Or is coiling needed after doing the unit turn as a second step in the prep?
But for me at unit turn the racquet is at 3 o’clock so surely no one is fully coiled there?I think it depends on your stance: if you use fully open, the unit turn feels like full coil. If you use neutral or closed, you have to alter your stance in addition to the unit turn.
But for me at unit turn the racquet is at 3 o’clock so surely no one is fully coiled there?
Sounds about right for me. Often, how about 80% coil at the 3:00 position. But, sometimes, I will have little or no extra coil after. So, probably 90 to 100% coil at the 3:00 or UT.When I unit turn, I am about 80% coiled. On the open stance forehand, full coil is when my knee bends and I hit "pat the dog", right before exploding forward. On my 2HBH, I am not at full coil until step forward into closed stance and lean my front shoulder forward.
How about the Unit Turn for the backhand, particularly the 1-handed backhand (both slice & TS versions). Often, from the opponent's perspective, quite a bit of the back of the front shoulder is visible. Quite often, even the back of the opposite shoulder is visible.
We should not be ignoring the UT for the Bh since, typically, 45 to 50% of g'strokes played are Bh strokes. Even more than 50% if your opponent picks on your Bh at lot.
Zill’s argument is that it happens in two steps on a forehand. The initial turn to 3 o’clock and then a further coil. I’ve been saying that the whole thing is a single continuous motion. We’ve been discussing this with him for over 6 months!
Zill’s argument is that it happens in two steps on a forehand. The initial turn to 3 o’clock and then a further coil. I’ve been saying that the whole thing is a single continuous motion. We’ve been discussing this with him for over 6 months!
I actually think the 'unit turn' is just reserved for the forehand. With the backhand its just 'turn' as it's more explicitly into a side on position. And yes torso rotation after the initial 'turn' for the backhand so also two steps.
You could segment it for demonstration purposes. You might even do it when hitting. But I would think as time and repetition progressed, it would stop being 2 separate motions.
1 step is fine to hit a 'not as well timed ball'.
Can you point to a video which shows what you're describing? I can't see two distinct steps in this example:
Why would 1 step result in worse timing? Wouldn't 1 step be more fluid?
But in your head its two steps because its a BIG movement getting to power position from the split step ready position. It's like taking two mini steps is often better than one big step.
1 Turn shoulder joint to opponent
2 Torso rotation
That's what happens in his head. But offcourse the two steps are done continuously (and should look continuous to the observer) unless something happens to the ball such as catching the net or the incoming ball is coming very slowly.
It don't consider them as 2 steps. I don't even think I was taught that way.
2 smaller steps are superior to 1 large step when I'm trying to make a fine adjustment [ie as I'm getting close to the ball].
1 big step is superior to 2 small steps when I'm trying to cover a lot of ground [initial movement].
I think most players are able to do everything in 1 motion without sacrificing timing and, as I mentioned before, it's a more fluid motion.
2 steps also provide for a checkpoint for the racquet and body as again its a big movement from the split step to the power position.
Again, this is useful when explaining something. I don't think it's how Djokovic [or any higher-level player] is actually executing it.
Those guys are fully subconscious. Am an adult trying to learn to best emulate them or at least their modern techniques.
If it helps breaking it down into 2 steps, then fine. I would think after a few hundred or thousand reps the distinct line dividing the 2 steps would fade.
That simply is not true. TT posters tend to make generalizations about stance, the UT and others aspects of g'strokes as if the Bh doesn't matter or exist. Many do not even bother to make a distinction between Fh and Bh strokes at all when making sweeping generalizations about g'strokes.I actually think the 'unit turn' is just reserved for the forehand. With the backhand its just 'turn' as it's more explicitly into a side on position. And yes torso rotation after the initial 'turn' for the backhand so also two steps.
That simply is not true. TT posters tend to make generalizations about stance, the UT and others aspects of g'strokes as if the Bh doesn't matter or exist. Many do not even bother to make a distinction between Fh and Bh strokes at all when making sweeping generalizations about g'strokes.
Numerous sources refer to the Bh UT. Here are two (you should be able to find others without much problem)