How does Federer do his unique "slingshot" forehand? Anybody else can do that too?

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
sureshs said:
I meant both use smaller grips than expected. Nadal is a 2 I think!

True, but Nadal doesn't hit his forehand anywhere like Federer does so it's irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned.

I was wondering if the smaller grip allows Federer to hit his unique forehand the way that he does or can he do the same thing with a larger grip, i.e., is the grip size irrelevant or does it contribute to his ability to hit that kind of a forehand?
 

Grimjack

Banned
It is to my eternal shame that I didn't use one of my aliases for this fishing expedition first.

One part X-files, ten parts Maxwell Maltz, twenty parts claiming superiority without legitimizing any of it. Oh yeah, and toss in the homosexual innuendo just for good measure.

Good shtick, here.
 

fastdunn

Legend
tricky said:
I'm still reading into that, actually. All I know is he has a unique recovery step based on recoiling the momentum into an explosive bounce.



Yeah, it goes back to how Federer defaults to a straight-arm swing on the run. This gives him the most accuracy for the sling-shot, since there's one less rotation in the swing. But again, if there's crazy side spin, he doesn't have a lot of leeway to correct himself when on the run.

Theoretically, he can hit running FHs with great DTL angles this way. BUT, his pace won't be great. Also, because he doesn't use big strides all that often, his speed doesn't translate into great, natural pace on the ball either.
With all that being said, you just don't want to rally against this kind of FH. If form completely breaks down, two things can still happen. If the backswing is already at full stretch, he can change it up into a moving half volley. Which sometimes he intentionally does as a "drop shot." Or, if he knows he won't able to get full-stretch on the backswing, he'll close his racket face early and then whip from the elbow. To the eye, it looks like he's flicking the shot, and so people think he has this super-strong wrist. But what I think is really happening is -- only then -- is he using his running speed to drive into the ball. The correction step lets him trigger a late stage whip without a rotational element, so that he doesn't have to set his feet. He won't have great accuracy; he'll have limited height striking range; but he'll able to kill the ball on the duece court.

In any case, the mechanics of his FH at least give him this -->

1) Drive the ball regardless with greater height sweet spot (classic.) Most players today can't do this with their semi-SWs

2) Drive the ball from an agnostic stance (modern) Most old-school players need to set up before swinging.

3) Have wider angles by varying his straight arm to elbow bend (vary the classic-to-modern transition.) This is also really hard for other opponents to pick up, and it enables Fed to manufacture passing shots at the last minute. Therefore Fed can take apart a true baseliner AND a guy who attacks.

4) Create high potential for spin by wrist action derived from correct step (modern) His hand rotation is about the same as a cross court specialist, minus the exagerrated vertical loop and the extreme racket angle. Therefore, he gets the spin and the speed and the clean return.

Any of you who have been messing around with this kind of FH can immediately see how how many different kinds of shots can be created. It's more like a baseball pitcher mindset, where you vary release point and hand/wrist rotation in order to levy different "pitches" back to the opponent. And likewise, you can see how difficult it is to control such a swing. Basically, if a whole generation picks up this style, you'll have the biggest evolutionary step forward in tennis since the widebody racket.

Great insight, tricky.
 

Bjorn99

Hall of Fame
Aaaah, there you go, tricky pretty well nailed it, AND the implications if people start figuring it out. THAT IS WHY I didn't want to go into it. But tricky basically just did. Good work sir. :D
 

norcal

Legend
Bjorn99 why do you keep hinting that Fed is gay? How would that make a difference? Are you saying that makes him (or allows him) to play a more imaginitive game?

Great write up by Tricky on the Fed forehand.
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
Bjorn, looking at what you've been writing -- and what Yandell was implying in his articles -- I think you were getting that Federer essentially has a "formless" forehand. Obviously, I'm not saying that Federer flings his racket at the ball and makes it up as he goes. His FH mechanics are complex and precise.

But, it's sort of like Bruce Lee's "be like water" quote; his forehand has multiple stages that sort of lets him pick and choose the form he eventually wants it to take. And therefore, his forehand becomes many, and the many means he can take apart whatever strategy the other guy is doing.

I wouldn't say that's a radical idea in itself. Old school tennis players more or less approached that kind of game. Sampras more or less was that way with his groundstroke game. McEnroe had "formless" net technique. etc. etc. The key thing is that these players were using variations of the Eastern grip or a very mild SW grip, and had a swing style less dependent on rotational timing.

The argument goes that the principal reason why you don't see true all-court games with most players today is that most pro players use extreme SW grips. They're not used to hitting the ball at lower heights, and therefore have problems trading shots way inside the baseline. They have problems changing grips quickly and crisply enough to transition toward net game. They have footwork issues at fast speeds because their FH styles has become a crutch for feet preparation. etc. etc. It's not that they're taught to play in strictly one style; most pros can do the basics better than college-level players. It's just that their gameplay has inherent limitations at the pro level.

And Federer's FH has limitations too. He doesn't have a true running FH. He theoretically would shank a lot more balls if he played against somebody who mixed up flat and heavy shots well. If you make Fed run enough early on, then his shot selection will default to more conservative topspin shots. But his style matches well with theirs.

And someday, maybe somebody develops similar kind of complex freedom for the BH, and becomes a two-wing Fed. Well, then, he'll clobber Fed and set a whole bunch of new records himself. Or somebody takes Nadal's game and adds a running crosscourt forehand game a la Sampras. Maybe somebody realizes how to take Nadal's stroke and step into the ball, thereby increasing the pace by another 15-20mph. How scary will that be?

In any case, what I like is the straight-arm to elbow-bend part of his stroke. It's not that hard to set up regardless of your grip (think baseball pitchers with low slot deliveries, or short stops pulling an Ozzie Smith); it's pretty compact; and it lets you fire the ball like crazy without much effort. At least if you do that, you can have some sling-shot action in your stroke.
 

tenis

Professional
Bjorn99, look!
I'm really glad, I'm not one of your kids you're teaching.
So, I don't have to listen your brain relieve...
 

Bjorn99

Hall of Fame
And someday, maybe somebody develops similar kind of complex freedom for the BH, and becomes a two-wing Fed. Well, then, he'll clobber Fed and set a whole bunch of new records himself. Or somebody takes Nadal's game and adds a running crosscourt forehand game a la Sampras. Maybe somebody realizes how to take Nadal's stroke and step into the ball, thereby increasing the pace by another 15-20mph. How scary will that be?


Tricky, you haven't been sneaking into my sessions have you? The two kids that I am teaching have revolutionized the game in a major way. I have to give credit to one of them, he came up with it,not I. If he even gets into the top twenty in the world, he will be famous for the new shot. He is only six turning seven, so he definitely doesn't want anyone knowing about it. But it was developed because he was upset that Federer didn't adapt to Nadal hitting the high ball to Federer's backhand. He was so upset that Federer just continued to try and topspin his backhand on balls that were shoulder height and higher.

And the two kids are doing so well, they bug me all the time to do everything with them. So they don't seem too upset about things. And I don't really theorize with them at all. We JUST DO. And with NO LIMITATIONS. No comparisons, no competition. Just manifesting, doing and creating. I can guarantee one thing, they will both have serves that Thomas Berdych will approve of and they will be able to hit the ball as well as anyone who has ever hit a ball. WHETHER THEY take a liking to competition and winning tournaments, IS COMPLETELY unknown to me. No way of determining that.

But I agree completely with Ivan Lendl. Build a game that is indominitable phyically and then apply a strong will and determination. If that isn't good enough, well, it just ain't good enough.


I am just sooooo against putting kids into competition before they have constructed a serious game. It just turns kids into a B. I wants A's.
 

DashaandSafin

Hall of Fame
Bjorn99 said:
And someday, maybe somebody develops similar kind of complex freedom for the BH, and becomes a two-wing Fed. Well, then, he'll clobber Fed and set a whole bunch of new records himself. Or somebody takes Nadal's game and adds a running crosscourt forehand game a la Sampras. Maybe somebody realizes how to take Nadal's stroke and step into the ball, thereby increasing the pace by another 15-20mph. How scary will that be?


Tricky, you haven't been sneaking into my sessions have you? The two kids that I am teaching have revolutionized the game in a major way. I have to give credit to one of them, he came up with it,not I. If he even gets into the top twenty in the world, he will be famous for the new shot. He is only six turning seven, so he definitely doesn't want anyone knowing about it. But it was developed because he was upset that Federer didn't adapt to Nadal hitting the high ball to Federer's backhand. He was so upset that Federer just continued to try and topspin his backhand on balls that were shoulder height and higher.

And the two kids are doing so well, they bug me all the time to do everything with them. So they don't seem too upset about things. And I don't really theorize with them at all. We JUST DO. And with NO LIMITATIONS. No comparisons, no competition. Just manifesting, doing and creating. I can guarantee one thing, they will both have serves that Thomas Berdych will approve of and they will be able to hit the ball as well as anyone who has ever hit a ball. WHETHER THEY take a liking to competition and winning tournaments, IS COMPLETELY unknown to me. No way of determining that.

But I agree completely with Ivan Lendl. Build a game that is indominitable phyically and then apply a strong will and determination. If that isn't good enough, well, it just ain't good enough.


I am just sooooo against putting kids into competition before they have constructed a serious game. It just turns kids into a B. I wants A's.

Your head is so far up your ass....
 

Bjorn99

Hall of Fame
Well, I guess that is a topic you would know a lot about, as opposed to developing talent. Have you coached a world champion, or two? Didn't think so. Was I lucky? Sure, and luck probably dictates that I won't get a sniff at it again. But one thing I remember in developing two of them, is that I had to constantly be unconventional, and as a result, had half the people following interested and supportive, and the other half were strangely negative and like yourself, antagonistic.

When Brad Gilbert cracked that Roddick was facing Club FED, intimating that Federer was likely to be either totally hot, or totally cold, Federer did not have a lot of believers. However an Australian friend of mine had told me unequivocally that Newcombe, Bill Bowrey and Tony Roche had seen him when his first coach, who was Australian, had taken him down under. And that they had said, that absolutely, this kid was going to be world number one. That was good enough for me. Because Aussies basically are like Apaches, they don't ********.

I am sure that Federer's forehand when it was sailing ten feet over the baseline didn't have a lot of believers. But that is just the way it is.

On the other hand, that Serbian kid, with all his easily seen power, probably has most mug hunters drooling and predicting great heights.
 

DashaandSafin

Hall of Fame
Bjorn99 said:
Well, I guess that is a topic you would know a lot about, as opposed to developing talent. Have you coached a world champion, or two? Didn't think so. Was I lucky? Sure, and luck probably dictates that I won't get a sniff at it again. But one thing I remember in developing two of them, is that I had to constantly be unconventional, and as a result, had half the people following interested and supportive, and the other half were strangely negative and like yourself, antagonistic.

When Brad Gilbert cracked that Roddick was facing Club FED, intimating that Federer was likely to be either totally hot, or totally cold, Federer did not have a lot of believers. However an Australian friend of mine had told me unequivocally that Newcombe, Bill Bowrey and Tony Roche had seen him when his first coach, who was Australian, had taken him down under. And that they had said, that absolutely, this kid was going to be world number one. That was good enough for me. Because Aussies basically are like Apaches, they don't ********.

I am sure that Federer's forehand when it was sailing ten feet over the baseline didn't have a lot of believers. But that is just the way it is.

On the other hand, that Serbian kid, with all his easily seen power, probably has most mug hunters drooling and predicting great heights.

2 World Champions in what? Curling?

Besides, I am a World Champion remeber dunce? I'm Andy Roddick.
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
So I guess no one knows if his small grip size helps Federer hit his forehand the way he does?

Yeah, a smaller grip size enables his wrist to move more freely. He needs that in order to correct his swing during the forward stroke. So this is how I read it:

At full extension of the backswing, around his waistline, his racket face closes up, parallel with the ground, oriented a little forward (so that his wrist is not extended.) That's a natural part of the SW swing arc; as that SW arc goes forward, the face will automatically open up.

That, however, is not natural if you use an Eastern grip. And what that means is that in order to get the racket face to open up again, you have to add a correction step. Usually that correction step would involve rotating the hand and forearm, which would unfortunately slow down your stroke.

Fed's correction step is to let the racket fly backwards, as his arm goes forward, causing the wrist to jerk back and down as the arm goes forward. If done correctly, the forward momentum of his stroke automatically rotates the face and corrects the angle, jerks the wrist far back and down, AND creates a a prestretch with the wrist, with a lot of potential energy for recoil. That prestretch in turn facilitates hand rotation for topspin if Federer wants it, as well as a loose wrist that comes forward depending on stroke mechanics. Its that prestretch and wrist angle, which enables him to really drive the ball through the palm of his hand, OR rotate around to get the face to act like a SW.

So, he never manually flings his wrist back or rotates the face. That's all done by the stroke, the correction step itself. It's sort of like throwing a curve ball from a sidearm position. And by using full arm extension in the backswing, the face should be set up before his elbow pivots.

In order to facilitate the above, he needs a strong, flexible wrist and he needs racket that doesn't inhibit movement of his wrist. Smaller grip size. Possibly a lighter racket. If he uses a unusually bulky racket, then his correction step would involve more of him manually rotating his hand/forearm, thereby slowing down the stroke, losing potential energy in the wrist, and limiting the wrist-back angle.
 

Grimjack

Banned
Update: thread awarded five stars -- Excellent! -- for its fun use of, "If you believe, you can achieve!" Somewhere, Norman Vincent Peale and W. Timmy Gallwey are smacking effortless forehands back and forth and laughing at all of us.
 

Polaris

Hall of Fame
Grimjack said:
Update: thread awarded five stars -- Excellent! -- for its fun use of, "If you believe, you can achieve!" Somewhere, Norman Vincent Peale and W. Timmy Gallwey are smacking effortless forehands back and forth and laughing at all of us.
:mrgreen:LOL at the image of Norman Vincent Peale smacking a forehand (and thanking God for it).
 

looseswing

Professional
For this kind of forehand wouldn't Fed have to be a little farther away from the ball than most other people because of the straight arm?
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
Usually he goes from a straight arm to an elbow bend when the arm reaches the rib cage area. So, in that sense, the contact zone remains pretty normal.

However, when he keeps his arms straight, which keeps the racquet way behind the swing arc, the contact zone is way out in front. That can be good in that it lets you cut off a wide shot early. Hitting passing shot on his FH side is very hard to do. It's bad in that you have to take the shot early.
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
I think that's true for most pros, but it's a source of controversy as well.

To create topspin, you do some kind of rotation with the wrist. Conventionally, it means you do a "wiping" motion where the wrist rotates laterally, mostly mantaining the original angle of the racket. Some people think it's pronation, where the wrist rolls a little inward and counterclockwise. And other people think it's a full-on snap.

All this figures into how the ball travels along the strings through contact. Another complication is the looseness of the wrist. If your wrist is not that locked, then there's a slight recoil with the racket frame itself that causes the ball to stay on the racket a little longer. Not only that, but it also causes the racket to tilt (usually forward) or vibrate. As a result, it sometimes looks like players aim for the top of the racket, but the ball leaves the bottom of the racket face.

I guess I see the amount of "travel" along the face as indication of how much spin will be imparted onto the racket. When Fed wants topspin, he can use a huge wiping motion due to the wrist-prestretch. And you can tell he's doing that because of his finish. His shoulder rotates a lot more and the hand stops pretty high.
 
M

Morrissey

Guest
His follow through on his forehand is very whiplike. Very flexible and not much "arm" so it's mostly dependent on timing. He's very thin so obviously he's not muscling the ball, he gets full arm extension and finishes around his torso. It looks like a wraparound shot, like a sidearm pitcher. It works perfectly for him, don't copy it because it may not do you any good. The one thing I agreed on with Bjorn even though he just seemed to just make no sense and ramble on was that you should always make your own style and not copy anybody.
 

bertrevert

Legend
But Benny, I mean Bjorn was saying this is taught to his kids so he most certainly is analysing, teaching - copying this onwards.

Indeed the title of this thread is about "anybody" doing just the same as, and that means copying it. It is not copying the stlye to be copying a type of forehand - so ably analysed here by tricky among others.

Hey I remember earlier that by copying the Sampras toe-up at the start of the service motion it gave me nice timing as it set in train a coiling stepping motion in the trunk to begin serve.

Nothing wrong with copying, in particular if it works for you. Copying not stlye but substance.
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
Yeah, to me, Fed's forehand is kinda like Roddick's serve in its weirdness. The floating elbow thing that Federer does is a big no-no in modern swings. Also his way of producing wrist action, while powerful, invites shank city.

But, to look at it another way, it's like he took the classic FH swing and then "pimped" it up with modern hand, elbow, and shoulder rotational elements until the swing basically "does the work" for him. Sampras's classical FH is pretty funky too. His cross-court FH kind of hints at the modern elements in his own swing, which enabled him to impart more spin than other Eastern grip players of his generation.

So, I guess in a way, I think the first half of his motion makes sense to me. It's very baseball in the way you kinda aim and catapult the hand at the ball. The 2nd half is where I kinda scratch my head. Most players have wrist-back action in order to generate power and spin, but his way to go about it is indiosyncratic. It makes sense, but still unwieldy.

But, it does reprove some basic ideas of power tennis. Keep the backswing compact, but try to get full extension for prestretch. Initiate with body rotation and avoid muscling the ball. Keep the grip relaxed. Use some kind of wrist-back position and drive through the palm of your hand. And, the more you rely on the swing mechanics to do the work for you, the more attention you have to pay to footwork and rhythm.
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
Prestretch is the "whipping", "recoiling", "twist", or "bouncing" motions a person does to create potential force, which is then released. It's what our muscles do to produce a lot of power without a lot of percieved effort, and it's the preferred way to maximize the force potential of muscle. Plyometrics is dedicated to using this in sports.

It's really the basis for a lot of natural motion. When you throw, you send the ball back a little, usually using a light grip, before throwing forward. When you want to jump high, you bounce really deep. For tennis, you have torso/hip rotation and the backswing.

What prestretch says about the backswing are the following:

1) Whatever maximal length you want with the swing, you want to reach that length as quickly as possible.

2) Therefore, you want as little as loop as necessary to have a smooth down-to-up forward swing. This is usually grip dependent, and part of why eastern grips can facilitate faster racket speed. (Though there are various mechanical changes one can do.)

3) However, and this is the rub: you want to reach that length with as little right hand/arm effort as possible And this means a few things:

3a) Grip needs to be as relaxed as possible during the backswing. This is partially why having a high native grip strength-to-swing weight ratio is ideal.

3b) You want your hips, torso, and left hand to aid the right hand travelling backwards

3c) You don't want to delay your forward swing.

4) The more your extended position stretches the muscles along your right side (i.e. the kinetic chain of the swing), the more potential power you have. This for most people is a hand position almost completely behind them and around shoulder height.

However, step 4 is not completely desirable. The more you rely on prestretch, the more you also rely on timing and rhythm. Because you're letting the mechanics do the work for you, you yourself have less control once it's a go. That's partially why whether Federer can actually see the ball at contact point is not that relevant; because he uses so much prestretch action in his swing, he can't really correct it anyway. Ergo why it looks like every match, Federer needs some time to sync the other guy's strokes with his.

A common criticism of American academy tennis is that too many players rely way too much on prestretch created by torso rotation to crush the ball. This works fine when they don't have to move and are playing opponents with little shot variation. But then a lot of these players, who punish the ball during practice, lose most of their power during a real game, when they can't initiate prestretch mechanisms. Or they have problems with accuracy due to overcompensating.

Federer arguably has the finest example of a stroke relying on various prestretch mechanicism; it's in his initial racket face rotation, his straight-arm bend; his transition to elbow bond, his wrist recoil creating energy for hand rotation. That is why it looks like a sling-shot to us. Even his footwork is partially designed to use recovery steps and shifts in direction as potential energy to launch. Without good footwork, man, he's be screwed. :D

And without question, Roddick is the finest example of said in the server.
 

ShooterMcMarco

Hall of Fame
Nice post tricky, but I don't really see how a grip can influence #2. If you look at Nadal's forehand in the high speed archive, he also has a straight arm on the bottom, and creates ridiculous racquet speeds with his western grip.
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
but I don't really see how a grip can influence #2. If you look at Nadal's forehand in the high speed archive, he also has a straight arm on the bottom, and creates ridiculous racquet speeds with his western grip.

Nah, I meant grip influencing the swing pattern you take. Convention with extreme grips goes that you use a big down-to-up forward swing, which is usually faciliated by the big loop in the backswing. Big loop in back swing means that it's more difficult to generate racket speed from prestretch (in such case, you would need to carry more muscle and/or grip strength to generate that speed.)

Nadal happens to be one of those people who has "various mechanical changes" in order to avoid the big loop. People say it's basically muscling the ball, but actually that's only partially true. He uses a slingshot straight-arm pattern too (though not as complex or flexible as Fed's), has actually a fairly level swing going into the contact zone, and then uses hand rotation to get the racket to track the ball height. His backswing is extremely, extremely compact and not vertical at all.

Because of that slingshot straight-arm, his contact zone is also way out in front, and so in his case he backs away from the ball. His unusual biceps development has probably as much to the centrifugal force of the straight arm technique with Western grip, as the rotation.

What makes Nadal so awesome as a defensive player is that, due to this swing pattern, he can hit return balls from knee high to above his shoulders. Few semi-SW players, let alone clay specialists, can do that. Also, unlike most Western players, it's easy for him to switch to a flat shot and put away the ball on a short hop.
 
FiveO said:
3 posts, several hundred words to announce "The Big Secret" you're not going to share with anyone is what's "hollow" here.

Oh, and your use of technical jargon in the few lines you said anything sport specific is a tad off, and doesn't do anything to bolster your credibility.

I don't believe it....I agree with five o
 

looseswing

Professional
tricky said:
Prestretch is the "whipping", "recoiling", "twist", or "bouncing" motions a person does to create potential force, which is then released. It's what our muscles do to produce a lot of power without a lot of percieved effort, and it's the preferred way to maximize the force potential of muscle. Plyometrics is dedicated to using this in sports.

It's really the basis for a lot of natural motion. When you throw, you send the ball back a little, usually using a light grip, before throwing forward. When you want to jump high, you bounce really deep. For tennis, you have torso/hip rotation and the backswing.

What prestretch says about the backswing are the following:

1) Whatever maximal length you want with the swing, you want to reach that length as quickly as possible.

2) Therefore, you want as little as loop as necessary to have a smooth down-to-up forward swing. This is usually grip dependent, and part of why eastern grips can facilitate faster racket speed. (Though there are various mechanical changes one can do.)

3) However, and this is the rub: you want to reach that length with as little right hand/arm effort as possible And this means a few things:

3a) Grip needs to be as relaxed as possible during the backswing. This is partially why having a high native grip strength-to-swing weight ratio is ideal.

3b) You want your hips, torso, and left hand to aid the right hand travelling backwards

3c) You don't want to delay your forward swing.

4) The more your extended position stretches the muscles along your right side (i.e. the kinetic chain of the swing), the more potential power you have. This for most people is a hand position almost completely behind them and around shoulder height.

However, step 4 is not completely desirable. The more you rely on prestretch, the more you also rely on timing and rhythm. Because you're letting the mechanics do the work for you, you yourself have less control once it's a go. That's partially why whether Federer can actually see the ball at contact point is not that relevant; because he uses so much prestretch action in his swing, he can't really correct it anyway. Ergo why it looks like every match, Federer needs some time to sync the other guy's strokes with his.

A common criticism of American academy tennis is that too many players rely way too much on prestretch created by torso rotation to crush the ball. This works fine when they don't have to move and are playing opponents with little shot variation. But then a lot of these players, who punish the ball during practice, lose most of their power during a real game, when they can't initiate prestretch mechanisms. Or they have problems with accuracy due to overcompensating.

Federer arguably has the finest example of a stroke relying on various prestretch mechanicism; it's in his initial racket face rotation, his straight-arm bend; his transition to elbow bond, his wrist recoil creating energy for hand rotation. That is why it looks like a sling-shot to us. Even his footwork is partially designed to use recovery steps and shifts in direction as potential energy to launch. Without good footwork, man, he's be screwed. :D

And without question, Roddick is the finest example of said in the server.

Tricky, if american tennis academy players rely too much on torso prestretch what prestretch should they be relying on instead?
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
Tricky, if american tennis academy players rely too much on torso prestretch what prestretch should they be relying on instead?

Well, there's also prestretch that occurs with the backswing itself. The height of your hand position at peak. The degree of arm extension you get. The opening/closing of the racket face (which adds a twist element to your rotators and other muscles, etc.) A live wrist vs. stable wrist. And so on.
Also, linear transfer from feet works in this sense. Although it's true that the momentum you generate enhances the power you drive into the ball, your running direction also creates potential for your arms to swing back in the prestretch and fire with a lot of power. Sampras's crosscourt is a sling-shot motion created by letting the arm fly around the elbow in an opposite-ish direction from his feet.

These are things most people don't need to think about. You just kinda know it's there when you feel a effortless, snappy energy in the arms. Basically, the biomechanical argument goes that you don't want to rely on any one prestretch mechanism too much, because it gives you less room for error and to adapt. Although it's more complex/complicated to have a multi-stage swing like a Federer, theoretically, distributing your source of power through many elements means he doesn't have to be perfect either. In other words, you have a much bigger learning curve, but then you have more flexibility.
Basically, the argument against American academies (and this is from what I've read, so very second hand) is that it relies way too much on the rotational prestretch. So, what happens is that, though the motion itself is easy enough to teach, only those who master the kinetic chain between torso and hip in an actual game get anywhere in the academy.

Whereas, maybe a more "European" viewpoint would be to develop the kids through their footwork and movement patterns. To get the prestretch from their feet and posture adjustments. You know, "tennis soccer." And while this is much harder to teach initially (and difficult to evaluate from pure talent), this makes the rest of the game easier to learn at very high levels.

In other words, American viewpoint --> hitting the ball hard, clean and effortlessly is upper body and eye/hand. European --> it's lower body, posture and anticipation.

Of course, these are big generalizations. But it goes back to how you can't really control a forehand like Federer's unless you're dancing on the court. And you can't kill a ball like Sampras's running forehand unless you can move like a cheetah through the swing.
 

enishi1357

Semi-Pro
you guys are thinking way too much in the details.
he generate power with his feet and that is why he doesn't need any power from his arm. His arm is mainly there for placement and that's it. He can sling shot or straight arm or bend it or whatever.
Sometimes it helps to think of federer not as a god but part of tennis. If you know tennis, then you know federer .... and pretty much everybody else.
 

OJ ROD

Semi-Pro
I could tell you, but there IS something radical that he has come up with, and I am teaching a couple of kids that are doing it, and THEY don't want me sharing it with anyone. None of the supposed experts have figured it out yet, and all I will say is don't watch the actual contact, watch what happens PRIOR to the contact. It is a micro evolution in a game that is starting to reach its zenith point in terms of EVOLUTION.

There is a coach that has in my mind, correctly figured out the next microevolutioniary changes to COME and my two kids are doing that as well. They are training in relative obscurity vis a vis the Williams sisters and hopefully it will result in some interesting results.

I have coached two world champions from beginner status in another sport, so I do know a thing or two about player development. But NO guarantees. I will say that THERE will be better players than Federer in the future, SO he had better enjoy his present status. I sure enjoy watching him, but except for his serve and forehand, am modeling superior technique for the other shots. Which to date, no player has exhibited in the last twenty years.


But as many tennis experts know, most games being played now, were on display way back when when people like Lenglen, Tilden, Billy Johnson etc.... were playing. So look to the past AS well as the future.

The actual fellow responsible for the technique we are employing was the fellow who guided Phil Nickelson's swing coach to change Phil's technique a year ago.

ESO LO SE YO!!
 

coloskier

Legend
search around, but i think its because of the racket strung at ~48 lbs, more dwell time. however obviously federer is talented. the other factor is probably his laser vision. Breakpoint made a thread about it somewhere (forget where, though you can find it by searching) about how most tennis players (pro's or average players) can only watch the ball till about a foot before impact, whereas federer watches it right till its on the stringbed, which helps him aim it where ever he wants to.

other than the above im not sure, maybe he's just too genious for us, or its his wrist :D

Here is the link:
http://www.tennisplayer.net/public/..._evolution_modern_forehand_articlesample.html
 

OJ ROD

Semi-Pro
you guys are thinking way too much in the details.
he generate power with his feet and that is why he doesn't need any power from his arm. His arm is mainly there for placement and that's it. He can sling shot or straight arm or bend it or whatever.
Sometimes it helps to think of federer not as a god but part of tennis. If you know tennis, then you know federer .... and pretty much everybody else.

Is Nalbandian the opposite of federer in this regard? Taking that point you just made, I think so. What do you think?
 
...

isn't it obvious? federer's secret is that he doesn't use butter, it's original soft spread! can you believe it? because i surely cannot believe that it's not butter.
 

ttbrowne

Hall of Fame
I, too, have developed a new way to hit the ball. It's being taught at 5, er 6, yes that's it, 6 secret bunkers buried around the USA. Can't tell you everything but it has to do with the racket structure form. Used in an elongated cylinder, with the HPPK domains forming two tetramers at each end. The aciditivates sites of both enzymes face outward, causing no clear channel between them that could be used for channelling substrates.
That is all....footsteps coming....must sign off.
 
Here are just some of the few phrases bjorn has said that make no effing sense what so ever:

"Keep a stiff upper lip mate, and an even stiffer mind."

"The actual fellow responsible for the technique we are employing was the fellow who guided Phil Nickelson's swing coach to change Phil's technique a year ago."

"And the sport was not tennis. But it was done."

"Because it is all a bunch of regurgitation Vic Bradenesque trophy hunting crap so far."

"When he practises at tournaments, he loves to hide as well."

"I am not liberty to say except for the word Technology."

"But, this fellow is very,very,very enhanced."

"Making everyone just ooh and aah and realize that they are second rate and playing for some kind of a booby prize."



Too funny Nextman.
 

RalphNYC

Semi-Pro
You can see his forehand motion perfectly here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXePiJfY7tM&feature=fvsr

This shot is well explained on various websites such as www.virtualtennisacademy.com/

The key is that he DOES NOT SWING THE RACQUET.

He drops the racquet after taking it back, it stays there for a moment facing down while his hips start rotating. As he rotates the hips, his upper body starts to rotate (uncoil), and his right arm starts to get dragged forward, but the racquet doesn't move forward yet, it just starts to tilt backwards towards the stands behind him. As he continues rotating the hips and upper body, his hitting hand finally gets starts moving forward. But he's NOT SWINGING the racquet. He's rotating his body.

This is a whipping motion and produces the greatest amount of angular speed possible. Swinging the racquet with your arm can not achieve this.
 
Last edited:

enishi1357

Semi-Pro
^ exactly he does not swing his racquet.
You can actually deduce it intelligently.
On one part of the clip federer is actully quite unstable because he goes airborne (his feet is not touching the ground). What he wants to do is to attack by precision. Therefore he doesn't need a back swing cuz it only takes time. I don't want to go too indepth into this cuz you don't really need a slingshot in every match. Just keep it simple.
 
Top