Forehand Loop ATP vs WTA Forehand Questions

[topspin_forehand]

Some people claim a big forehand loop is a “WTA forehand” and an abbreviated backswing is an “ATP forehand”. I’m confused about the distinctions of what counts as a loop and what counts as an abbreviated backswing. What do the Big 3 use? What does Naomi Osaka use? What are the different types of backswings? Any feedback would be helpful, thanks

 

[ballmachineguy]

If your elbow is making a big loop while your racquet head is making a small loop, it is ATP. If your racquet head is making a big loop while your elbow is making a small loop, it is WTA. YMMV.

 

[topspin_forehand]

If your elbow is making a big loop while your racquet head is making a small loop, it is ATP. If your racquet head is making a big loop while your elbow is making a small loop, it is WTA. YMMV.

Thanks for the explanation

 

[Jay_The_Nomad]

The so called “WTA forehand” is when a player on their full backswing causes the tip of their racquet to break the plane or their body. Ie the racquet tip crosses to the left side of the body when the race it is behind them (for right handlers).

So called ATP forehand is when the whole racquet remains on the forehand side. At the very most the racquet might reach closer to the plane (eg djokovic).

So essentially it’s just a comparatively more compact swing path with a more explosive and whippy army action.

But as I’ve pointed outin another thread, you can get a MONSTER forehand even with a longer WTA style forehand. Go watch some YouTube videos of Fernando Gonzales who IMO has an even better forehand than Federer.

I do recommend against the compact stroke as intermediate and even some advanced rec players do struggle with swinging smoothly and are too jerky. A compact explosive stroke will make it even worse and usually lead to arming the ball for most rec players. Have a look at your local courts and you’ll see what I mean. Much better to shoot for a nice long smooth swing that you can consistently time well to hit different shots with different bounces and spins at different parts of the court.

 

[pencilcheck]

If you also go online, you will also see high level performance coaches calling this an ego play. Some people just want to feel like they are better by creating a label that doesn't really matter or make any sense. Then once they see how a lot of woman WTA players can beat lots of high level male player with "inferior strokes" then they get really angry and start cursing.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Historically, huge loops were used on slower surfaces like clay. In the past 2-3 decades, it's been more common for WTA players than ATP. But there is some overlap.

More compact takebacks (back swings) started to become popular as players were dealing with faster incoming balls. Particularly deep balls. Andre Agassi is the first one I noticed with a fairly compact takeback. Andre would often take the ball on the rise (rather than at the peak or after the peak).

This is more easily implemented with a more compact back swing. For a compact take back, the racket head does not break the coronal plane (during the prep phase).

With a larger loop (that breaks the coronal plane), players will often need move far behind the baseline in order to deal with deep or fast incoming balls.

The Big 3 are fairly compact. Rafa Nadal employed a larger take back early in his career. However, he had reduced it (made it more compact) to be more competitive on surfaces other than clay.

Serena, Simona Halep and many other WTA players employ the so-called WTA Fh. However, I believe, both William sisters have reduced their takeback somewhat from their earlier days -- but still WTA. A couple of the biggest Fh backswings in the WTA are from Sloane Stephens and Naomi Osaka. Notice how far behind the coronal plane that Naomi takes her racket head.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

 

[5263]

If you also go online, you will also see high level performance coaches calling this an ego play. Some people just want to feel like they are better by creating a label that doesn't really matter or make any sense. Then once they see how a lot of woman WTA players can beat lots of high level male player with "inferior strokes" then they get really angry and start cursing.

It has nothing to do with gender or ego....and no, a lot of WTA players can NOT beat lots of HIGH level male players. Try not to deal with the trigger side of issues and it can help you see the actual function aspects better.

 

[5263]

I do recommend against the compact stroke as intermediate and even some advanced rec players do struggle with swinging smoothly and are too jerky. A compact explosive stroke will make it even worse and usually lead to arming the ball for most rec players.

Not a problem with better instruction as the ATP takeback is very simple and efficient..

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

@S&V-not_dead_yet

The so called “WTA forehand” is when a player on their full backswing causes the tip of their racquet to break the plane or their body. Ie the racquet tip crosses to the left side of the body when the race it is behind them (for right handlers).

So called ATP forehand is when the whole racquet remains on the forehand side. At the very most the racquet might reach closer to the plane (eg djokovic).

So essentially it’s just a comparatively more compact swing path with a more explosive and whippy army action.

But as I’ve pointed outin another thread, you can get a MONSTER forehand even with a longer WTA style forehand. Go watch some YouTube videos of Fernando Gonzales who IMO has an even better forehand than Federer.

I do recommend against the compact stroke as intermediate and even some advanced rec players do struggle with swinging smoothly and are too jerky. A compact explosive stroke will make it even worse and usually lead to arming the ball for most rec players. Have a look at your local courts and you’ll see what I mean. Much better to shoot for a nice long smooth swing that you can consistently time well to hit different shots with different bounces and spins at different parts of the court.

If the tip of the racket is just starting to pierce the coronal plane, I would still consider this a fairly compact takeback. Now, when most the racket head breaks that plane on the takeback, then I might agree with you.

I've taught a fairly compact swing to novices (mostly advanced beginners) as well as intermediate players -- both male and female. Younger players do tend to need a bit more takeback, particularly young girls. But, even then, the racket head does not go much past the C plane. No huge loops and no extreme backswings like Naomi or Sloane. The 12/13 yo girls I had coached did not have much more than (the tip or) half the racket head breaking the C place. Many were even more compact than this.

The more compact TB is more efficient and much more suitable for dealing with deep balls or fast and coming balls. At intermediate levels, even a medium-fast ball might be quite challenging. The incoming fall does not have to be at pro speeds for an int player to benefit from a fairly compact TB.

The compact TB allows players to take more balls on the rise rather than letting high balls push them way back behind the BL. Players with a large loop or an excessive TB tend to hang way back and play a very defensive game much of the time.

I do not disagree at all that one can hit a MONSTER Fh with a WTA TB. The problem is dealing with the depth or speed of incoming balls. Or having to play a more defensive game, counter-puncher game like Halep often does. (Admittedly Simona can play an baseliner aggressive and can move in offensively at times).

Don't think that I'd rate the Fh of Fernando Gonzales as better than that of RF. The Fh of FG is/was, no doubt, outstanding = truly amazing. The power / speed that he could generate was out of this world. But peak RF was quite powerful as well. Most tennis experts / analysts tend to put FG squarely in the top five, sometimes as high as #3 for top FHs OAT.

However, Roger is usually regarded as having the top Fh (and no lower than #2) OAT. He beats out FG with the precision of his shots and edges him out on most other parameters. He has often been able to hit ridiculous angles that other only can do occasionally. He's a tad bit more successful with passing shots than FG (who is no slouch himself in this respect). If peak FG had a little bit more power than peak RF, then Roger more than makes up for it in other categories. For precision, technique / style and most other metrics, I've got to give it to Roger.

 

[pencilcheck]

It has nothing to do with gender or ego....and no, a lot of WTA players can NOT beat lots of HIGH level male players. Try not to deal with the trigger side of issues and it can help you see the actual function aspects better.

It is all about gender and ego man. Otherwise why would those people distinguish WTA vs ATP in the first place?

None of those labeling really makes any sense. The goal is to hit tennis well so you win, how is difference in WTA and ATP helps? See action function aspects better? There is no mutual exclusiveness, most people (I am guessing mostly male) who bring up WTA usually don't want to get even close to it, of course they wouldn't care about your functional aspect of things.

 

[5263]

It is all about gender and ego man. Otherwise why would those people distinguish WTA vs ATP in the first place?

None of those labeling really makes any sense. The goal is to hit tennis well so you win, how is difference in WTA and ATP helps? See action function aspects better? There is no mutual exclusiveness, most people (I am guessing mostly male) who bring up WTA usually don't want to get even close to it, of course they wouldn't care about your functional aspect of things.

I guess you are right. We should just drop the entire ATP/WTA thing and just have one tour. Then we could see who the best players are and forget the whole gender thing.

But in all seriousness, do you not see the difference in the function?

Exclusiveness? Who ever claimed there was Exclusiveness? Nobody, that is who.
Several here, including me, have suggested that the WTA takeback is very common among rec players in general and possibly the best choice for many rec players of all genders. Imo there are certain types of shots where players tend to use closer to the WTA takeback even if they use the ATP most of the time. WTA takeback also may have equal or more power production as well.

Quite simply, the name is excellent because that is how these important differences were discovered. Some coaches realized that "most" ATP players more often used a certain takeback, while "most" WTA players used the other type takeback. At the time they recognized it, they didn't even know why or which was better. The naming was perfect because it described the observed situation aptly base on where it was noticed.... nothing to do with gender or ego.

 

[socallefty]

It would be nice to come up with different names for the two FHs so that it doesn’t cause so much emotional dissonance and players can choose either style without feeling one style is inferior to the other at the rec level.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

It would be nice to come up with different names for the two FHs so that it doesn’t cause so much emotional dissonance and players can choose either style without feeling one style is inferior to the other at the rec level.

How about Compact vs Robust?
Or Concise vs Ample?

 

[socallefty]

How about Compact vs Robust?
Or Concise vs Ample?

Compact vs Loopy? Outside-In vs Inside-Out takeback? Closed-face vs Open-face takeback? Whip vs Pendulum?

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Compact vs Loopy? Outside-In vs Inside-Out takeback? Closed-face vs Open-face takeback? Whip vs Pendulum?

Staccato vs Legato? Allegro vs Adagio? Microwave vs Crock Pot? Jeet Kune Do vs Tai Chi? Hare vs Tortoise?

Also reminded of the Tom Okker "windmill" Fh. Should probably stay away with descriptors that might have a negative connotation. Robust sounds slightly more positive than Loopy.

I'm partial to Compact, Concise, or Efficient for ATP style. Robust, Ample or Windmill for WTA style.

 

[pencilcheck]

I guess you are right. We should just drop the entire ATP/WTA thing and just have one tour. Then we could see who the best players are and forget the whole gender thing.

But in all seriousness, do you not see the difference in the function?

Exclusiveness? Who ever claimed there was Exclusiveness? Nobody, that is who.
Several here, including me, have suggested that the WTA takeback is very common among rec players in general and possibly the best choice for many rec players of all genders. Imo there are certain types of shots where players tend to use closer to the WTA takeback even if they use the ATP most of the time. WTA takeback also may have equal or more power production as well.

Quite simply, the name is excellent because that is how these important differences were discovered. Some coaches realized that "most" ATP players more often used a certain takeback, while "most" WTA players used the other type takeback. At the time they recognized it, they didn't even know why or which was better. The naming was perfect because it described the observed situation aptly base on where it was noticed.... nothing to do with gender or ego.

Great, finally we found the way to world peace and end of all wars.



I'm talking about the impression and the reason some people make that distinction. Seems like you are confused about it.

One, just search any old thread, go search google and anything, you will notice that there is no concept of inclusiveness, you will notice that the way the questions were phrased, and the subsequent answers were made all assume they are all separate.

Two, the use of the term has lots of association in them. By using ATP and WTA as a label, it shift and remove the original question (a simple takeback difference), and shift into association about ego and gender. If you don't understand what I'm saying, you can find millions of examples that someone call someone a misleading nickname or name certain event in a certain way and then people react to those association even though it has nothing to do with them. My original point is simply to say that those people who keep using ATP and WTA as label are usually those who don't learn tennis from a more inclusive manner or trying to understand it from a more effective point of view, they simply want to learn and choose something due to an inherent bias. Otherwise why even bring this up? How do they know which one is better which one is not? And with your explanation, shouldn't this be a stupid question to even bring up in the first place since clearly ATP and WTA does not represent the stroke mechanism and those label doesn't really help someone to learn a stroke?

Three, I am not here to argue what you think is perfect. I'm simply pointing out what I observe and what I see most people talk about when they mention those terms even if the creator of those terms might have different intention (I don't think there is a possibility to find the first person who coin those terms, but if you can awesome)

 

[Searah]

really i thought wta was more flat and atp was more loopy.

or looking at the net.. ready for a forehand. your arm goesback not to the backfence but to the next fence if you keep taking it back.
thought that was wta. as atp shorter takeback.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Great, finally we found the way to world peace and end of all wars.



I'm talking about the impression and the reason some people make that distinction. Seems like you are confused about it.

One, just search any old thread, go search google and anything, you will notice that there is no concept of inclusiveness, you will notice that the way the questions were phrased, and the subsequent answers were made all assume they are all separate.

Two, the use of the term has lots of association in them. By using ATP and WTA as a label, it shift and remove the original question (a simple takeback difference), and shift into association about ego and gender. If you don't understand what I'm saying, you can find millions of examples that someone call someone a misleading nickname or name certain event in a certain way and then people react to those association even though it has nothing to do with them. My original point is simply to say that those people who keep using ATP and WTA as label are usually those who don't learn tennis from a more inclusive manner or trying to understand it from a more effective point of view, they simply want to learn and choose something due to an inherent bias. Otherwise why even bring this up? How do they know which one is better which one is not? And with your explanation, shouldn't this be a stupid question to even bring up in the first place since clearly ATP and WTA does not represent the stroke mechanism and those label doesn't really help someone to learn a stroke?

Three, I am not here to argue what you think is perfect. I'm simply pointing out what I observe and what I see most people talk about when they mention those terms even if the creator of those terms might have different intention (I don't think there is a possibility to find the first person who coin those terms, but if you can awesome)

Huh???

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

really i thought wta was more flat and atp was more loopy.

or looking at the net.. ready for a forehand. your arm goesback not to the backfence but to the next fence if you keep taking it back.
thought that was wta. as atp shorter takeback.

The so-called ATP tends to be a partial loop (rather than a full C loop). When I was studying the "loop" of Andre Agassi 20-25 yrs ago, I noticed this. His unit turn (UT) & the beginning of his racket prep starts off pretty large -- it looks it will be the start of a large loop. But after the UT and his racket starts to drop, his "loop" becomes very compact instead. And he it's not bringing the tip of the racket past the coronal plane at all.

I have observed, in the past 2 decades, that Roger F & many other ATP players have exhibited a somewhat similar partial loop pattern. Some might see these as a half loop or even a 2/3 loop. This is often followed by a flip or what one of my students refers to as "the Nike swoosh".

After his very full UT, Kevin Garlinton (below) exhibits a very compact drop (nearly straight down). Unlike others, the back part of his "loop" is not very round / circular.

Many of the so-called WTA loops are very large. They often go pretty high and very far behind the back. But there are some WTA-style implementations that are more straight back -- but the racket head still ends up quite far behind the back as seen with a take backs of Sloane and Naomi. Quite often, but not always, there is a distinctive and active wrist flip.

With ATP styles, the lay back of the wrist is often very passive... it occurs as a result of the uncoiling of the body while the racket head is left to lag behind at the start of the forward swing.

 

[Curious]

I suspect this discussion will be over by 2050s when everyone in the world will be hitting ATP forehand except the grandchildren of Jeremy Chardy.

 

[Curious]

Whip vs Pendulum?

There’s at least one player in between: Agassi. Definitely not a behind the back take back, no whip either. What’s that now?

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

There’s at least one player in between: Agassi. Definitely not a behind the back take back, no whip either. What’s that now?

Proto-ATP. From the Pre-Whip era?

 

[Dragy]

There’s at least one player in between: Agassi. Definitely not a behind the back take back, no whip either. What’s that now?

He was hitting balls early, relatively flat, and using powerful OS frame... Not that crucial to have very high RHS, so more of a finesse type of swing rather than ripping - be that behind the back style or "whippy" style.

Does it make sense?

 

[Curious]

He was hitting balls early, relatively flat, and using powerful OS frame... Not that crucial to have very high RHS, so more of a finesse type of swing rather than ripping - be that behind the back style or "whippy" style.

Does it make sense?

Do you think racket face parallel to the ground at the beginning of the forward swing really increases the racket head speed significantly?

 

[Dragy]

Do you think racket face parallel to the ground at the beginning of the forward swing really increases the racket head speed significantly?

No. I think it’s irrelevant if racquet face is parallel to the ground:

And Ash Barty style, for example, is not limited in RHS. Some locked-wrist swings are.

 

[Curious]

No. I think it’s irrelevant if racquet face is parallel to the ground:

And Ash Barty style, for example, is not limited in RHS. Some locked-wrist swings are.

Why is it commonly recommended to have a closed racket face then during the drop?

 

[Curious]

I mean whether closed face or on edge drop, they all become pretty much perpendicular to the ground at contact. So what’s the point?

 

[myke232]

No. I think it’s irrelevant if racquet face is parallel to the ground:

And Ash Barty style, for example, is not limited in RHS. Some locked-wrist swings are.

that's the other edge, it will become parralell at some point when he flips it...

 

[Dragy]

that's the other edge, it will become parralell at some point when he flips it...

Don't you think "at some point" is very unprecise and not suitable as a checkpoint?

 

[Dragy]

What's similar between Roger here and Nole on the previous image, in terms of racquet orientation? @Curious @myke232

 

[Curious]

What's similar between Roger here and Nole on the previous image, in terms of racquet orientation? @Curious @myke232

Where the racket tip is pointing.
What’s dissimilar is that Djokovic’s racket face is more closed than Federer’s.

 

[Dragy]

Where the racket tip is pointing.
What’s dissimilar is that Djokovic’s racket face is more closed than Federer’s.

Because of grip Djokovic will use different arm structure and meet the ball at different spot. Racquet will flip back as he pulls the handle with acceleration and flatten out (to slightly closed orientation) by contact. Same for Roger - flip back and flatten out by contact. Who cares how much it is closed at certain point but contact? Maybe it’s a way to ensure racquet position - someone may find it easier to focus on keeping it closed rather than staying on the hitting side of the body, yet achieving same result?

 

[Curious]

Because of grip Djokovic will use different arm structure and meet the ball at different spot. Racquet will flip back as he pulls the handle with acceleration and flatten out (to slightly closed orientation) by contact. Same for Roger - flip back and flatten out by contact. Who cares how much it is closed at certain point but contact? Maybe it’s a way to ensure racquet position - someone may find it easier to focus on keeping it closed rather than staying on the hitting side of the body, yet achieving same result?

So you’re saying that taking/dropping the racket back with a closed face or on edge doesn’t make a difference as in the end they all end up perpendicular to the ground. Am I understanding you correctly?. Agassi and Del Potro dropping it on edge is not a disadvantage?

 

[5263]

Otherwise why even bring this up? How do they know which one is better which one is not? And with your explanation, shouldn't this be a stupid question to even bring up in the first place since clearly ATP and WTA does not represent the stroke mechanism and those label doesn't really help someone to learn a stroke?

Three, I am not here to argue what you think is perfect. I'm simply pointing out what I observe and what I see most people talk about when they mention those terms even if the creator of those terms might have different intention (I don't think there is a possibility to find the first person who coin those terms, but if you can awesome)

Why bring it up?? lol, because it is an important distinction and more key than platform vs pinpoint and waaaay more important than straight arm vs bent arm. Good thing you can't twist that into a gender issue....
But yes, I know the guy who did the initial distinction on this and even was in on discussions with him about the reasons for the differences and which was better.

 

[5263]

It would be nice to come up with different names for the two FHs so that it doesn’t cause so much emotional dissonance and players can choose either style without feeling one style is inferior to the other at the rec level.

I think it is improper to cater or enable such nonsense as these silly complaints about the name.

 

[ballmachineguy]

I mean whether closed face or on edge drop, they all become pretty much perpendicular to the ground at contact. So what’s the point?

Spin! Try back swinging with the racquet face perpendicular to the ground then parallel and then Jack Sock-like with it pointing behind you. You will see that the racquet head drops further down toward the ground upon “flipping.” It gets forced to supinate more. That is why Sock gets more spin. RH gets lower through forced supination, so when arm pronates toward contact and through windshield wiping motion, it has done more traveling low to high. This will probably sound made up to you again but.......TRUTH!
Before anyone asks why Nadal gets so much spin without turning the racquet face back, it is because his backswing is pretty much straight down and then swings very low to high toward contact. Different type of stroke altogether.

 

[Dragy]

Spin! Try back swinging with the racquet face perpendicular to the ground then parallel and the Jack Sock-like with it pointing behind you. You will see that the racquet head drops further down toward the ground upon “flipping.” It gets forced to supinate more. That is why Sock gets more spin. RH gets lower through forced supination, so when arm pronates toward contact and through windshield wiping motion, it has done more traveling low to high. This will probably sound made up to you again but.......TRUTH!
Before anyone asks why Nadal gets so much spin without turning the racquet face back, it is because his backswing is pretty much straight down and then swings very low to high toward contact. Different type of stroke altogether.

Try to swing Sock-like with DelPo grip and report back about all the spin you get.

 

[Dragy]

So you’re saying that taking/dropping the racket back with a closed face or on edge doesn’t make a difference as in the end they all end up perpendicular to the ground. Am I understanding you correctly?. Agassi and Del Potro dropping it on edge is not a disadvantage?

Taking racquet back like Del Potro - tip to the back fence - may be slower in some cases to set up against fast incoming ball, and hence not suitable to still produce full acceleration. With such a style you might need to abbreviate and shorten, sacrificing RHS, power and spin where Nadal-style, Djokovic-style will still produce big shot. This may or may not hurt your game.
Where stringbed is oriented is secondary, in my opinion, mostly product of grip and racquet tip orientation (or when you enter the “slot” - preset it or swivel into it during swing initiation).

PS I just look at it as unnecessary, dropping with tip back. You speak of “closed drop” as a special action and complexity, but I don’t think so - you just keep racquet pointing to the side, that’s it, then relax and focus more on where you guide your hand - let racquet head lag and flip… Anyway, you (should) only apply major acceleration from here, there’s no jerky whipping:

 

[ballmachineguy]

Try to swing Sock-like with DelPo grip and report back about all the spin you get.

Huh?

 

[myke232]

Don't you think "at some point" is very unprecise and not suitable as a checkpoint?

Sure, but I think dropping the raquet on the edge refers to the other edge, and it pretty much stays like that until contact. In this instance his raquet is flipped the other way, so the opposite edge is facing down, so when he goes forward it will flip, and become flat before changing again to the other edge and hitting the ball...

 

[Dragy]

Sure, but I think dropping the raquet on the edge refers to the other edge, and it pretty much stays like that until contact. In this instance his raquet is flipped the other way, so the opposite edge is facing down, so when he goes forward it will flip, and become flat before changing again to the other edge and hitting the ball...

Yes, of course. Players with strong grips don’t pat no dogs, but chop them with “the other” edge. But just same to Roger they keep their racquets pointing to the side rather than back, and flip into slot later through the motion. Similar techniques, different grip.
With the so-called on-edge drop, e.g. Del Potro, racquet is set into slot earlier in the motion. You’d think it’s good, but it actually elongates the backswing. And is unnecessary - you can perfectly enter “slot” via swivel from tip-to-the-side drop.

 

[myke232]

Yes, of course. Players with strong grips don’t pat no dogs, but chop them with “the other” edge. But just same to Roger they keep their racquets pointing to the side rather than back, and flip into slot later through the motion. Similar techniques, different grip.
With the so-called on-edge drop, e.g. Del Potro, racquet is set into slot earlier in the motion. You’d think it’s good, but it actually elongates the backswing. And is unnecessary - you can perfectly enter “slot” via swivel from tip-to-the-side drop.

Oh yeah definitely pointing to the side rather than back. I sometimes get into that djokovic postion just to force myself not to drop on the other edge... it's hard for me to drop right into ptg for some reason...

 

[ballmachineguy]

Try to swing Sock-like with DelPo grip and report back about all the spin you get.

Since you won’t tell me what the result of the above experiment is supposed to be, I’ll guess. (I don’t know Delpo’s grip of choice, but I’ll assume something near to an Eastern). No spin? That would be incorrect. You would get plenty of spin just not as much as with a Western. Any tennis grip gives you zero spin. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The only thing that imparts spin on a ball aimed at the other side of the court is either a high to low (slice) or low to high (topspin) racquet head path. If I hold a racquet with an extreme Western grip, racquet head square to the ball the whole way and bring it toward contact on a horizontal path, there will be no topspin. The racquet head needs to travel low to high. If you are going to hold the racquet with a vertical racquet head during the swing, you will have to take more time getting that low to high path, hence Delpos huge swing. If you want to get the low to high in a short swing, you do what Sock does pointing the striking stringface away from you and make the racquet head make that quick loop in a short space with the “flip.” The grip he uses allows him to make even more spin, but a grip alone does nothing.

 

[Dragy]

Since you won’t tell me what the result of the above experiment is supposed to be, I’ll guess. (I don’t know Delpo’s grip of choice, but I’ll assume something near to an Eastern). No spin? That would be incorrect. You would get plenty of spin just not as much as with a Western. Any tennis grip gives you zero spin. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The only thing that imparts spin on a ball aimed at the other side of the court is either a high to low (slice) or low to high (topspin) racquet head path. If I hold a racquet with an extreme Western grip, racquet head square to the ball the whole way and bring it toward contact on a horizontal path, there will be no topspin. The racquet head needs to travel low to high. If you are going to hold the racquet with a vertical racquet head during the swing, you will have to take more time getting that low to high path, hence Delpos huge swing. If you want to get the low to high in a short swing, you do what Sock does pointing the striking stringface away from you and make the racquet head make that quick loop in a short space with the “flip.” The grip he uses allows him to make even more spin, but a grip alone does nothing.

I think if you try to execute a swing anyhow close to Sock's with Eastern grip, you'll hit the back fence on the fly.

 

[ChaelAZ]

Microwave vs Crock Pot?

Microwave isn't "real" cooking.

Just sayin'.

 

[ChaelAZ]

... because it is an important distinction and more key than platform vs pinpoint and waaaay more important than straight arm vs bent arm. Good thing you can't twist that into a gender issue....

The majority of WTA players use pinpoint serving, so we should call it the WTA serve. Obviously it caters to the women folk becuase of some lesser core or leg sttrength since it is almost exclusively used. Hmmm...and about that bent vs. straight arm....

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Microwave isn't "real" cooking.

Just sayin'.

Hey, that's my specialty!

 

[myke232]

The majority of WTA players use pinpoint serving, so we should call it the WTA serve.

The majority of ATP players do as well...

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Microwave isn't "real" cooking.

But it makes it much easier to hit half-volleys, other shots on the rise and returns off of fast serves.