kinetic chain for 1HBH

[tonygao]

hi guys,

for 1HBH, how should the kinetic chain be like? is it the same as forehand? legs to hips, hips rotate to bring shoulders, and shoulders to arms?

I am wondering if the hips play a big role in 1HBH, or only shoulder rotation is important to generate the racket head speed? should hips rotate as well?

 

[GetBetterer]

Wawrinka rotates the hips a lot, at least a lot compared to some others (IMO).

 

[dozu]

I believe in 'copy the FH' for the 1hbh..... for me this shot has become a legit weapon, so here is what I think -

to me this feels like a left handed FH, with a right handed follow thru - from the prep position thru the backswing to the initial part of wiping the windshield forward, the shot feels like left hand dominant for me..... and although in reality, my left hand lets go at the 'power position', in my mind the right hand only takes over when the racket has gone thru partial windshield wiping, at about the 10 o'clock position.

so with the above said, the left-hand dominant part is basically a mirror image of my FH, which means the leading hip is the main driving force (left hip for the FH, and right hip for the 1hbh).

 

[Manus Domini]

hi guys,

for 1HBH, how should the kinetic chain be like? is it the same as forehand? legs to hips, hips rotate to bring shoulders, and shoulders to arms?

I am wondering if the hips play a big role in 1HBH, or only shoulder rotation is important to generate the racket head speed? should hips rotate as well?

In the past two weeks, my 1HBH has become a weapon, not a weakness.

I presume you know the right contact point (I didn't realize I had the wrong contact point for a while). What I do is the following:

1. Prepare my backswing as I am moving to the ball. This allows you to already be prepared to swing and not rush your shot
2. Take small steps for positioning. My last step is stepping in with my leading foot, leaning into the shot by twisting my trunk and bending my knees.
3. Keep my arm relaxed and swing with my waist
4. follow through
   
   
   
   

The arm HAS to be relaxed, at least for me, to get the ball in with any sort of pace. As Dozu said, it should basically be a forehand on the opposite side of your body, but remember that where the forehand footwork is variable, the exact same footwork each and every time if possible is needed for your backhand to be a weapon. Also, you have to keep a closed stance if you can take the time to do so.

 

[fuzz nation]

I find that the timing necessary for a decent one-handed backhand is profoundly different than with a forehand. Although there are certainly similar elements in the kinetic chain for each, I think that they are employed in a different manner. This makes a two-handed backhand much easier to compare with a forehand than a one-hander, at least in my experience. The two-handed backhand is almost a weak-sided forehand.

A forehand seems to work well with the forward weight transfer and hip rotation occurring either simultaneously with the swing or only just slightly ahead of the swing. The one-handed backhand's mechanics seem to stand in stark contrast to a forehand in that the weight transfer and hip "loading" ideally happen before the forward stroke.

I call the backhand's hip action more "loading" than rotation just because I think that the forehand typically allows for a bit more turning than the backhand, but that's just a mild shade of grey. On either side, that component of the kinetic chain is the "hip turn" and for a good 1hbh, it's absolutely vital for energizing the shot.

 

[MNPlayer]

I think of the 1HB as totally different from the forehand. It's a much more linear stroke, usually hit from a closed stance. While you often see the pros rotate and open up, they do it mostly after contact. One of the the most common problem I see with rec players (including myself) on the 1HB is they open up too early or try to get too much power from the rotation. I can hit a perfectly serviceable 1HB staying totally sideways. And it's possible to actually place the shot, unlike when I rotate into the swing.

 

[Chenx15]

one hand backhand

1. Check step
2. go to the placement of the ball
3.shoulder turn by doing the chicken wing nice and high
4. prep
5. the secret in the one hand backhand is not only you are timing your arm but your forward foot as well. you are using your arm to induce spin and direction and you are using your forward foot to induce forward momentum and power you do this simultaneously. but you keep it steady until the ball leaves yoru racket.
6. prepare for the next shot

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Note that Federer and other elite players coil up quite a bit on the prep for the 1-hander. The uncoiling rotation of the hips and torso play any an important part even tho they are very brief and considerably less than the rotations for the FH. When the forward swing of the arm/racquet commences, the body rotations are pretty much over for many 1hBH shots -- there is a complete kinetic transfer from the torso to the arm swing.

Contrast this with a FH or a 2-handed) stroke. Because the back shoulder/arm is connected to the racquet, the body continues to uncoil during the forward swing (and follow-thru). For the 1hBH, the back shoulder should stay back -- expand the chest (and squeeze the shoulder blades together) in order to let the front shoulder rotate more than the back shoulder.

 

[chico9166]

Note that Federer and other elite players coil up quite a bit on the prep for the 1-hander. The uncoiling rotation of the hips and torso play any an important part even tho they are very brief and considerably less than the rotations for the FH. When the forward swing of the arm/racquet commences, the body rotations are pretty much over for many 1hBH shots -- there is a complete kinetic transfer from the torso to the arm swing.

Contrast this with a FH or a 2-handed) stroke. Because the back shoulder/arm is connected to the racquet, the body continues to uncoil during the forward swing (and follow-thru). For the 1hBH, the back shoulder should stay back -- expand the chest (and squeeze the shoulder blades together) in order to let the front shoulder rotate more than the back shoulder.

As usual, good explanation. Treating the "one hander like a forehand", is exactly what's wrong with many club players backhands.

 

[Manus Domini]

As usual, good explanation. Treating the "one hander like a forehand", is exactly what's wrong with many club players backhands.

I treat it similar to a forehand in some areas, but not the same. I misspoke when I said it should "basically be a forehand", I forgot about the follow through and other things when I wrote. I used to think of it as a left-side forehand, now I incorporate a lot of forehand stuff but leave a lot out.

What I keep in:
cocking the wrist
prep while moving
short, choppy steps
Step into shot

What I add:
Always closed stance and same footwork each time
different follow through (diagnally up and not accross like a WWfh)
[personally] I don't add a loop

but SA's analysis is spot on, I guess I use too much fh in my bh

 

[dozu]

As usual, good explanation. Treating the "one hander like a forehand", is exactly what's wrong with many club players backhands.

well, I guess I need to clarify as well.... when I said 'copy the FH'.... it would be a closed stance FH to start with..

and although it feels to me that the left hand is still on the racket after impact, in reality it lets go before the impact..

this may not be a textbook way to hit the 1hbh, but I find it very practical in handling all situations, low skidders, deep ball half volleys, high balls etc... that left hand dominant sensation really gives a powerful and controlled feel, instead of that right hand dominant weakish feel when timing is off.

 

[tonygao]

in the modern forehand, I have seen instructions to emphasize the stretch between hips and shoulders. so basically in preparation phase you should rotate the shoulders to 90 degree but the hips should rotate less to face in between the net and the side fence, not 90 degree to face the side fence. by doing so you create a coil on the core and then it will release more power through uncoiling.

should 1HBH also implement the such concept? hips only rotate to face the side fence(90 degree) but shoulder rotate more, even close to 180 degree to create such coil?

 

[dozu]

if you watch the pros, the hips are ahead of the shoulders during the forward swing.

this is the same concept as the 'X factor' in golf..... but in golf many people misinterpret this as the angle between the hips and shoulders during the back swing, causing lots of strain in the motion.

backswing doesnt matter, forward swing hits the ball... more specifically, the right hip hits the ball.

 

[SlowButSure]

if you watch the pros, the hips are ahead of the shoulders during the forward swing.

this is the same concept as the 'X factor' in golf..... but in golf many people misinterpret this as the angle between the hips and shoulders during the back swing, causing lots of strain in the motion.

backswing doesnt matter, forward swing hits the ball... more specifically, the right hip hits the ball.

You realize even Mclean has admitted the 'x-factor' is misleading? At the time a lot of players fit that mold because teaching had encouraged it. Previously, and more recently, teaching hasn't and the 'x-factor' is no longer as pervasive or predictive.

The current trend is for much more synchronized motions, a'la Hogan.

The pros I looked at (federer, wawrinka, gasquet) all have pretty synchronous hips and shoulders on their 1hbh.

 

[dozu]

You realize even Mclean has admitted the 'x-factor' is misleading? At the time a lot of players fit that mold because teaching had encouraged it. Previously, and more recently, teaching hasn't and the 'x-factor' is no longer as pervasive or predictive.

The current trend is for much more synchronized motions, a'la Hogan.

The pros I looked at (federer, wawrinka, gasquet) all have pretty synchronous hips and shoulders on their 1hbh.

yes I know.... I have posted that X factor should happen in the downswing, not the backswing (in golf terminology).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdDwMj3_WMA

here you can see the right hip 'bump' when she starts the forward swing, and the 'bump' happens before the shoulder turning clockwise in the forward swing.

 

[SlowButSure]

yes I know.... I have posted that X factor should happen in the downswing, not the backswing (in golf terminology).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdDwMj3_WMA

here you can see the right hip 'bump' when she starts the forward swing, and the 'bump' happens before the shoulder turning clockwise in the forward swing.

Yes, the 'new x-factor'...

http://www.golf.com/golf/instruction/article/0,28136,1565203,00.html

Backswing, downswing, it's not the same point. Some golfers do it becuase that's how they were taught. Some (previously, and more and more recently) don't. It's one way of hitting the golf ball.

The hips always turn first, in tennis and golf, but the timing of when they slow is really important and I think in tennis in particular it's misleading to use the imagry of them leading throughout the stroke.

 

[dozu]

Yes, the 'new x-factor'...

http://www.golf.com/golf/instruction/article/0,28136,1565203,00.html

Backswing, downswing, it's not the same point. Some golfers do it becuase that's how they were taught. Some (previously, and more and more recently) don't. It's one way of hitting the golf ball.

The hips always turn first, in tennis and golf, but the timing of when they slow is really important and I think in tennis in particular it's misleading to use the imagry of them leading throughout the stroke.

that's fair... the hit/shoulder differential is more comparable between a golf swing and a tennis FH... at least that's how I feel.. my golf swing is basically a FH.

the tennis backhand feels like a more 'closed' motion, but not by much compared to a closed stance FH.

with that being said, even pros have different 'open-ness' in their 1hbh.... Mauresmo is quite open while Blake is quite closed.

 

[larry10s]

that's fair... the hit/shoulder differential is more comparable between a golf swing and a tennis FH... at least that's how I feel.. my golf swing is basically a FH.

the tennis backhand feels like a more 'closed' motion, but not by much compared to a closed stance FH.

with that being said, even pros have different 'open-ness' in their 1hbh.... Mauresmo is quite open while Blake is quite closed.

john yandell at tennisplayer.net had a great series on the modern one handed backhand. in that series the "openess" of the chest /hips you refer to has to with the grip
more extreme grip more open in general

 

[dozu]

john yandell at tennisplayer.net had a great series on the modern one handed backhand. in that series the "openess" of the chest /hips you refer to has to with the grip
more extreme grip more open in general

makes sense - Edberg / Mac, conti grips, contact point more to the side, stance more closed.

EBH or SWBH grip players, contact point more forward, stance more open.

 

[max]

My only observation is that you see a lot just by looking.

The backhand (for me) seems to require a lot more intense LOOKING at the ball than for my forehand. I just do better when I watch the ball more.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

in the modern forehand, I have seen instructions to emphasize the stretch between hips and shoulders. so basically in preparation phase you should rotate the shoulders to 90 degree but the hips should rotate less to face in between the net and the side fence, not 90 degree to face the side fence. by doing so you create a coil on the core and then it will release more power through uncoiling.

should 1HBH also implement the such concept? hips only rotate to face the side fence(90 degree) but shoulder rotate more, even close to 180 degree to create such coil?

As dozu had indicated in a previous post, "the hips are ahead of the shoulders during the forward swing."

Let's take a look at the FH first. There are a couple of different ways of creating a tension in the core. Usually, with neutral stances you will see the hip turn leading the torso turn at the start of the forward swing. Contrast this with the other variation. Often, with open stances the hips are coiled less than the torso during the preparation prior to the forward swing. This hip-torso offset will also create tension (stored energy) in the core.

Now let's now turn our attention of the BH stroke. These are usually hit with a closed or neutral stance. Take a very close look at elite players when the set up for the BH. The hips will often be turned toward the side fence. However, the torso is coiled up even more than this. This offset will create tension in the core just prior to the forward swing. As the torso uncoils more than the hips, this stored tension is released.

In the 1st link below, Stan W is hitting his BH with a closed stance. At 0:04 we can see much of his upper back (shoulder blades) as he prepares for the forward swing. The hips OTOH have not coiled up quite a much. This is quite evident in the other links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5pb4pkYLcA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCQ50D2fIKI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghnFZCtkBX0


Once in a while you will witness the BH hit using an open stance. This happens of serve returns more than other situations for most players. With this, the torso is often coiled up more significantly than the hips. I will sometimes use this open stance with a very pronounced hip-torso offset during the course of a rally.
.

 

[dozu]

thanks SA for the vids.... that Gasquet one really shows the hip/torso 'offset'.

 

[SlowButSure]

I'm going to have to disagree with this last statement. As dozu had indicated in a previous post, "the hips are ahead of the shoulders during the forward swing."

Let's take a look at the FH first. There are a couple of different ways of creating a tension in the core. Usually, with neutral stances you will see the hip turn leading the torso turn at the start of the forward swing. Contrast this with the other variation. Often, with open stances the hips are coiled less than the torso during the preparation prior to the forward swing. This hip-torso offset will also create tension (stored energy) in the core.

Now let's now turn our attention of the BH stroke. These are usually hit with a closed or neutral stance. Take a very close look at elite players when the set up for the BH. The hips will often be turned toward the side fence. However, the torso is coiled up even more than this. This offset will create tension in the core just prior to the forward swing. As the torso uncoils more than the hips, this stored tension is released.

In the 1st link below, Stan W is hitting his BH with a closed stance. At 0:04 we can see much of his upper back (shoulder blades) as he prepares for the forward swing. The hips OTOH have not coiled up quite a much. This is quite evident in the other links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5pb4pkYLcA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCQ50D2fIKI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghnFZCtkBX0


Once in a while you will witness the BH hit using an open stance. This happens of serve returns more than other situations for most players. With this, the torso is often coiled up more significantly than the hips. I will sometimes use this open stance with a very pronounced hip-torso offset during the course of a rally.

You're talking about a different thing. You're pointing out what would translate to the original 'x-factor' Mclean wrote about. That being the difference between shoulder and hip rotation in the backswing.

That concept doesn't work in tennis. Just looking at the videos you posted, the hip position is largely determined by what the player had to do to get in position to hit the ball.

What I (and I believe Dozu) was referring to was the 'new x-factor' where in golf they proposed one should try to turn the hips as fast as possible why delaying the shoulder turn. This creates a large difference between hip and shoulder rotation which they postulated resulted in greater power.

I was pointing out that in tennis, while the hips do turn first (the kinetic chain and all), there is very little separation compared to what was proposed for golf.

In all the videos you posted the shoulders have at least caught up with the hips by impact. That's totally different than the x-factor in golf where they showed 90+degrees of separation.

I'm not arguing against the kinetic chain. Of course the hips start, and of course there is more shoulder turn. The torso has a huge rom advantage over the hips and are not further constrained by having to be involved in moving your body to the hitting position.

I was simply pointing out that the x-factor analogy doesn't really work for tennis.

 

[dozu]

In all the videos you posted the shoulders have at least caught up with the hips by impact. That's totally different than the x-factor in golf where they showed 90+degrees of separation.

I do wonna make a point here... impact in tennis, would be more comparable to impact of hitting a driver (teed up high and more forward) in golf... for iron shots, since the impact is about middle of the stance, it will give an impression that the torso has not caught up with the hips yet.... (and therefore the 'hitting down' concept for irons.. and the club's loft makes the ball fly up).

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

^^ I know only a little about golf and nothing about this x-factor theory. However your last statement, "synchronous hips and shoulders on their 1hbh" was a bit confusing. It sounded as if you might be implying that the hips and torso moved as one.



.

 

[SlowButSure]

^^ I know only a little about golf and nothing about this x-factor theory. However your last statement, "synchronous hips and shoulders on their 1hbh" was a bit confusing. It sounded as if you might be implying that the hips and torso moved as one.

Well, I do think they mostly move as one. The hips move through a much, much smaller ROM. They start slightly earlier, but also stop earlier.

The fundamental difference between the golf and tennis swing is you have to move in tennis. The lower body does provide power, but first and foremost it gets you into the right position, provides a stable base for the upper body, and prepares to move after the hit. In golf there's no movement and no recovery. You can use the lower body much more becuase you start in the perfect hitting position and there's no need to prepare to move after the shot.

Here's a pic of the x-factor Dozu was referring to, directly from the golf mag article:

I don't think that picture is a good analogy for any stroke in tennis.

 

[SlowButSure]

I do wonna make a point here... impact in tennis, would be more comparable to impact of hitting a driver (teed up high and more forward) in golf... for iron shots, since the impact is about middle of the stance, it will give an impression that the torso has not caught up with the hips yet.... (and therefore the 'hitting down' concept for irons.. and the club's loft makes the ball fly up).

Not sure the point of this. The x-factor golf thing was written about driver swings. It never really worked for iron shots, and for most people never really worked for drivers, hence why it's mostly been abandoned.

The current 'trend' is for much more hip rotation and much more synchonous movements. Who knows how long this trend will last.

 

[dozu]

let me clarify -

my point is - tennis or golf, a swing is a swing.. there is a certain way that the human body can generate the most juice, which is thru a chain event, in which hips have to fire before the torso...

when I use the term 'X' factor, I refer to the hip/torso offset during the forward swing, not the back swing. I agree that during the backswing, the 'X' factor as Jim McLean taught it was wrong.

the amound off-set maybe different between tennis and golf... golf swing is more extensive, player has all the time to make the swing, tennis swing is more brief, therefore the offset may not be as visible.

the golf swing for a driver is the same swing as an iron, the only difference is the set up.... the 'X' factor during the forward swing refers to the hip/shoulder offset from the top of the swing, till the release of the club... it is not limited at the impact position.

Anyway, this is getting close to the point of analysis paralysis... if not for the fact that it's 30's outside and my golf buddy hasn't shown up yet, I'd not bother to type up all this stuff.

When the rubber meets the road, the player himself will know, if he has effortless power, or powerless effort.

 

[DeShaun]

i see it this way: hips uncoiling is bonus power that should come AFTER the stroke production is securely in place.
would seem little sense in unleashing power until you thought you could control these extra forces very, or, tolerably well.
how you are controlling them:
certainly not by unleashing your hips. hips may add what become elements to the finer aspects of control as the stroke evolves. bla bla bla.
to explode the hips is to elevate your center mass. to move side to side/back and forth on the other hand, involves the legs and lower extremities to a greater degree than the hips. but i digress.
have to explode upwards, quickly as possible without a chance first, for coiling your body further? then the hips are the best conduit through which to achieve a sudden upward explosion; without which ^joints^ no explosion is possible.
using the hips near the start, OR, the end of the kinetic chain.
i see their role as that of providing a last second infusion of good raw, but relatively crude, power that comes from one, who is suddenly elevating, across a few moments, his center mass, in coincidence with the moment while he is making contact with the ball.
it puts top on the ball...question: is a topped ball always the appropriate response?

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Well, I do think they mostly move as one. The hips move through a much, much smaller ROM. They start slightly earlier, but also stop earlier...

This sound like a contradiction. To the casual observer it appears that the hips and torso move as one. But upon closer inspection, this is seen not to be the case. The torso coils more than hips and uncoil more than the hips -- greater ROM. The torso lags at the beginning of the stroke, catches up to the hips and then passes the hips. The hips stop their brief rotation as the torso continues to uncoil.

The hip turn for the 1-hander is usually slight, often (nearly) imperceptible, whereas the coiling & uncoiling of the torso is much more overt. How can it be said that the hips and torso are moving together as a unit? If they did, there would be no tension in the core to utilize.
.

 

[tonygao]

As dozu had indicated in a previous post, "the hips are ahead of the shoulders during the forward swing."

Let's take a look at the FH first. There are a couple of different ways of creating a tension in the core. Usually, with neutral stances you will see the hip turn leading the torso turn at the start of the forward swing. Contrast this with the other variation. Often, with open stances the hips are coiled less than the torso during the preparation prior to the forward swing. This hip-torso offset will also create tension (stored energy) in the core.

Now let's now turn our attention of the BH stroke. These are usually hit with a closed or neutral stance. Take a very close look at elite players when the set up for the BH. The hips will often be turned toward the side fence. However, the torso is coiled up even more than this. This offset will create tension in the core just prior to the forward swing. As the torso uncoils more than the hips, this stored tension is released.

In the 1st link below, Stan W is hitting his BH with a closed stance. At 0:04 we can see much of his upper back (shoulder blades) as he prepares for the forward swing. The hips OTOH have not coiled up quite a much. This is quite evident in the other links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5pb4pkYLcA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCQ50D2fIKI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghnFZCtkBX0


Once in a while you will witness the BH hit using an open stance. This happens of serve returns more than other situations for most players. With this, the torso is often coiled up more significantly than the hips. I will sometimes use this open stance with a very pronounced hip-torso offset during the course of a rally.
.

Hi System, so 1hbh, no matter hit with closed or open stance, is more like an open stance forehand, hips/shoulder offset creates the power, not like neutral stance FH, where hips leading the forward swing create the tension/energy. am i understanding it correctly? if so, then my statement was right, for a neutral stance 1hbh for example, in the backswing hips rotate no more than 90 degree, but shoulders should rotate more than 90 degree to create the offset.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Hi System, so 1hbh, no matter hit with closed or open stance, is more like an open stance forehand, hips/shoulder offset creates the power, not like neutral stance FH, where hips leading the forward swing create the tension/energy. am i understanding it correctly? if so, then my statement was right, for a neutral stance 1hbh for example, in the backswing hips rotate no more than 90 degree, but shoulders should rotate more than 90 degree to create the offset.

That's the crux of it for most, if not all, 1hBHs. The degree of offset is typically greater for an open-stance FH than it would be for a neutral or closed stance BH. With an open-stance BH, the offset is usually greater than it would be for for a neutral/close stance BH.

 

[SlowButSure]

This sound like a contradiction. To the casual observer it appears that the hips and torso move as one. But upon closer inspection, this is seen not to be the case. The torso coils more than hips and uncoil more than the hips -- greater ROM. The torso lags at the beginning of the stroke, catches up to the hips and then passes the hips. The hips stop their brief rotation as the torso continues to uncoil.

The hip turn for the 1-hander is usually slight, often (nearly) imperceptible, whereas the coiling & uncoiling of the torso is much more overt. How can it be said that the hips and torso are moving together as a unit? If they did, there would be no tension in the core to utilize.
.

I'm not saying they move as one, but that they move at the same time. The shoulders go through a much larger rom, but the timing is very similar. The hips go through their entire ROM in about the same time as the shoudlers go through theirs (the shoulders continue longer after the hit, but much of that is using the momentum to help turn the body as part of the recovery action).

That's what I meant by synchronous. Again, I'm specifically referring to the concept in golf where it was felt the best way to maximize power was to turn the hips as much as possible while actively resisting turning the shoulders. The idea was to actively delay the shoulder turn as long as possible to try to maximize torso tension. In tennis there is much, much less hip rotation. The lower body in tennis is primarily used to provide a stable base to resist the movements of the upper body. I don't think anyone purposely delays the upper body swing while firing the hips in tennis.

I also don't think the differential between hip and shoulder angle has anything to do with power in tennis. I think that angle is primarily a function of positioning. The largest variable will be what the person does in terms of recovery. Unlike golf where all the movements are focused on hitting a single ball, many of the movements we see in tennis strokes are utilized to help redirect the body to recover for the next shot.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

^ Did you take a close look at those 3 slow motion videos that I provided? If you study those videos, it should become apparent that tension in the core is created by turning the torso more than the hips. The 1hBH usually employs very little hip rotation but a noticeable amount of torso rotation. The difference between the hips and the torso is often greater the FH or the 2hBH.

The difference between the hips and the torso has everything to do with the power in tennis (and baseball, golf, numerous martial arts, and other sports). It is an important part of the kinetic chain. I just took a close look at Tiger Woods driving a ball in slow-mo. While he coils the hips more than a tennis player would, his torso coil is greater than his hip coil = tension in the core. AS he uncoils, the hips initially lead the upper body = core tension is maintained. Eventually, the torso catches up = core tension released.

This is a common theme for many sports and several different shots in tennis. Take a look at what The Serve Doctor has to say about this concept in his spring-loaded serve. This same idea is used in other strokes (and other sports) as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixx-MCC7D88

... In tennis there is much, much less hip rotation. The lower body in tennis is primarily used to provide a stable base to resist the movements of the upper body. I don't think anyone purposely delays the upper body swing while firing the hips in tennis...

There may be less hip rotation for tennis than for a full golf swing, but this does not minimize its importance. It is still very important. As I already mentioned in previous posts, the hips can be used in more than one way for tennis strokes. For some strokes, the uncoiling of the hips lead the torso uncoiling. In other instances, the hips are preset with an offset and less hip rotation occurs. In either case tension has been created in the core -- this allows transfer of power from the lower body to the upper body.

Elite players do purposely allow the upper body to lag the hips at the start of the forward swing in order to maximize power transfer.
.

 

[chico9166]

I'm not saying they move as one, but that they move at the same time. The shoulders go through a much larger rom, but the timing is very similar. The hips go through their entire ROM in about the same time as the shoudlers go through theirs (the shoulders continue longer after the hit, but much of that is using the momentum to help turn the body as part of the recovery action).

That's what I meant by synchronous. Again, I'm specifically referring to the

concept in golf where it was felt the best way to maximize power was to turn the hips as much as possible while actively resisting turning the shoulders.

The idea was to actively delay the shoulder turn as long as possible to try to maximize torso tension. In tennis there is much, much less hip rotation. The lower body in tennis is primarily used to provide a stable base to resist the movements of the upper body. I don't think anyone purposely delays the upper body swing while firing the hips in tennis.

I also don't think the differential between hip and shoulder angle has anything to do with power in tennis. I think that angle is primarily a function of positioning. The largest variable will be what the person does in terms of recovery. Unlike golf where all the movements are focused on hitting a single ball, many of the movements we see in tennis strokes are utilized to help redirect the body to recover for the next shot.

Interesting, because I've heard different thoughts on this. I've heard it argued that the dynamic (new) xfactor is only possible if the differential between shoulder turn and hip turn is not maximized (there is only so much slack/rotational ability in the spine area) and is therefor discouraged as a method.

No doubt Jim M overstated the original theory, by discouraging hip turn totally, but my belief is that the differential between shoulder and hip turn should be maximized in the backswing. Lead with the hips back to around 40-50 degrees, and then allow the shoulders to continue to rotate back as much as individually possible, to create the disparity.

Certainly in regards to tennis, the differential in the backswing between hips and shoulders is legitimate. Video would certainly seem to confirm this.

 

[SlowButSure]

Maybe we're talking about the same thing here, just different words.

I don't like the phrase 'core tension'. That implies there is some positive benefit inherent in the offset itself. The achilles/calf muscle units are the only one in the human body that have been shown to have significant passive recoil force (as in a passive return of energy on stretch, without active muscle contraction).

There may be less hip rotation for tennis than for a full golf swing, but this does not minimize its importance. It is still very important. As I already mentioned in previous posts, the hips can be used in more than one way for tennis strokes. For some strokes, the uncoiling of the hips lead the torso uncoiling. In other instances, the hips are preset with an offset and less hip rotation occurs. In either case tension has been created in the core -- this allows transfer of power from the lower body to the upper body.

You mentioned the hips being preset with an offset. They aren't pre-set in order to develop tension, they are preset because the legs are in the position they are due to needing to get in position to hit the ball. The offset occurs because the power of the stroke comes from torso rotation. Regardless of what the hips are doing, the shoulders have to rotate to generate power. Turning the shoulders a lot provides more power, not because the offset increases, but because they can turn more. This is the fact that has debunked the x-factor in golf. The original theory was that the 'tension' you mentioned allowed more power. It's now been shown (biomechanically, not just anecdotally) that it's rotation that matters. If you can stay in balance, it's shoulder rotation that matters, whether you turn the hips 10 degrees or 90. And that leads to...

I think the first part of the quote misses the major role of the hips. The most important role they play is in resisting the rotation of the torso. To illustrate, stand facing straight ahead and relaxed. Then turn your torso as fast as you can to the right. Your hips will turn slightly to the left when you try. For every action there's an equal and opposite action. Repeat, but this time begin to turn your hips to the right just before you turn your torso. You can go much faster. In this case the hips are not adding significantly to the rotational speed of the torso, but by activating them you are engaging the muscle patterns that are necessary to resist the torso rotation. So yes, the hips are incredibly important, but not so much as a source of rotational speed, but as a resistive force to allow the torso to rotate as fast as possible.

The whole goal of the tennis stroke is to rotate the upper body in reference to the ground. The hips (and lower body as a whole) allow that to happen.

When the tennis player has plenty of time to set up, and is in a good position such that there is little after-shot recovery needed, you see much more lower body rotation. The lower body can contribute to rotational speed when those criteria are met. That is more akin to golf, where every shot begins in perfect position, with unlimited time to set up and no concern for recovery.

I think of the hips jobs as being: get you in position to hit, provide a balanced base so recovery can occur as part of the hit, resist the rotation of the torso, and if there is time and position allows, add rotational energy to the swing.

 

[Hewex]

Night and Day for me...The bh is much easier because it forces me to stay behind the ball and not open the shoulder's too quickly. I think that is a key to hitting a good one.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Maybe we're talking about the same thing here, just different words.

I don't like the phrase 'core tension'. That implies there is some positive benefit inherent in the offset itself. The achilles/calf muscle units are the only one in the human body that have been shown to have significant passive recoil force (as in a passive return of energy on stretch, without active muscle contraction)...

You mentioned the hips being preset with an offset. They aren't pre-set in order to develop tension, they are preset because the legs are in the position they are due to needing to get in position to hit the ball...

Perhaps you might prefer the terms torsion and torque.

I believe that "there is some positive benefit inherent in the offset itself". Regardless of the intent (why the hips are offset from the torso), the effect is still present. You see the legs & hips as a base against which the torso acts (if I read you correctly). This is just another way of looking at the situation where the hips are preset with an offset. It is this offset that allow the lower body to transfer torque to the upper body.

How about the situation where there is not initial offset (as with a square stance)? In this case the hips turn first, followed by the lower torso and then the upper torso. Check out what Mike Epstein, renowned baseball hitting expert/analyst has to say about torque and the rotational hitting system:

http://www.mikeepsteinhitting.com/Tips38Info/HittingArticles/...

More interesting stuff:

http://www.activerelease.ca/CoreStabilityWeb/CoreStabiltyART.htm

http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/2016.html

http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/13301.html

Quote (on golf) from the last link: "Analysis of power hitters like Daly and Woods show that the amount of differential angle between the hips and shoulders shows almost a one for one correspondence with driving distance."
.

 

[dozu]

Check out what Mike Epstein, renowned baseball hitting expert/analyst has to say about torque and the rotational hitting system:

http://www.mikeepsteinhitting.com/Tips38Info/HittingArticles/...


[/I]

good stuff - 'rotational' and 'linear'.... hm, sounds familiar eh?

 

[SlowButSure]

Quote (on golf) from the last link: "Analysis of power hitters like Daly and Woods show that the amount of differential angle between the hips and shoulders shows almost a one for one correspondence with driving distance."
.

Back and forth about minutia here, but I will comment on the golf comment. This statement addresses the same error Mclean made. At the time of his analysis, the top hitters all used a similar style of swing (not that Daly's was similar to anyones, but it was so extreme it got pigeonholed). When Mclean looked for a pattern, he found one. When they do the same analysis today, or on players from 30 or 50 years ago, the pattern doesn't hold. The conclusions Mclean drew were a function of the type of swing that was 'in' at the time, not necesarrily a reflection of what is best for generating long drives.