Forehand: racket face angle is constant through the hitting zone

Many talk about twisting the racket head, turning it over the ball or whatever but when you watch pros their racket face stays pretty constant through the hitting zone, there is no twisting or rolling of the racket head. The face angle is not vertical but slightly closed but it stays there.


This video here shows rackethead tilting only happens if the ball is struck off center.

If you watch Federer he actually finds his final racket face angle just after he hits the slot position and keeps it there until way after contact

 
Federer has the racket closed in the ptd position, then opens in during the flip (from totally closed to about 10 degrees closed and then keeps the face like that until after contact unless he hits the ball off center. Thus to get more consistent I would recommend rec players to find a face angle after the flip and then keep it at this angle until the ball leaves the strings, don't worry about twisting or rolling over the racket, this will naturally occur due to the body and arm rotation by shouldn't be the goal, the goal must be to control the racket face as good as you can through the hitting zone.
 

FiReFTW

Legend
Again such useless advice and topics, when you hit you have no idea what ur body yet alone racquet is doing.

You learn most by swinging and through trial and error, you learn what gives u more power more spin, how to hit it shorter or deeper, more drive more spin...

Now im all for learning fundamentals and a good solid technique and stroke, but its little details like this that help absolutely nothing in having a better stroke because things like this happen in miliseconds and you cant control them.

The same goes for serve pronation and other things like that, they happen because other fundamentals are in place and you cant really force it.
 
Why then post here at all? I think keeping the racket face angle constant is a pretty simple external cue. There are several studies suggesting external cues (what the racket and ball does) work better than internal focus (how the body rotates, how the arm rotates..) in instruction albeit in some cases an internal focus can help to learn a new movement even if it makes you hit worse temporarily.

https://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=golf+learning+external+cues&hl=de&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
 

Dragy

Legend
Why then post here at all? I think keeping the racket face angle constant is a pretty simple external cue. There are several studies suggesting external cues (what the racket and ball does) work better than internal focus (how the body rotates, how the arm rotates..) in instruction albeit in some cases an internal focus can help to learn a new movement even if it makes you hit worse temporarily.

https://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=golf+learning+external+cues&hl=de&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
Look, a forehand swing is a complex motion. Arm swing causes racquet face go from closed to open orientation. Arm internal rotation makes RF close. So these two actions counterbalance each other, but not in a similar way for each and every shot: sometimes we get more arm roll, sometimes less. Which comes on top of different arm swing speed and trajectory. The issue with trying to control RF angle is urge to tense up and guide the racquet instead of accelerating it and launching into the ball. Taking into account exact RF angle matters only during brief instance, and is determined dominantly by grip and contact location, I’d go with full-swing “calibration”, and using arm roll as a fine-tune tool.
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
Again such useless advice and topics, when you hit you have no idea what ur body yet alone racquet is doing.

No. The OP has a point here. On this matter, we can actually be conscious and perform two distinct different ways: 1. keep our arm fixed at an angle, non-pronating, as we go thru the CP, which is what the OP is asking here, or 2. gradually pronating, ie turning over the racket face angle, as we go thru the CP.

Both ways can be consciously done and they both work.

Personally, I am for #1 as I'm gravitating to using elbow flexion.
 

Fintft

G.O.A.T.
The issue with trying to control RF angle is urge to tense up and guide the racquet instead of accelerating it and launching into the ball.

Well I am with you about launching/throwing the racquet into the ball, BUT that doesn't stop the face angle staying the same ( closed) during contact, does it, without tensing the arm?

As per the OP:
If you watch Federer he actually finds his final racket face angle just after he hits the slot position and keeps it there until way after contact
 

Dragy

Legend
Well I am with you about launching/throwing the racquet into the ball, BUT that doesn't stop the face angle staying the same ( closed) during contact, does it, without tensing the arm?
Because ISR balances forward/upward arm swing. You can find some older school swings where RF is opening into follow-through, and you can look at some lower hits by literally any pro player where RF comes from facing the ground at >45 deg and opening towards contact.
I actually don’t claim OP to be false, but I think what he points out is a consequence, and I suppose, while achieving such consistency of RF around contact may be a good thing, making this top objective might hurt player’s swing.
 

FiReFTW

Legend
I'm pretty sure there is no top 300 player in the world who knows what ISR or pronation is.no high level player thinks about balancing different rotations, they think about swinging the racketface against the ball and the arm does what it needs to do.

Thats 100% exactly what I agree with!!! Thats it! But the thing is your 1st post contradicts this completely haha.
 

Dragy

Legend
I'm pretty sure there is no top 300 player in the world who knows what ISR or pronation is.no high level player thinks about balancing different rotations, they think about swinging the racketface against the ball and the arm does what it needs to do.
They don’t think, they do balance different rotations. And they all work through drills addressing precisely ISR for FH swing, which is the essence of WW racquet swing.

And actually best players are ones very insightful about techniques they use, which is proved by their tweaking and improvement.
 
They don’t think, they do balance different rotations. And they all work through drills addressing precisely ISR for FH swing, which is the essence of WW racquet swing.

And actually best players are ones very insightful about techniques they use, which is proved by their tweaking and improvement.

I don't think many pros are very insightful on their swing. Many hall of fame tennis players for example talk about wrist snap in their serve.
 

5263

G.O.A.T.
Many talk about twisting the racket head, turning it over the ball or whatever but when you watch pros their racket face stays pretty constant through the hitting zone, there is no twisting or rolling of the racket head. The face angle is not vertical but slightly closed but it stays there.


This video here shows rackethead tilting only happens if the ball is struck off center.

If you watch Federer he actually finds his final racket face angle just after he hits the slot position and keeps it there until way after contact

from an article I just wrote...
Don’t spoil the Contact

One of the main things that can go wrong with “early acceleration” is that the racket face can alter during contact. Granted, the ball is on the strings for a very short time, but in that short time it can travel 3-5 inches. If during that contact, the racket face isn’t pretty steady, then the quality of the contact can be compromised. Most all players know about poor contact when shanking and the negative consequences of that, but not as many realize how subtle changes in the racket face during contact can sap power and control. Some players even seek “wrist” the shots during contact. When the racket face stays stable during the contact, the stringbed can deliver a strong and consistent results. Any work or spin intended for the shot should be encoded by the nature of the stable contact with a singular pure message. The torque or cut applied to the ball should be set just before contact and continued thru the contact. The better a player does this, the more consistent his execution can be while letting the stringbed to it’s magic!
 

Dragy

Legend
from an article I just wrote...
Don’t spoil the Contact

One of the main things that can go wrong with “early acceleration” is that the racket face can alter during contact. Granted, the ball is on the strings for a very short time, but in that short time it can travel 3-5 inches. If during that contact, the racket face isn’t pretty steady, then the quality of the contact can be compromised. Most all players know about poor contact when shanking and the negative consequences of that, but not as many realize how subtle changes in the racket face during contact can sap power and control. Some players even seek “wrist” the shots during contact. When the racket face stays stable during the contact, the stringbed can deliver a strong and consistent results. Any work or spin intended for the shot should be encoded by the nature of the stable contact with a singular pure message. The torque or cut applied to the ball should be set just before contact and continued thru the contact. The better a player does this, the more consistent his execution can be while letting the stringbed to it’s magic!
This sound so healthy, but what is actually implied as an instruction? I only see the “don’t try to do things right at the contact”.
 

5263

G.O.A.T.
This sound so healthy, but what is actually implied as an instruction? I only see the “don’t try to do things right at the contact”.
well this part follows discussion of "early acceleration", so the instruction is how to avoid snatching the racket abruptly from the slot, at the ball in the effort to swing super fast, as well as how to use that lead-in to align and set up for this stable contact. To have the face set and the racket traveling on the intended swing plane just prior to contact and to hold that as the player brings the racket "up, thru and across" the contact. This is probably where the idea of hitting thru 3 balls originated as a way to get players to experience this.
 

Dragy

Legend
well this part follows discussion of "early acceleration", so the instruction is how to avoid snatching the racket abruptly from the slot, at the ball in the effort to swing super fast, as well as how to use that lead-in to align and set up for this stable contact. To have the face set and the racket traveling on the intended swing plane just prior to contact and to hold that as the player brings the racket "up, thru and across" the contact. This is probably where the idea of hitting thru 3 balls originated as a way to get players to experience this.
Yeah I remember you speaking about this. I think your wording in “avoid snatching” is good as it fits well into the dynamic nature of swing. While “constant RF” is questionable concept to apply to the racquet moving forward and up, rotating from facing right to facing left, from RF below handle to RF above handle, and depending on arm alignment, from facing the ground to facing the target by contact.
 

5263

G.O.A.T.
While “constant RF” is questionable concept to apply to the racquet moving forward and up, rotating from....
yes, you are correct....I'd normally say "stable" or consistent, but made that post in a big hurry...I'll correct it.
*******
went back and couldn't find where I said "constant RF"...
 

Chas Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Straight arm forehand.

When the incoming ball is low and the player tilts their uppermost body's rotation axis (spine), consider the racket face as it goes down to its low point and then as it rises after the low point. What effect does that have on the racket face angle? It seems as if it would go through the low point always opening from the tilt of the rotation axis. Is that a considerable effect?

Federer's uppermost body's rotation axis is tilted for a low ball.
6www-optimumtennis-net-the_straight_arm_and_doublee.jpg


For a low ball and a tilted body rotation axis -

Demo to Help Understand Racket Face Angle. Take a coffee cup and consider the handle to be the racket face, and look down on it from above. Imagine a vertical line from your eye down through the cup. Now tilt the cup's rotation axis toward you say, 20 degrees, still looking down from above along a vertical line. Using that model you can see the cup handle/racket face has a large closed angle when the cup handle is straight back. As the cup handle rotates down to the lowest point the cup handle/racket face becomes neutral, neither open or closed at the low point, and as it moves forward and rises the cup handle/racket face becomes open. The cup handle/racket face goes from closed to neutral to open. It is always 'opening' in the lower half of the swing as it moves forward.

This is not the only source of racket face tilt but this component of racket face tilt comes from uppermost body rotation and is predictable.

Maybe for low balls, players use this closed-neutral-open racket face component for positioning impact and controlling shot height?
 
Last edited:

Dragy

Legend
yes, you are correct....I'd normally say "stable" or consistent, but made that post in a big hurry...I'll correct it.
*******
went back and couldn't find where I said "constant RF"...
It was the OP who introduced this. We started discussing his idea, didn’t we?
 

Chas Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Many talk about twisting the racket head, turning it over the ball or whatever but when you watch pros their racket face stays pretty constant through the hitting zone, there is no twisting or rolling of the racket head. The face angle is not vertical but slightly closed but it stays there.


This video here shows rackethead tilting only happens if the ball is struck off center.

If you watch Federer he actually finds his final racket face angle just after he hits the slot position and keeps it there until way after contact


The Tennisspeed OP video did not go far enough, it did not measure the effects of off center hits on the ball trajectory. There is a myth or truth that because the ball is on the strings for only about 4 milliseconds that there is not enough time for the racket head to reorient during impact. Where is evidence for believing that?

In high speed impacts, the ball distorts the strings, pockets and squishes for a very short time of the total 4 milliseconds (that very brief time is why you don't catch the squish often with high speed video at 240 fps). If the location is off the racket center line, even if the racket head does not move much during the 4 milliseconds of 'impact' there may be very unsymmetric forces on the ball. Maybe these unsymmetric forces affect the ball trajectory. (We may have looked at this. )
 
Last edited:
This sound so healthy, but what is actually implied as an instruction? I only see the “don’t try to do things right at the contact”.

Absolutely don't try to do things at contact, all the stuff happening at contact needs to be created before contact. Trying to change swing path during contact will cause problems.that is why when the windshield finish became popular they saw those FYB videos and tried to tag on a ww finish to their normal flat swing (swing flat to contact and then abruptly pull to the left and it didn't work. Of course the racket turns left but this has to be set up with the swing before that, nothing worse than trying to generate the spin at contact, it needs to be generated before contact.
 

5263

G.O.A.T.
sort of, but you might remember, I just posted a paragraph on the topic from something I'd written. Now I can see you didn't quote me, but instead the OP but initially it seemed like that was a quote from me the way I read it. NP, written communication is hard at times.

It was the OP who introduced this. We started discussing his idea, didn’t we?
 
I don't think many pros are very insightful on their swing. Many hall of fame tennis players for example talk about wrist snap in their serve.

I'm reminded of a baseball anecdote that applies here. Mickey Mantle once recounted a conversation he had with Ted Williams at an All Star game. Williams asked him about his stance, his hand position, whether he felt he turned his hands over and where, what angle he tried to achieve swinging up or level, how he focused his eyes to pick up the ball, etc., etc... Mantle had no answers because he had never even thought of it before, and according to him he immediately went into a deep hitting slump afterwards because that was all he could think about. He recovered when he stopped giving a damn and just hit the ball. Two of the greatest hitters of all time and two diametrically opposed approaches. One studied the minutia of hitting to the extreme (Ted Williams: The Art of Hitting is a great book by the way), the other just hit the damn ball.
 

BadBoy666

Rookie
I think that's it impossible not to have a constant angle given the time the ball is on the strings. Even if you're rolling the racquet over the ball and trying to change the angle, for the 5ms period, it will be constant.
 

ByeByePoly

G.O.A.T.
I think that's it impossible not to have a constant angle given the time the ball is on the strings. Even if you're rolling the racquet over the ball and trying to change the angle, for the 5ms period, it will be constant.

lol ... that is probably true. That said ... isn't it more likely to be constantly wrong. 8-B
 

ByeByePoly

G.O.A.T.
well this part follows discussion of "early acceleration", so the instruction is how to avoid snatching the racket abruptly from the slot, at the ball in the effort to swing super fast, as well as how to use that lead-in to align and set up for this stable contact. To have the face set and the racket traveling on the intended swing plane just prior to contact and to hold that as the player brings the racket "up, thru and across" the contact. This is probably where the idea of hitting thru 3 balls originated as a way to get players to experience this.

This sounds a lot like my "close but fatally flawed" ;) observation of quality smooth strokes. The start of the rotation isn't full out (in another thread comment was initial explosion of the hips), and then somewhere mid-point before contact we have acceleration with arm (like all throwing). I think maybe my observation is valid whether or not it's a McEnroe fh or a Fed pull the hand left fh ... gradual initial rotation followed by significant rhs boost with arm effort.

So ... is initial hip/leg/core stuff oversold? What say you 4 digits? 8-B
 

Dragy

Legend
gradual initial rotation followed by significant rhs boost with arm effort.
It’s gradual initial getting things move and lining up, then peak acceleration via leg drive powered torso rotation marked by deepest racquet lag, then arm which might be very mild guidance, or more intensive ISR to get RH up through contact, or sometimes upward arm pull, which is actually compensating for being late or Rafa.
 

ByeByePoly

G.O.A.T.
It’s gradual initial getting things move and lining up, then peak acceleration via leg drive powered torso rotation marked by deepest racquet lag, then arm which might be very mild guidance, or more intensive ISR to get RH up through contact, or sometimes upward arm pull, which is actually compensating for being late or Rafa.

I see relaxed gradual initial shoulder rotation, and then a distinct firing of arm propelling it forward. All that is required is enough foundation/effort for the initial relaxed rotation, and then enough foundation/effort to launch arm forward from shoulder joint.

So my question still stands ... isn't the leg drive/hips/core powering thing oversold? Just rotate some and then hit the sucker with your arm. 8-B(y)

These look like full FHs to me:

 

Dragy

Legend
I see relaxed gradual initial shoulder rotation, and then a distinct firing of arm propelling it forward. All that is required is enough foundation/effort for the initial relaxed rotation, and then enough foundation/effort to launch arm forward from shoulder joint.

So my question still stands ... isn't the leg drive/hips/core powering thing oversold? Just rotate some and then hit the sucker with your arm. 8-B(y)

These look like full FHs to me:

For me personally it was a revelation when I first time put the leg drive to where it belongs consciously. And now I know how to get there, and have this a part of my warmup tuning in: fire legs during a very relaxed swing, which otherwise delivers enough power for mini-tennis at best, and hit great baseline-to-baseline topspin drive. If performed with correct timing it allows to notice (feel) the racquet lag (pulling wrist back), and it feels like I have no chance to get the racquet back into the ball ... but with some magic a heavy ball departs exactly towards intended target. I mention this because it displays how little time is perceived to be between major acceleration from torso rotation and the contact, no way I can put any consistent arm effort there, maybe some SSC shorten phase?
 

ByeByePoly

G.O.A.T.
For me personally it was a revelation when I first time put the leg drive to where it belongs consciously. And now I know how to get there, and have this a part of my warmup tuning in: fire legs during a very relaxed swing, which otherwise delivers enough power for mini-tennis at best, and hit great baseline-to-baseline topspin drive. If performed with correct timing it allows to notice (feel) the racquet lag (pulling wrist back), and it feels like I have no chance to get the racquet back into the ball ... but with some magic a heavy ball departs exactly towards intended target. I mention this because it displays how little time is perceived to be between major acceleration from torso rotation and the contact, no way I can put any consistent arm effort there, maybe some SSC shorten phase?

I refer back to what 5263 said (and I agree wirh):

"early acceleration", so the instruction is how to avoid snatching the racket abruptly from the slot, at the ball in the effort to swing super fast

If we aren't snatching/swinging early from the slot, where would the late acceleration come from other than arm effort? All from hand move to the left? I can watch Fed above and clearly it's more than that. His arm fires right before the hand to the left. If it's all gradual rotation acceleration, we would need to accelerate full from slot (actually before). I feel the late arm effort on my fh, and definitely late left arm in 2hbh.

Edit: legs I think are more solid foundation for the torso to rotate from. When I step up a bit, seems the foundation is even better ... but stepping up is not power delivered to ball ... imo.
 

Chas Tennis

G.O.A.T.
............................
So my question still stands ... isn't the leg drive/hips/core powering thing oversold? Just rotate some and then hit the sucker with your arm. 8-B(y)
..........................................................

As you watch an WTA match on TV, for drives, look only at the uppermost body (shown by the line between the two shoulders) turn back and then rapidly turn forward, roughly about 90 d. Look at the speed and range of motion.

"Just rotate some"...?

ATP player, Mannarino seems to have relatively less uppermost body rotation speed and range of trunk twist/rotation. Just noticed what seemed to be less uppermost body turn and separation.
Speed does not show as well in high speed video.

Note - The 'upper body' is defined as the body above the waist. I use the term "uppermost body" to mean the location of the shoulders. Since the trunk twists, showing separation, it is important that there should be a distinction between the terms "upper body" and "uppermost body".
 
Last edited:
I'm reminded of a baseball anecdote that applies here. Mickey Mantle once recounted a conversation he had with Ted Williams at an All Star game. Williams asked him about his stance, his hand position, whether he felt he turned his hands over and where, what angle he tried to achieve swinging up or level, how he focused his eyes to pick up the ball, etc., etc... Mantle had no answers because he had never even thought of it before, and according to him he immediately went into a deep hitting slump afterwards because that was all he could think about. He recovered when he stopped giving a damn and just hit the ball. Two of the greatest hitters of all time and two diametrically opposed approaches. One studied the minutia of hitting to the extreme (Ted Williams: The Art of Hitting is a great book by the way), the other just hit the damn ball.

Great Story. I coach baseball too and made the same experience. Some need very literal cues and others more feel based cues that might not be quite correct. For example many mlb players actually think they swing down but they all use a slight uppercut. The down cue still works for them because it makes them a little more direct.

When i learned baseball I took everything very literal and thus the cues didn't work and I needed to study the biomechanics to learn a solid swing.

Most talented athletes don't tend to be overthinking like this though and they are more feel people than logic and science people. But there are some like ted williams or michael chang back in the day who make the analytical stuff work too.
 
Btw sometimes you see the feel based thought process with players in warm up.

Federer im low intensity warmup catches the racket with his other hand which is an old school cue coaches used in the 80s and 90s. And pujols demonstrates an extreme swing down movement on deck which he is not doing in games. This means they have a different thought process than they actually do but if they do it at high speeds they do it differently because some forces (centrifugal force, innertia...) only work at higher intensities and alter the swing compared to low intensity.
 

Dragy

Legend
Edit: legs I think are more solid foundation for the torso to rotate from. When I step up a bit, seems the foundation is even better ... but stepping up is not power delivered to ball ... imo.
Legs provide huge power to rotate torso. If I get you correctly and your “stepping up” is a pattern, when back foot step forward through the swing: that back leg flexion is recruited to rapidly push forward the right (for a righty) side of pelvis => torso, while front leg provides forceful resistance to the left side, resulting in accelerated rotation of torso. Similar thing happens with front foot off-the ground pivot, but now it’s left leg pushing left side of the pelvis back, while back (right) leg providing resistance for the other side. Difference in rotation axes (or in the whole-body movement, depending on how you look on that), but same leg-powered body rotation as a way to deliver acceleration to arm.
 

ByeByePoly

G.O.A.T.
Legs provide huge power to rotate torso. If I get you correctly and your “stepping up” is a pattern, when back foot step forward through the swing: that back leg flexion is recruited to rapidly push forward the right (for a righty) side of pelvis => torso, while front leg provides forceful resistance to the left side, resulting in accelerated rotation of torso. Similar thing happens with front foot off-the ground pivot, but now it’s left leg pushing left side of the pelvis back, while back (right) leg providing resistance for the other side. Difference in rotation axes (or in the whole-body movement, depending on how you look on that), but same leg-powered body rotation as a way to deliver acceleration to arm.

Legs provide huge power to rotate torso.

or

Legs provide huge poweranchor to rotate torso from.

piston or suspension ... or road. 8-B
 

Dragy

Legend
Legs provide huge power to rotate torso.

or

Legs provide huge poweranchor to rotate torso from.

piston or suspension ... or road. 8-B
Well, if you flex your legs and then extend your legs and those forces make torso rotate, I would not call it anchor. Though I’m not a native English speaker.
 

ByeByePoly

G.O.A.T.
Well, if you flex your legs and then extend your legs and those forces make torso rotate, I would not call it anchor. Though I’m not a native English speaker.

Judging by my abuse of the English language... I must not be either. 8-B
 
TW, where the people who can't do the thing tell the people who can do the thing that they are wrong.

J

lolololololol man................dat's why it's said 'walk the walk, talk the talk':-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D...................

apparently if can't walk aft so many yrs trying, surely get frustrated. then the only way out is talk:love::love::love::love:..............
 

ByeByePoly

G.O.A.T.
Many talk about twisting the racket head, turning it over the ball or whatever but when you watch pros their racket face stays pretty constant through the hitting zone, there is no twisting or rolling of the racket head. The face angle is not vertical but slightly closed but it stays there.


This video here shows rackethead tilting only happens if the ball is struck off center.

If you watch Federer he actually finds his final racket face angle just after he hits the slot position and keeps it there until way after contact


This was a good post ... you figure it's very common for a rec player to think he/she is suppose to roll the rf in order to get ts. The other common one I would guess is thinking the low to high swing plane is steeper than it actually is.

I will throw this in the rec player mix. Using your "rf intentions cues", on fh and bh drives (not bh slice or drop shot), I think only in terms of 1) square rf at contact 2) swing path. What we actually do at contact would require video review ... but my point is in my mind, I have narrowed the variables to these two. If one intended to vary rf, that would be a third variable to manage (note: if one hit every drive fh with 10 degrees closed, I would not consider that a variable either ... consistent across FHs.)

That is how I have always played, and hit enough ts for my level of play without adding the different degrees of closed rf. To my thinking, rec players need to be smart about deciding how much variables/complexity to include because of limited rec stroke reps. Actually ... topspin low to high variable maybe shouldn't be an automatic choice for some rec players (@travlerajm just posted a thread posing a similar question about topspin). For my game, I'm keeping a flattish moderate ts game, don't want to go back to totally flat.

Just throwing it out there ... if you are a rec player trying to hit a lot of variations in rf ... good luck with that.
 
This was a good post ... you figure it's very common for a rec player to think he/she is suppose to roll the rf in order to get ts. The other common one I would guess is thinking the low to high swing plane is steeper than it actually is.

I will throw this in the rec player mix. Using your "rf intentions cues", on fh and bh drives (not bh slice or drop shot), I think only in terms of 1) square rf at contact 2) swing path. What we actually do at contact would require video review ... but my point is in my mind, I have narrowed the variables to these two. If one intended to vary rf, that would be a third variable to manage (note: if one hit every drive fh with 10 degrees closed, I would not consider that a variable either ... consistent across FHs.)

That is how I have always played, and hit enough ts for my level of play without adding the different degrees of closed rf. To my thinking, rec players need to be smart about deciding how much variables/complexity to include because of limited rec stroke reps. Actually ... topspin low to high variable maybe shouldn't be an automatic choice for some rec players (@travlerajm just posted a thread posing a similar question about topspin). For my game, I'm keeping a flattish moderate ts game, don't want to go back to totally flat.

Just throwing it out there ... if you are a rec player trying to hit a lot of variations in rf ... good luck with that.

yep very true man..........very limited rf angle variable if any n very easy to find out in a few min by experimenting against a wall. so called 'miss hit' 'framed ball', either off sweet spot or, too much rf angle. only fraction of sec n <10cm (most rec-ers lucky to get 1/2 of dat) pressed/trampolined btw the ball/bed 'sexy interaction'. if too much angle or off bed sweet spot bit more, the ball trampolined side way through the bed slipped right on the lower inner frame edge, then the ball skying away n u know the ball's framed:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D..........................
 
Last edited:

Dragy

Legend
This was a good post ... you figure it's very common for a rec player to think he/she is suppose to roll the rf in order to get ts. The other common one I would guess is thinking the low to high swing plane is steeper than it actually is.

I will throw this in the rec player mix. Using your "rf intentions cues", on fh and bh drives (not bh slice or drop shot), I think only in terms of 1) square rf at contact 2) swing path. What we actually do at contact would require video review ... but my point is in my mind, I have narrowed the variables to these two. If one intended to vary rf, that would be a third variable to manage (note: if one hit every drive fh with 10 degrees closed, I would not consider that a variable either ... consistent across FHs.)

That is how I have always played, and hit enough ts for my level of play without adding the different degrees of closed rf. To my thinking, rec players need to be smart about deciding how much variables/complexity to include because of limited rec stroke reps. Actually ... topspin low to high variable maybe shouldn't be an automatic choice for some rec players (@travlerajm just posted a thread posing a similar question about topspin). For my game, I'm keeping a flattish moderate ts game, don't want to go back to totally flat.

Just throwing it out there ... if you are a rec player trying to hit a lot of variations in rf ... good luck with that.
Of course you have your “basic” FH with ingrained RF angle and swing steepness. The one you “just do”. Then you face situations. For example, you have a high bounce ball at the baseline against a net player’s and by some reason you don’t want to hit a lob. It’s generally a good idea to send the ball down, with more or less spin, but anyway, closed RF is required to execute. If you have your basic ingrained shot you’ll likely make subconscious adjustments from there. Next time you are behind the baseline and want to hit deep - you likely open RF a bit and swing more through the ball so that it travels all the distance and has good juice by the moment your opponent gets his racquet on the ball. Again, subconscious experience-based adjustments.
 

Dragy

Legend
This was a good post ... you figure it's very common for a rec player to think he/she is suppose to roll the rf in order to get ts.
There’s a wrong premise/intent to roll RH over the ball. There’s a good techniques with rotating RH to come from below the handle to above to enhance brushing up the back of the ball, which is arm rolling/door knob turn/WW/ISR/whatever you want to call it. It also has effect on RF angle for grips up to strong SW (W seems to just brush with WW, not close).
 
Top