Connors's FH... a shot without a scientific explanation
Heh, it is quite true. Even if one never saw him play I'd ask: is it plausible that Connors won all those titles, largely from the baseline, with a "weak" forehand? ;-)
Reminds me of the famous incident where a media pundit asked Connors about his "weak" forehand. Jimmy took offense and threateningly asked: you think my forehands weak? You want to go out right now and hit forehands with me?
Connors on the forehead of a day I'll write a thread because ... it's the best shot I've seen between all players alltime. The best shot? The FH ??? Yes.
I'm not writing for effectiveness but technique. The reason is that it is scientifically impossible because a stroke has no effect.
Now stretch the effectiveness.
Connors had a phenomenal BH, because it was always phenomenal: from the baseline, half-court, in attack, in return, in passing, on the high balls, the low balls, longline, cross.
He had only a weak point, only one: the other side very low, in fact, suffered tremendously BH lefty Orantes and Vilas of har tru (and it is no coincidence I've lost two finals at the US Open, and not only, Orantes and the Vilas other times they beat on clay).
Connors had a FH equally phenomenal suffered tremendously because the FH down because he had an incredible grip.
It was so much in need of red clay, grass and less on much less of har tru.
But this does not disadvantage him on carpet and hc! Because that's where the ball fell short.
On carpet, and on hc, his FH, from the baseline, half-court, in attack, in return, in passing, on the high balls, even on low balls, longline, cross was almost equal to the BH.
Very often in retrun and attack it is better than the BH!
(Youtube Masters or US Open or Wembley and Philadelphia .. youtube helps to understand).