Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by NamRanger, Jan 31, 2009.
According to the all knowing BreakPoint, it is not.
It walks like a duck & quacks like a duck... I would say that it is, indeed, a WW FH. Don't know why BP would say that it is not.
Not sure about the point that BP is trying to make. Yes, it is possible to hit with a great deal of topspin (in excess of 2000 RPM?) w/o using the WW finish. FH shots in the past decade or 2 have even exceeded 3000 RPM. Highly doubtful that Laver ever produced spin rates that high since the rackets of his time had only about 65 sq inches of stringbed area -- with racket heads that were only 9" wide (external measurement).
Don't know it Rod ever used the WW finish, but players of his time did use it on occasion -- but not all that often due to racket limitations. Note that Federer uses or has used a variety of FH finishes according to Yandell. However, I believe that the WW finish has become his predominant finish on the FH.
It certainly looks that way to me, but it looks a little flatter than your typical WW forehand to me.
I don't know what thread NamRanger is quoting from, but that is exactly what most people mean when they describe a WW forehand.
Fed doesn't necessarily finish by the waist, but his follow through on that shot is what is meant by windshield wiper.
no that's not enought to be called a WW forehand
Are you serious? How can more than 180 degrees of rotation not be enough to qualify for a WW form?
that is definately NOT a ww forehand.
It's not an over the shoulder finish so it's defintely a variation of a ww. According to Yandell, Fed hits different "wipes" to different degrees to suit the ball i.e. he may use more hand and arm roatation etc. which will makes a difference in the wiper motion.
the movement is too much from the back to the front and he finishes too high, but it's close
yeah that's definitley a WW forehand...
No. You still want to follow through with your arm extending towards the court and away from your body. If you focus on just "wiping" the ball and end up just swinging straight up you'll have a horrible forehand, believe me.
This is were all of this "wiping" and "brushing" terminology is misleading.
Looks like a cry baby FH to me...
Oh please. Take this crap into the crap section where it belongs.
It seems to have a bit of both the WW and the classic forehand motion in it, actually it looked more like a classic forehand the way he hit through the ball.
If you go to 0:28 of that fyb vid and compare it to fed's, it's quite similar (excluding the followthrough to the shoulder).
Fed didn't really do the full "windshield wiping" motion through the shot, but there is some element of it in the swing.
i think there are varying degrees of WW follow through up to over the shoulder follow through,federers is lessextreme because of his flatter swingpath and less extremem grip
note* i could be full of BS
i think it is, because most of times you can see through the strings, i think its a little bit hybrid.
Yes this is a WW. The strings face the net the entire time during the follow through. The location of the racket at the end of the follow through -- shoulder-level, waist-level, etc. -- isn't what defines a WW.
The thing to look for is the amount of total hand arm and racket rotation going out through the contact. If you just look at the face of the strings, you can be mislead, because (as in this case) the racket can move backwards at the same time the arm is rotating. Watch the tip of the racket turn over 180 degrees. The top edge is basically turning over completely and going from pointing up to pointing down at the court. That is what makes it a wiper.
Hamilton clears things up!
Bam! 10 char
ne seri sine, leba ti...
GODDAMIT ITS JUST A FOREHAND.
Jesus Cristos. Who gives a damn if its windshield wiper or window wiper or chandelier wiper or wahtever wiper
its just a forehand. the specifics dealing with name do nothing.
Amen brotha. The windshield wiper forehand is one of the most misleading terms in tennis, right up there with "brushing" as a way of explaining topspin. What this does is completely ruin some player's stroke because they don't extend through the ball into the court, since they're so focused on the spin. What's ironic is that this essentially kills their spin potential because of the tightness that results from this.
you should use same avatar I am using...
I really think that it depends on how these ideas are presented. I happen to like the idea of WW and brushing to produce topspin. However, I would stress hitting thru the ball before emphasizing the idea of brushing up the back of the ball. It really depends on the student tho'. For some, I never mention the WW finish. With others, especially those who employ a SW grip (or something close to a SW grip) but do not seem to produce enough topspin, I will sometimes present the concept.
It really depends on what type of behavior or stroke modification I wish to elicit from a student as to how I present these various ideas.
Those saying he's swinging through too much are not realizing that frame 3 exists below in a WW forehand.
Yes, YMMV, of course. Personally, I found that I was not following through properly because I was so focused on the wind shield wiper motion. Shoulder rotation be darned, as well as extension through the ball, I thought that if I just focused on the windshield wiper motion I'd be fine. And then I'd wonder why I was always dropping the ball short in the court! Duh!!!! 2 + 2 = chicken! What a joke that was. This site is really taking my game to the next level though. They have a few free samples if you're interested. Excellent method of teaching that breaks down the various techniques into specific reference points that all the great players achieve. Very similar to the way you and Bungalo Bill choose to teach tennis.
Well I think you're highlighting a problem many players have: knowing what's happening over the course of a shot is different from actually being able to execute the motion yourself. For this reason, I disagree w/the notion that "forehands are just forehands," we shouldn't differentiate between a classic forehand and a windshield wiper forehand, etc. There are real differences between the classic and windshield wiper and players / students / etc. need to understand what they are. Once that happens, you'll be in good position to actually learn how to hit the shot. FYB uses progressions to get this done, VTA uses reference points, and there are a number of other ways to build a shot up from scratch.
For comparison's sake you could say that there isn't a difference between the flat and the kick serves. "They're just serves!" As I'm sure everyone knows, the amount of pace and spin, and the trajectory, of these respective serves are very different. The technique for hitting them is different despite the fact that both motions share many similarities.
I agree 100%. The reason for my previous posts was because I saw that the "brush up on the ball' posters were starting to arrive and I wanted to ensure that this guy doesn't make the same mistakes that I did when I first learned about topspin. It's not easy having to rebuild every single stroke you've ever learned, and that's pretty much what I've had to do because I shyed away from video analysis in the past. Thank God I've finally manned up and started to record my strokes on video. It's opened my eyes to what is REALLY going on in my strokes. I'm no expert on video uploading, but I'd LOVE to get an analysis of my game from you once I get some footage that I feel is an accurate representation of my game. Also, I'd love to post a few videos from the past and present to give you a sort of "before and after" style of analysis, based on the changes I've made on my own from the knowledge I've acquired from you guys. I've held back from posting my videos because I wanted to test my own abilities to spot and correct mistakes when I see them manifesting themselves.
Drop me an email if you have any ideas as to what you would like to see. All right, I guess that's enough thread hijacking for one day.
Show me a WW forehand. The WW part of the forehand is what happens after the actual contact of the ball. No one uses a true WW swing because they would hit themselves in the ear/temple every time and the ball would never get over the net.
This is exactly what I'm trying to say.
^ Xcellent points from both Will & Matt.
I think one of the most important skills for any aspiring tennis player is the capacity for self-analysis. The rapid advances in internet technologies, severe drop in the price of camcorders, etc. is creating the perfect storm for players to teach themselves. Holding back to "test your own abilities to spot and correct mistakes" is a great idea.
The main thing I'd like to see is multiple camera angles and correctly framed strokes. If you're looking for an example of what do to, look at how we frame court footage. We make sure we capture the entire subject, but there isn't much "extra space" in the frame. You don't want the player to be tiny. Also, use a tripod! Camera shake is lame. Finally, film outside on a sunny day and SET THE SHUTTER SPEED HIGH. A shutter speed of 500+ is fine (fyi not all cameras let you control the shutter speed so make sure you look into this before you buy one). That will cut down / eliminate motion blur when you try and freeze frame / watch in slow motion. Oh and shoot in progressive scan, not interlaced, if possible. Sort of a brain-dump but hopefully this is clear enough.
Shoot me an email -- email@example.com -- when you get some vids up and I'll take a look. Holler.
I'm sorry, but this word clearly has no place in the posts of someone as white as yourself.
Thanks for the advice. I've got cash to burn and I'm looking for a camera with excellent slo-mo capabilities. Of course, I also know absolutely NOTHING about this kind of thing as well. Why do the clueless ones always have to have the best, anyway?
"Holler" is fine for that white boy, but he should refrain from "holla back".
It's definitely a gray area. I'll have to tread lightly. Fo sho.
Yep. Will--The White Boy--would be correct.
Here is a NON Windshield Wiper forehand.
(Source: I have no idea. I got it off some foreign fan site two years ago.)
His pendulum-like backswing is weird looking, heh.
Ivan Lendl's forehand looks weird. Didn't he hit with massive topspin? It looks like he has a continental grip.
I don't mean to take the topic off hand. . .I'm not terribly familiar with his forehand, but it does look like he takes it more straight back and then raises the head.
"Massive," would that be a comparative statement of then or the here in now? The standards would be very different. A player can get good topspin without going W.Wiper. In my neck of the woods the grip there would be considered a solid Eastern.
Right now his forehand would probably be considered as moon balls, but back in his day his topspin was considered huge.
I agree that players could get good topspin without the ww forehand, but at some levels (even at my junior level) it is almost a necessity. I get a heavily spun ball, I windshield wiper it back. It allows one to swing fast without fear of the ball going out. So unless you're an old 60+ person who has that continental "push" forehand, it would be quite beneficial to learn the ww forehand.
Btw, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a ww forehand w/ an eastern grip produces more topspin than a classic forehand with a western grip.
Well a WW forehand has a steeper swing path (more vertical up to contact) than a classic forehand. So the grip you use is irrelevant.
I wouldn't say the grip you use on a ww forehand is irrelevant.
That's a bit of an overstatment.
I didn't say the grip you use when you hit a WW is irrelevant. What is irrelevant is the grip you use if you assume the swing path stays the same. For example, let's assume there are two generic swing paths: swing path X and swing path Y. How you hold the racket has no bearing on either one. I can hold the racket with an eastern, or western, or continental, or eastern backhand -- it doesn't matter. Swing path X (or Y) doesn't change.
Now practically speaking, your grip influences your swing path. Typically, western grips have higher contact points, forcing playings to swing up to contact more than they'd have to w/an eastern. That's why western grips are said to produce the most topspin. However, you can adjust your hitting-arm position to facilitate a number of swing paths. For example, if you modify your hitting-arm position using a western grip you can produce a swing path close to what you'd expect to see from someone using an eastern.
If we assume that all WW forehands are the same and all classic forehands are the same then we can say that each has a particular -- a specific -- swing path. If that's the case, grip would have no influence on the amount of spin you put on the ball when hitting a WW -- or classic. The swing paths would be exactly the same.
The response I gave to your question what purely theoretical so I can see why it would create some confusion.
The grip does not determine the swing path, the SWING PATH determines the swing path. In theory you can hit a WW with a continental and hit the same amount of spin as you can with the full western grip. What the grips do is simply influence your technique in subtle ways that you might not even realize to begin with. Once again, grips don't create topspin. PLAYERS create topspin.
P.S. Never mind, Will already wrote the exact same thing in better detail. Doh!
Right the racket finishes basically on edge. Someone pirated that clip from the Mac/Lendl video--but SF I hereby grant you the posting rights.
Thanks for staying cool with this though. By "finishes on edge", you mean perpendicular to the court, so to speak? Just wondering.
Separate names with a comma.