the modern option combines rather high racquet speed with more angular contact across the ball. A traditional stroke moves more through the ball, so its timing can usually be more easily managed. Then there's the maintenance. Players that don't log plenty of hours on the courts would probably notice the rust build up sooner on the more modern stroke...

Totally agree. I wanted to learn to play a modern forehand, but was very inconsistent, so my coach suggested I kept to the older version off a neutral stance. Still, I persevered - first, ensuring I got a proper shoulder turn; then, working on my footwork, to load and unload the right leg; finally, ensuring I didn't overrotate my shoulders back and away from the shot (ie, they only go back to being square to the net, so as the shoulders slow down the racketarm can pull through and around) - and now I play both. Normal rally balls from the baseline, I play modern off the right leg; anything slightly shorter I need to move forward for but will then go back to the baseline, that's an easy neutral-stance forehand.

But the shot I've found the modern forehand most useful for is short-ball putaways, which for me work best with an angular-type swing - higher ones, I simply flatten; lower ones, I ease up on the power and go for more topspin. I could never play those shots off a neutral stance (particularly, the flat putaway).

 

[Cindysphinx]

FWIW, I asked my pro about the modern FH/WW/Open stance stuff. He said he doesn't believe in teaching it from the outset. The reason is that most inexperienced students will (1) hit off the back foot when using an open stance and (2) tend to try to arm the ball all the time.

His feeling is he'd like the student to master the swing, the footwork, etc. Then they can start to open their stance and experiment with different swing paths.

And he said once they get proficient at a neutral stance and more traditional swing with good footwork and weight transfer, most aren't interested in doing much more than that.

 

[Mr_Shiver]

FWIW, I asked my pro about the modern FH/WW/Open stance stuff. He said he doesn't believe in teaching it from the outset. The reason is that most inexperienced students will (1) hit off the back foot when using an open stance and (2) tend to try to arm the ball all the time.

His feeling is he'd like the student to master the swing, the footwork, etc. Then they can start to open their stance and experiment with different swing paths.

And he said once they get proficient at a neutral stance and more traditional swing with good footwork and weight transfer, most aren't interested in doing much more than that.

I love your pro. In a completly plutonic way.

 

[tlm]

It depends on the person.It was much easier for me to learn the ww forehand than it was the traditional way.

Plus you can hit a ww forehand from a neutral stance with no problem.Also there is nothing wrong with hitting off your back foot if you get enough lift+rotation.The #1 player in the world hits off his back foot quite often.

 

[gopokes]

I think you're wise to swim against the tide on this one. Use what you feel is most comfortable and effective, and in no way is a modern FH a prerequisite for 4.0 tennis. In many ways, the antidote to the modern game is the classic game, and vice versa. You can absolutely become a 4.0 with the strokes that you have provided they are reliable enough. What is necessary at the higher levels of the game doesn't translate at the intermediate levels. Sometimes it's even beyond mechanics - things like fitness, agility, mental toughness, etc. are every bit as important. You'll be fine - and a 4.0 if you set your mind to it.

 

[halalula1234]

follow through over the shoulder looks the best with both hands on the racket at the end.

 

[fps]

windshield wiper is completely unnatural to me, as is the crazy western grip, and i smash friends of mine who use it, and use it badly. i'm 6-2, i'm a flat hitter, it gets the ball through the court more quickly and that means i can challenge the other player in more interesting ways, such as testing out their footwork, fitness and stroke mechanics. at my level, which is progressing towards or already at a 4 now at a guess, these are the things you can break someone down on. it's easier for me to hit winners with the flat shots too, so there's no reason for me to hit with more spin.

in the pro game, i think the amount of spin put on the ball is partly a matter of negation. putting that much spin on the thing makes it a heavier ball, and one that moves more, and that makes it harder for the OTHER guy to hit a winner. at the lower levels you can win a lot of points just getting the ball back in play, people are less likely to be able to hit clean winners anyway, and i don't want to give my opponent the time to do just get the ball back. i can't hit the "modern" style of forehand as well as my own forehand anyway, which is what it boils down to.

that said, there is plenty you can do from a continental/ mild semi-western grip to IMPROVE the stroke, you can still hit with great topspin if you want, by extending the contact point and swinging faster. essentially it's about what you do with the stroke. look at federer. seems to be doing alright and he's playing guys in their primes 5 years younger than him.

 

[BevelDevil]

^^^ You're tall. You can get away with Eastern. What are high balls to shorter people, become balls you can hit hard, flat and deep. What are medium balls to shorter people, become low balls that your Eastern will put topspin on naturally.


Short guys should definitely go SW. I also think they should consider a 1hbh with an extreme eastern or SW grip.


Btw, Fed doesn't play with a true Eastern. He's holding the racket with his bottom 3 fingers, which significantly affects the action. Also, he uses a tiny grip, which throws off the measurement system. In my experience, his grip feels more like a mild SW.

 

[dman72]

I actually almost overcompensated and started trying to hit with an eastern last weekend..then stopped and said to myself: if one thing comes as second nature to me in tennis, it's hitting the forehand with the old frying pan grip...I've been doing that since I can remember and there's no reason to change.

 

[crystal_clear]

No pain no gain.
No change no gain.
=>>
Change is pain.

 

[Nellie]

some thoughts:

I have played some older 5.5+ players with classic, closed stances that would lay waste to anyone on this board. If you feel comfortable with a certain style, by all means use that style.

On the other hand, if you are struggling with your shots because of bad technique, changing the stance/grip is likely not going to magically fix your problem - if you hit late/ short/ too much arm or wrist/ etc., you are still going to have those problems. It is like changing your racquet and noticing an immediate improvement and then finding, at the next session that you are playing the same as always.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I love your pro. In a completly plutonic way.

I have a great pro. No doubt about it.

 

[fps]

^^^ You're tall. You can get away with Eastern. What are high balls to shorter people, become balls you can hit hard, flat and deep. What are medium balls to shorter people, become low balls that your Eastern will put topspin on naturally.


Short guys should definitely go SW. I also think they should consider a 1hbh with an extreme eastern or SW grip.


Btw, Fed doesn't play with a true Eastern. He's holding the racket with his bottom 3 fingers, which significantly affects the action. Also, he uses a tiny grip, which throws off the measurement system. In my experience, his grip feels more like a mild SW.

very good point about shorter players needing more spin, hadn't even considered it. i also use 3 fingers with the index finger kinda "overlaid" at an angle on the racquet head, though i hadn't given much thought as to how it changes things like my grip and such- i stopped actively worrying about my grip a while back, and have tried to train out overthinking. i can't wrap my index finger round the racquet that would make things very uncomfortable for me.

 

[FloridaAG]

I just like the terminology - modern compared to what. I am 38and have been hitting with a full or extreme western grip since at least 1985 (except for the one year in high school when my coach insisted I switch to an eastern grip - that was a total failure and a complete waste of the 9th grade tennis season)

 

[BevelDevil]

I actually almost overcompensated and started trying to hit with an eastern last weekend..then stopped and said to myself: if one thing comes as second nature to me in tennis, it's hitting the forehand with the old frying pan grip...I've been doing that since I can remember and there's no reason to change.

When I was a kid I screwed around with the frying pan grip (SW) and played a great 3 setter on that same day (though still lost). Unfortunately I went back to eastern because it was the "proper" grip

 

[Camilio Pascual]

less stress on my bad right hip..
I guess t hacks, emulating the pros doesn't always work.
Just thinking out loud here, really, but flame away.

The right hip is reason enough alone, you have made the right decision.

 

[5263]

If the open stance isn't learned and developed correctly, it can bring a higher element of risk to a player in terms of torquing or twisting excessively in the swinging shoulder, wrist, knees, etc. Nick Bollettierri has specifically said that youngsters should not be taught the open stance. That got my attention, considering the source.

The modern forehand can also demand more difficult timing compared with a somewhat traditional stroke because the modern option combines rather high racquet speed with more angular contact across the ball. A traditional stroke moves more through the ball, so its timing can usually be more easily managed. Then there's the maintenance. Players that don't log plenty of hours on the courts would probably notice the rust build up sooner on the more modern stroke.

.

I will avoid all the cheap remarks that jump to mind in reference to Nick B's advice and just let that ride. lol

As a former strict conventional stroke player, for me it's been just the opposite related to rusty strokes.
When I was playing conventional it was so important that everything was just right; string tension, new overgrip, grip size, racket wt and balance, and most of all recent quality hitting.

Now having switched the MTM methods of modern strokes-
Just hand me somebodys racket cause I played 5 days ago and am ready to roll. No, I wont be at the top of my game, but modern strokes are so natural designed on how the body and court work, none of those details are near as important as before. It is really nice not having to string so tight and often!
Modern strokes have a timing mechanism built in.

 

[tlm]

I agree with 5263, the modern forehand makes is so much easier.The guys i know that use the old style of game that are good at it play a lot.They have also been playing for years.

The other players that are so so with the conventional game dont really have that good of a forehand.

They can be somewhat consistent if they take it easy.But as soon as they start going for more aggressive shots they start hitting long or in the net.

Plus when i start looping heavy topspin at them it eats them up.The kicking ball gives these old
school players fits.

 

[Mr_Shiver]

Plus when i start looping heavy topspin at them it eats them up.The kicking ball gives these old
school players fits.

The good ol' kicker can be killer as long as you have the depth, pace and don't hit it too high over the net. I hit with some guy I met while I was practicing my serve yesterday. He tried hitting me with those but it just went too high over the net at a medium pace. It was too easy to track it down and hit it on the rise. Even when he got good depth I just took it out of the air (I don't usually do that but it was a pick up game. I felt way looser than a real match).

No matter which style you play, the execution needs to be there. Old school, new school or preschool; good execution = good results. Anyone who has ever lost to a guy or gal 20+ years older than them will attest to this (Don't underestimate the elderly. They are a crafty folk!).

 

[tlm]

I agree mr shiver never underestimate a player by the way they look or their age.As far as the kicking topspin shot goes, it really depends on the amount of kick the ball has.

I dont agree with the having to hit the ball lower over the net or even keeping it deep.If you know how to put really heavy ts on the ball it can be better if the trajectory is higher+the ball does not go as deep.But i am talking extreme topspin not these little baby hops that some would classify as a kicking ts shot.

It depends on the opponent, many i play will have problems if i hit the ball deeper with the big kick.But the better players that can play it off the rise really well it is better if i hit it just past the serve line.This way it is at shoulder level or higher by the time it gets to the baseline.

You have to have a lot of kick to get away with this though, if you dont put enough woop ass on the ball you will pay.But if you know how to really make the ball jump+carry through the court this can be very effective.