Modern FH - comments?

geo

New User
The Hands Have It

by Doug King


Old School: Racquet back - step in - follow through : Long, slow, flat, and cramped.
There is no question that the players of today are better than the players of 25 years ago. Quite simply, they are playing a better brand of tennis - hitting the ball much harder and more accurately.

Why this is, seems to be a matter of debate. Some say it is due to advances in racquet technology while others point toward the improvement in the conditioning of the players. No doubt players today are bigger, stronger, and faster, especially on the women's side.

My own opinion is that the biggest advancement in the tennis has to do with the stroking techniques used in the modern game. The fact is, players are hitting the ball differently. Grips have changed, footwork has changed, strokes have changed.

Thirty years ago almost everybody used eastern grips and closed stances, sweeping strokes with long back swings and followthroughs. Today's strokes are based upon leverage and torque rather than back and forth racquet motion. In this article we will examine the use of the hands in the modern stroking style and compare that to traditional stroking styles.


New School: Weight back. Hand grips and turns ball while weight shift is saved to drive ball instead of swing the racquet. Notice the similarity in all positions at contact in the examples cited in text.

Traditionally, groundstrokes have been taught as racquet back, step in, and follow through. The emphasis was on getting the racquet to sweep into and through the ball in a fluid motion. The hand directed the racquet through this sweep and the body was used to increase the momentum of the racquet head through the stroke.

Look at Connors' forehand above to see the classic "Old School" form. The racquet shoots to the back fence on the backswing. The weight is shifted to the front foot (the non-hitting side) putting the body in a forward lean in front of the hands. The body is dragging the racquet forward but getting in the way of the hands at contact making the follow through cramped. The overall swing is slow and push like. The hit is very flat making it difficult to hit through the ball with confidence.


Today's stroke is characterized by the weight staying back behind the hand and ball at contact. The weight is saved and used as the primary power source of the ball while the racquet is used to create connection and hold of the ball. The hand and racquet are essentially catching, holding, and turning the ball allowing the ball to receive the force of the body shift. The racquet is NOT doing the "hitting". The roles of the body and the racquet have fundamentally been reversed.

In the modern game, the swing of the racquet is minimized. The result is better contact between the racquet and the ball - that translates into less slapping into and pulling off the ball and fewer off center hits. The hand positions the racquet to the ball and allows a leveraged drive and turn of the ball initiated with the body. It is very similar to grabbing a door knob and twisting the knob and opening the door at the same time.

There are two basic turns of the ball that produce the two fundamental spins - topspin and backspin. Think of grabbing the underside of the knob (forehand) and pushing the door open while turning the knob counterclockwise. That is the topspin forehand movement. Underspin is the opposite. The hand is placed on the top of the knob, the door is pulled closed as the knob is turned clockwise.

The Topspin Forehand

Let's look specifically at the topspin forehand stroke. The job of the hand on any stroke is to allow the racquet to establish a connection with the ball. The racquet must be relatively passive as it comes to the ball rather than actively swinging. The hand must almost absorb the ball at contact.


Grip change and loading of right side. Left hand keeps racquet from swinging back too far.
The Take Back?

Evidence of how today's stroke mechanics are minimizing racquet head swing starts with the backswing. Notice how the racquet does not “swing“ back. The left hand holds the racquet head in front as the shoulder and right side of the body rotate back. The right side of the body is where the swing is actually produced.

At the start of this movement the right hand is not drawing the racquet back. Instead the hand is getting position on the grip. The hand is turned under the handle in a semi-western position. This will result in the hand achieving the correct position on the ball, allowing a counter clockwise turn of the ball (topspin).

As the swing progresses and the shoulder and right side continue to lift and swing backward and then forward, measures must be taken to insure the swing of the right side does not create excessive swing in the racquet. The racquet head actually decelerates as it approaches contact. This is done by letting the arm fall and compress into the body just before the hit.

As this happens the racquet head falls and folds back building torque into the forearm and right side while decelerating the racquet head as it achieves position underneath the ball. This movement brings the arm into a position of strength and takes the momentum out of racquet head so the racquet can connect with the ball rather than hit at the ball.


Arm drops and compresses into body creating strong, correct position of body to hand. Forearm rotates to drop racquet head below ball and build torque into forearm and shoulder.
The Drop and Deceleration

By the time the racquet actually goes into the hit, almost all of the momentum has been eliminated from the racquet head. Instead it is the lift and thrust of the right side of the body that drives the racquet through the ball.

The wrist is laid back and remains in this position through contact. Contact is solidly in front and well connected to the body resulting in maximum stability and efficient weight transfer from body to ball. This is where the ball is absorbed into this pocket of flex centered on the front of the right hip. The slower racquet stays in the contact and produces tremendous “grip” or “hold” on the ball.

Through contact the hand turns the ball through the release of torque in the forearm. This turn does two things; it allows the racquet to adjust it's angle to the ball and it also adds to the power of the stroke as it turns the racquet in a forward direction. The speed with which the hand produces this rotation controls the amount of spin on the ball. The more active the hand is in putting pressure on the handle, the faster this rotation will occur and the more spin will result.


Racquet head held back and down as body moves forward into contact. Racquet absorbs ball initially while energy remains in the forearm for the next move.
Sometimes mis-hits will occur from grabbing too fast (getting hurried or anxious). This may also happen when the ball is misjudged and the racquet has to make a quick and big adjustment to the ball for contact resulting in too much speed in the racquet head. As the hand stays more passive, keeping the racquet head back and down, it will allow the racquet to drive through the ball more resulting in a more powerful, flatter hit.

The Finish

When the ball leaves the strings, the racquet finishes its counter clockwise rotation as the right side continues its drive forward. The racquet still has little momentum although the racquet head will increase in speed as the resistance of the ball through contact is removed.

The racquet does not swing forward much but instead completes the turn and then “dies” over on the left side (usually around the hip). It is the right elbow and shoulder that actually finish in front. The lower follow through is another indication that the racquet head does not have the momentum. If the racquet is “swinging” it will tend to pull the arm up and wrap it around the neck over the left shoulder.


Forearm releases energy in the form of a turning of the ball. This turn adds to the power coming from the drive of the body evidenced by the right elbow and shoulder in front of hand at finish.
Learning the System

You can see that this method is in direct contradiction with traditional stroke concepts. Emphasis should not be put on getting the racquet to go back or to follow through. This puts the emphasis on the swing of the racquet. Even the “experts” on television talk about racquet acceleration not realizing the counterproductive messages they are conveying to the playing public. The body is what is doing the swinging and the hands are trying to get the racquet to “connect” to the ball.

A very easy way to get this feel is to roll a large ball back and forth with a partner. To roll the ball you would get your feet behind the ball, position your hand in front of the body and to the ball. As the ball approaches, bend and let the ball come into your hand. The legs will straighten slightly to push the hips forward which in turn will push the hand forward. The hand will simply assist in the rolling of the ball by turning it. As the hand leaves the ball it accelerates as resistance is reduced until there is no resistance at all, at which time the hand shoots quite fast.


Body and hand in perfect position to ball. Hand does not swing at but rather connects to and turns ball as the body drives it forward.
Any attempt to swing your arm at the ball will simply shoot the ball forward with little control or power, and much shock to the arm. It is this precise outcome that is created by the traditional stroke pattern which is also responsible for the high incidence of tennis elbow injuries. Since the pros have incorporated the new stroke patterns into their games, the incidence of tennis elbow has all but disappeared.

Do the Drill

The next step is to integrate this feeling into the tennis stroke. Position yourself around three quarters court and have someone toss you a few balls. Place your right foot in front of your left (yes this is for right-handers - remember we're thinking new here) and, using a semi-western grip, tuck you right elbow to the front side of your ribcage.

Note that you will not always keep your right foot in front but initially this will help you get the feeling of using the right side of the body to drive the ball and keeping it correctly positioned to the hand.

Next drop the right shoulder and bend your right knee. This should drop the racquet head below the hand and load the right side. You should feel the forearm lined up directly over the right thigh and the back of the hand directly over the right knee.


Positioning the right foot in front of the left helps get the feeling of keeping the drive on the right side of the body instead of prematurely shifting the weight to the left leg.
Now you are ready to hit. As the ball is tossed, position the right foot and bend the right knee until the racquet is positioned below and slightly inside the oncoming ball. Let the ball come back into the racquet (imagine a pinball flipper) and then let the leg lift the racquet and the ball together. As the ball begins to leave the racquet add a controlled turn of the hand to impart spin and additional power by lifting and turning the shoulder and forearm in a counter-clockwise direction. Voila! Welcome to the new game!

This new system uses the core muscle groups to power the ball. Good footwork, body alignment, and turn and flex through the trunk will produce the power. The hands are absorbing, connecting to, and turning the ball. Get the swing out of the racquet!

Quit dreaming about the good old days. Modern techniques work much better - the old days weren't really all that great. Take it from me - I was there and am glad they are gone.

Doug King studied with legendary tennis coach Tom Stow and was a former California State Men's Singles Champion and the former number one men's player of Northern California.

Doug is one of the country's leading tennis teaching innovators. Founder of Holonetics, a revolutionary teaching system, King is leading the way in reinterpreting the traditional tennis model.
 
"Racquet head held back and down as body moves forward into contact. Racquet absorbs ball initially while energy remains in the forearm for the next move"

This is where I must desagree with the description. Contact time is measured in msecs, so there is no time to "absorb" the ball and then initiate some other move. If there is some other move it must have started before contact. You can not will a movement of the forearm in such a short period of time of contact. So... what is he trying to say here?

-geo-
 
I agree with you on that one. I think that what he's trying to say is that the backswing and early part of the foreswing is much slower than the old style, and then the acceleration of the swing happens as closely as possible with ball contact, so that you get of feeling of almost catching the ball on the strings and flinging it, rather than hitting it. I tried it out this last week and did indeed hit some spectacularly powerful forehands, rather amazed myself.

In the old style, the swing was pretty much all one speed, now its slow-fast...
 
Geo isn't this article wrote for TennisOne exclusively ? And is there a copyright to it somewhere....

The article is great though :-)
 
I am using the modern forehand and backhand, and I have wondered how I would decribe it to someone. What I can say is that the way Doug King described it is NOT the way I would. I think that his decription is technically incorrect in several areas.
 
This is a so-so description of the modern forehand. But I would change the title from the "hands have it" to the "elbow has it".

The elbow is the key force in a modern stroke - especially the forehand. The key aspects to understand are, the elbow goes first as it intiate the forward swing, it goes in front of the body and normally passes close to the body. The angle of your arm at the elbow will depend on your grip. Muscle recruitment is very easy especially in the shoulders and chest.

The pull of the racquet forward and the start of the elbow moving first, is handled by the shoulder muscle. As it drives the elbow forward, it slowly turns from a pulling motion to a pushing motion as the elbow goes in front of the body and prepares the arm and racquet for impact.
 
I'm not in a position for judging the quality of the description
but it certainly de-mistified some of misteries of modern FH
for me.

For example, I always felt like certain similarity between this
modern FH with some martial art motion like Tae-Kwon-Do
punch. The description helped me to make a link between
thses two and understand it better.

I'm not a tennis or sport science expert and thus I could be
wrong. But a lot of things in modern forehand would come
naturally for me (because I've done some martail art)
if my understanding is not terribly wrong.
 
Yes fastdunn I agree with you. I always felt the same - being a former karate practitioner. Right hand punches are grounded either on the right or left foot. If the case is the first, then it is a kicking punching movement forward, including the rotation of the upper body. I don't know if you agree but I am sure that if we go further with the analogy we could even say that the best pushing trust comes with the right foot facing forward aiding the spiral-coiling-loading of the right foot - ready to explode forward (karate).

I imagine that many movements of ancient swording (samurai) should be far ahead in their deep millenary insightful understanding into movement economics and functionality.

-geo-
 
it's just a matter of physic law:
1. If you walk (hand) on a moving fast train (trunk rotation) your speed is less than train's speed, but if you stand then jump out of the train, your speed will more than train's speed.
2. If you rotate, you will have the best speed when you rotate around only one axis, your right foot. You left foot will help your rotation if it push backward.
Hope this will explain Mr Dough new forehand,
 
Geo, I'm not sure if it's the best mechanism but it's certainly
highly economical and efficent. Especailly when you have
limited space. Plus it's becoming very effective when there is
considerably large incoming momentum.
Again, I'm not an expert in the theory. I just did a lot of
puching exercises... that's all.

Anyway, I really hope tennis teaching community come up
with some kind of standard soon, especially on forehand.
I think the tennis community is kinda shocked by the forehand
revolution and undecided. Then again, by the time they come
up with solid standard, another revolution would be brewing....
 
Thank you doug king for telling exactly what is going on in the modern game.It is the first time i have heard the real facts about the moden forehand on this site. of coarse it was from an article,he says a lot of the same things oscar wegner says.Okay now let me get a laugh from the old school boys on this site who will debate it,just open your eyes+ throw the jimmy conners videos away + watch the new stuff.
 
tlm said:
Thank you doug king for telling exactly what is going on in the modern game.It is the first time i have heard the real facts about the moden forehand on this site. of coarse it was from an article,he says a lot of the same things oscar wegner says.Okay now let me get a laugh from the old school boys on this site who will debate it,just open your eyes+ throw the jimmy conners videos away + watch the new stuff.

This is funny. Keep talking Oscar, I will look forward to embarassing you once again. What you dont know is after debating this in emails back and forth, Doug mentioned that he needed to add more information and probably could have changed the title. He also acknowledged that the forward movement of the elbow in front of the body plane and that the arm segments were acting somewhat independent was true but didnt have time to go into it in this article.

Oooops, did you goof up Oscar? Make sure you "stalk" some thread before opening your trap. Can't wait to embarrass you again. I was getting a little bored around here. :)
 
Good article, I do notice the difference in swings when I play the old school 4.0 guys like myself with straight takeback and flat ball vs playing the 4.5 college kids who have a loopy takeback and hit heavy and hard with a more whippy swing.
 
Rather long description but I would have started the differences with the stances: open vs closed, ie newschool vs oldschool. With these stances and footwork, the grips change according: continental to eastern vs semiwestern to western. I dont agree with you on consistency and power. Open stances involve alot more of the body, especially hips and shoulder. With these large mucle groups and movements, there is much more interference in stroking. To help control these interferences, players need to hit with alot more topspin. More topspin involves alot more work. More topspin adds a higher ball trajectory. More topspin and trajectory, make the ball take longer to get to the landing spot and generate a larger bounce for the retriever to hit a return. This all looks like alot more power and consistency but if you consider the mechanics and physics that I briefly describe, you may see why the newschool statements are not true .
 
I agree with the first parts of this, but once the article goes into explaining strokes I disagree with.

The elbow has little to do with it BB, it's just like the wrist. I feel that the shoulder has more to do with it.

The differences in strokes from Federer, Nadal, Roddicks and a lot of the pros is their swing. Where they start and finish and this is all depended upon the shoulders ability and how it rotates. Even on windshield wiper, your shoulder rotates down and causes your arm to windshield wiper. It's your shoulder that moves your arms.

As well as after strengthening ones shoulders. You'll notice the difference in power compared to strengthening other muscles.

The elbow is like the wrist, it's not the source.
 
AngeloDS said:
I agree with the first parts of this, but once the article goes into explaining strokes I disagree with.

The elbow has little to do with it BB, it's just like the wrist. I feel that the shoulder has more to do with it.

The differences in strokes from Federer, Nadal, Roddicks and a lot of the pros is their swing. Where they start and finish and this is all depended upon the shoulders ability and how it rotates. Even on windshield wiper, your shoulder rotates down and causes your arm to windshield wiper. It's your shoulder that moves your arms.

As well as after strengthening ones shoulders. You'll notice the difference in power compared to strengthening other muscles.

The elbow is like the wrist, it's not the source.

The wrist is a very major factor, especially the more eastern and closed a player goes.
The shoulder is a more major factor as the strokes and grip go more western.
The elbow and racket head orientation are important to the mechanics for these variants.
 
Is there anyway for an decidely old school player to 'modernize' their shots without starting over? Would I want to?
 
I'm one confused FH hitter and I actually have different types
of FH swing (classic, big winshield wiper thing and Oscar Wegnor style
ping pong swing).

I mix them up and still have not made up my mind
on which way to commit (and I'm over 40!!!)
I picked up this sport in 90's when the tennis forehand was in
transition, I think. There was pretty classic Sampras and if you
go touch modern then Agassi. IMHO Courier had pretty much modern
swing.

Unfortunately, I learned my forehand from an old school coach
who told me to draw C in my back swing and step in with my left foot.
My forehand suffered a lot since then. I don't think I'm still fully comfortable
with hitting FH without some size of loopy backswing.

I think I'll accept the way I' am: I'll never make any comitment
and try to master all types of FH swings and mix them up....

Tennis forehand simply has high degree of freedom, IMHO. There is
no one way right. There are many right ways to hit, IMHO.
 
Its funny how bb goes off,i am not debating every little detail of his article, my point is the basic differences he points out are right on.Instead if anyone really wants to see the truth,look at the last issue of tennis magazine.There is andy roddick holding the racket in front of him with his left hand waiting for the ball to bounce before he takes his swing.Again go watch some video of roddick+ you will see that is exactly what he does on most of his forehand shots.Can you still say he takes the racket back early?I bet that is a picture of him in a match waiting for the ball to bounce before he starts his swing.I saw some of bb video ,funny he doesnt show any of the whole picture he shows closeups of them taking there racket back+ says see there taking it back early. Again watch some pros swings were you can see the ball +there swing, most will wait till ball bounces +then there take back+ swing is all one motion.It seems bb likes to go into all this detail + pick one little point that he doesnt think is right and carry on with all this mumbo jumbo to detour from the main point.BB should email tennis magazine + set them straight to.Hey bb what is roddick doing in that picture anyway?Is this what you call a take back? You can really tell bb hates oscar, to bad oscar wegner is right on +bb is dead wrong,what does bb stand for buffalow bill.
 
fastdunn said:
I'm one confused FH hitter and I actually have different types
of FH swing (classic, big winshield wiper thing and Oscar Wegnor style
ping pong swing).

I mix them up and still have not made up my mind
on which way to commit (and I'm over 40!!!)
I picked up this sport in 90's when the tennis forehand was in
transition, I think. There was pretty classic Sampras and if you
go touch modern then Agassi. IMHO Courier had pretty much modern
swing.

Unfortunately, I learned my forehand from an old school coach
who told me to draw C in my back swing and step in with my left foot.
My forehand suffered a lot since then. I don't think I'm still fully comfortable
with hitting FH without some size of loopy backswing.

I think I'll accept the way I' am: I'll never make any comitment
and try to master all types of FH swings and mix them up....

Tennis forehand simply has high degree of freedom, IMHO. There is
no one way right. There are many right ways to hit, IMHO.

Exactly, it has a high degree of freedom. Wagner is not the first coach to teach short swings. He got that from other coaches that he doesn't want to give credit to.

On the forehand, I like them all, use them all, and so does Federer. I have a variety of forehand swings with one grip. It is great. No more wondering, no more beating myself up, and it opens my game up tremendously.

If you can swing well with a variety of swing paths and styles, go for it my friend.

Draw your backswing with your elbow moving up and back and then arcing down and forward just slightly before you unload the rotation. This will allow the elbow to get in front of the body plane before impact. Relax the wrist but keep a little pressure in the handle.

Just hammer the ball with a sideways motion. Later when you get that add some topspin and so on. You wont regret it. Lots of pop, less effort and much more fun.
 
An interesting read, but there are a lot things in there that just don't make sense. Maybe it's just the wording that I am getting hung up on, but what it boils down to is what is happening at the point of contact. Everything else is just how you get there. Think about the difference between a volley and a ground stroke. Haven't you ever just unloaded on a volley simply by meeting the ball out in front and stepping into it. Lots of ways to swing at the ball and hit successfully. Power is not the only thing in tennis. It's a mental game. Most people will never play at a professional level. The brain is definitely your most important weapon on the court.
 
Kevo said:
An interesting read, but there are a lot things in there that just don't make sense. Maybe it's just the wording that I am getting hung up on, but what it boils down to is what is happening at the point of contact. Everything else is just how you get there. Think about the difference between a volley and a ground stroke. Haven't you ever just unloaded on a volley simply by meeting the ball out in front and stepping into it. Lots of ways to swing at the ball and hit successfully. Power is not the only thing in tennis. It's a mental game. Most people will never play at a professional level. The brain is definitely your most important weapon on the court.

Yeah, like what? What doesn't make sense. Please tell me. This is one of the easiest to learn from threads I have seen. What is so difficult to understand about this thread.

This thread is not talking about the mental game, weapons, or other things you seem to not be getting. You ought to do a search for those threads and learn a little before chiming in.

Also, you couldn't be more wrong if someone paid you. It is very important "how" you get to contact. Without a good swing path or the lack of a coodinated backswing and forward swing, contact with the ball may not be clean or timed well. It certainly won't be consistent.

Everything from the ground up leads into what is happening at contact, Everything that contributes to a well timed swing happens well before contact - including (like you said) engaging your brain.

If you took your conclusion to its limit, you would see it doesn't make any sense. Suppose we were at the baseline and just put our racquet on the ball to make contact with no swing - what do you think would happen? Nothing. You have to make all the things happen before hand to hit the ball cleanly (lining up, taking an appropriate backswing, laying back the wrist, ball focus, swinging low to high, keeping a fixed wrist, etc. etc.

So the things that lead up into making contact are just as important. In fact, the contact point is the byproduct of the results that happened before.
 
My comments on King's take on reality

King says:
-------------
Thirty years ago almost everybody used eastern grips and closed stances, sweeping strokes with long back swings and followthroughs. Today's strokes are based upon leverage and torque rather than back and forth racquet motion.
-------------
Yeah? Tell it to Gonzalez here, 'coz he forgot and he's having a long swing, just by accident:-)
http://www.tennisads.com/tennis_media/gonzo_forehand__tennisgods.mov
It's true, there's more rotation in today's game (caused to a large extent by more open stances), but this isn't a big discovery and doesn't eliminate long swings.

King says:
--------
By the time the racquet actually goes into the hit, almost all of the momentum has been eliminated from the racquet head
---------
I would like to see some measurements on this, because this is nonsense in terms of physics. I am pretty sure one should on the contrary _maximize_ the racquet head speed and its momentum right before the contact. And of course, as a result of the contact, part of the momentum would be transferred to the ball.

NOTE: It's been confirmed to me by Mr. John Yandell that:
"you are completely correct. It's been shown in several studies
that the racket head speed maxs out around contact."

King says:
----------
Hand does not swing at but rather connects to and turns ball as the body drives it forward.
----------
in the caption underneath the guy pushing the ball.

Another nonsense.

Tell Federer and Hewitt that at contact they aren't swinging at the ball but they're just sitting there, "catching it." They would laugh at you for a whole day. Look here:

Federer's and Hewitt's FH (high-speed camera clip):
http://www.araf72.dsl.pipex.com/1000FPS.mpg

and check the long path Fed's racquet head had to swing and accelerate along before contact. True, most of the acceleration is achieved during the last 90 degrees or so of rotation, but this doesn't eliminate the need for a swing.

You can't be offensive without swinging the racquet at the ball. If you just held the racquet here and caught the ball, you'd be awfully defensive and lose against many players.

You must accelerate the ball and in order to do that you must accelerate the racquet itself before contact.

King has problems in both seeing and interpreting the reality in today's pro tennis.
 
tlm said:
Its funny how bb goes off,i am not debating every little detail of his article, my point is the basic differences he points out are right on.Instead if anyone really wants to see the truth,look at the last issue of tennis magazine.There is andy roddick holding the racket in front of him with his left hand waiting for the ball to bounce before he takes his swing.Again go watch some video of roddick+ you will see that is exactly what he does on most of his forehand shots.Can you still say he takes the racket back early?I bet that is a picture of him in a match waiting for the ball to bounce before he starts his swing.I saw some of bb video ,funny he doesnt show any of the whole picture he shows closeups of them taking there racket back+ says see there taking it back early. Again watch some pros swings were you can see the ball +there swing, most will wait till ball bounces +then there take back+ swing is all one motion.It seems bb likes to go into all this detail + pick one little point that he doesnt think is right and carry on with all this mumbo jumbo to detour from the main point.BB should email tennis magazine + set them straight to.Hey bb what is roddick doing in that picture anyway?Is this what you call a take back? You can really tell bb hates oscar, to bad oscar wegner is right on +bb is dead wrong,what does bb stand for buffalow bill.

tlm- You should go to: http://www.virtualtennisacademy.com/ and click the free video analysis on the left hand side called "ProNalysis". It shows in detail where Federer, Roddick, and Safin have there rackets when the ball is bouncing. Not much to debate, as you can watch the video for yourself. You will find that these top pros DO get their racket back quite early, and are prepared to hit the ball at the bounce. It is this early preperation the will allow for the most consistent tennis. Please have a look at the video for yourself. Then you can come back here and apologize to BB and everyone else...
 
Marius_Hancu said:
King says:
-------------
Thirty years ago almost everybody used eastern grips and closed stances, sweeping strokes with long back swings and followthroughs. Today's strokes are based upon leverage and torque rather than back and forth racquet motion.
-------------
Yeah? Tell it to Gonzalez here, 'coz he forgot and he's having a long swing, just by accident:-)
http://www.tennisads.com/tennis_media/gonzo_forehand__tennisgods.mov
It's true, there's more rotation in today's game (caused to a large extent by more open stances), but this isn't a big discovery and doesn't eliminate long swings.

King says:
--------
By the time the racquet actually goes into the hit, almost all of the momentum has been eliminated from the racquet head
---------
I would like to see some measurements on this, because this is nonsense in terms of physics. I am pretty sure one should on the contrary _maximize_ the racquet head speed and its momentum right before the contact. And of course, as a result of the contact, part of the momentum would be transferred to the ball.

King says:
----------
Hand does not swing at but rather connects to and turns ball as the body drives it forward.
----------
in the caption underneath the guy pushing the ball.

Another nonsense.

Tell Federer and Hewitt that at contact they aren't swinging at the ball but they're just sitting there, "catching it." They would laugh at you for a whole day. Look here:

Federer's and Hewitt's FH (high-speed camera clip):
http://www.araf72.dsl.pipex.com/1000FPS.mpg

and check the long path Fed's racquet head had to swing and accelerate along before contact. True, most of the acceleration is achieved during the last 90 degrees or so of rotation, but this doesn't eliminate the need for a swing.

You can't be offensive without swinging the racquet at the ball. If you just held the racquet here and caught the ball, you'd be awfully defensive and lose against many players.

You must accelerate the ball and in order to do that you must accelerate the racquet itself before contact.

King has problems in both seeing and interpreting the reality in today's pro tennis.

I also had problems with this article "the hands have it". I challenged him in several areas, the movement of the elbow, the loose wrist that eventually accelerates the hand with the racquet into contact. He didn't answer them very well.

There is no doubt that King is a good coach. I just felt the article was lacking. When we battled back and forth he did mention he should probably have renamed the title and didn't have the time or space to really go into things which would have uncovered more meaningful information behind his statements. We have to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think he is a good person and a good coach.
 
Marius_Hancu said:
King says:
-------------
Thirty years ago almost everybody used eastern grips and closed stances, sweeping strokes with long back swings and followthroughs. Today's strokes are based upon leverage and torque rather than back and forth racquet motion.
-------------
Yeah? Tell it to Gonzalez here, 'coz he forgot and he's having a long swing, just by accident:-)
http://www.tennisads.com/tennis_media/gonzo_forehand__tennisgods.mov
It's true, there's more rotation in today's game (caused to a large extent by more open stances), but this isn't a big discovery and doesn't eliminate long swings.

King says:
--------
By the time the racquet actually goes into the hit, almost all of the momentum has been eliminated from the racquet head
---------
I would like to see some measurements on this, because this is nonsense in terms of physics. I am pretty sure one should on the contrary _maximize_ the racquet head speed and its momentum right before the contact. And of course, as a result of the contact, part of the momentum would be transferred to the ball.

King says:
----------
Hand does not swing at but rather connects to and turns ball as the body drives it forward.
----------
in the caption underneath the guy pushing the ball.

Another nonsense.

Tell Federer and Hewitt that at contact they aren't swinging at the ball but they're just sitting there, "catching it." They would laugh at you for a whole day. Look here:

Federer's and Hewitt's FH (high-speed camera clip):
http://www.araf72.dsl.pipex.com/1000FPS.mpg

and check the long path Fed's racquet head had to swing and accelerate along before contact. True, most of the acceleration is achieved during the last 90 degrees or so of rotation, but this doesn't eliminate the need for a swing.

You can't be offensive without swinging the racquet at the ball. If you just held the racquet here and caught the ball, you'd be awfully defensive and lose against many players.

You must accelerate the ball and in order to do that you must accelerate the racquet itself before contact.

King has problems in both seeing and interpreting the reality in today's pro tennis.

Nice job Marius !
You both nailed the creator of this thread for plagiarism and showed the failings of the true source, ie the King article.
 
Ignorance or Agenda?

tlm said:
Thank you doug king for telling exactly what is going on in the modern game.It is the first time i have heard the real facts about the moden forehand on this site. of coarse it was from an article,he says a lot of the same things oscar wegner says.Okay now let me get a laugh from the old school boys on this site who will debate it,just open your eyes+ throw the jimmy conners videos away + watch the new stuff.

You, like others I’ve read, who gravitate to Wegner, like to group and label everyone seeing things differently as being "antiquated", "old school", etc. What I find interesting is that the dividing line seems to be agree/disagree not correct/incorrect, despite the video evidence. You, collectively, go through some effort to misinterpret, mis-quote or twist a dissenter's view into something else and then jam it under some familiar "old-school" heading which is evidently the only alternative to Wegner available in your knowledge base, then ultimately dismiss the dissenter as still thinking in the "stone age". It seems to me, to be a commonality of the pro-Wegner crowd. It leads to beautiful assumptions like this: “The problem is the old school boys on this site can’t admit that Oscar’s methods are better than their’s .”

More to the point: NO ONE HERE, REPEAT NO ONE, HAS SAID TAKE YOUR RACQUET BACK AND RUN! Sorry. No witches or straw men to burn here. The Old-School foil for Wegner is gone. They simply don’t exist among instructors on these forums nor most anywhere else. If someone told you to run around with your racquet back, as you stated in another thread, that's bad coaching. Older than “old school”. You had tremendously bad luck to finding a poor teaching pro stuck in another time. This continued harangue reads like hysteria born from ignorance, from you and other Wegner “vessels”. Look elsewhere for your imaginary dragons to joust and take the shallow, myopic rhetoric with you.

For your like there are two ways: Wegner or everyone else. Wegner or “Old School.” Wegner or Wrong. Sorry but No. There is a world of difference between the “Old School” and how we teach the modern technique today, which is the thrust of the OP in this thread. The article contrasts and summarizes how techniques have changed over time and how almost all instructors teach in the new world. Now. Today.

Also no one here has said EVERYTHING you guys regurgitate from Wegner is wrong or bad. On the other hand there are elements of his teachings which if taken at face value ARE NOT born out by the objective eye of the camera lens. And like you, anyone lacking a full understanding of cue vs. reality, it leads to the confusion expressed by other posters here and in other threads. Your understanding of Wegner’s principals in combination with the realities of modern technique evidenced by photos and video is shallow at best. And before making WILD assertions about other teaching pros here or elsewhere you should have a much broader base of knowledge. Your efforts to elevate Wegner to Shaman status, by creating imaginary, old-school “Straw Men” (how Yandell aptly described this activity in another thread), is pathetic.

On another level you guys read like: "F%$# these guys (those imaginary Straw Men/implying they are here on these forums) boys and girls. Go get your copy of Oscar Wegner's DVD's and book quick. Order now to beat the "Holiday rush!"

I wonder.
 
Take back after the bounce?

tlm,

The pros don’t perform a unit turn with the first step? Really.. (See the links cited by other posters above) Say the pros don't take it back after the bounce and that statement gets changed by the Wegner crowd into "they're telling you to take the racquet back and run. WITCH! Burn him! Burn him at the stake!” Relax. That's not what anyone said. Ball speed and depth of bounce dictate when the pros take the racquet back to the top. I know what Wegner is trying to back-door with this axiom. Do you? Yes off looped balls or balls bouncing short of the service line the racquet may reach the top of the take-back after the bounce. However it isn’t timed like that by the pros or anyone who hits a ball well on standard depth and paced rally balls. Not from what anyone can actually see on either tennisone.com or tennisplayer.net or at other links provided by open minded posters above. I hope everyone goes and looks at the video of rally balls with the bounce visible, it will show that presenting that axiom as an absolute is nonsense. Again I know Wegner knows the reality and what the intent of his cues are it’s his followers who apparently can’t reconcile the cue with the reality.

Below is a photo of Nadal hitting one version of the modern fh. He may be hitting “sensually” (quoting another Wegner “vessel” from another thread) but where is his racquet at the time the ball is bouncing in the frame oddly labeled "preparing"? Don’t start gathering kindling. I’m not saying he ran to this position with his racquet back. Just where is it at this point in time.

forehandsequence.html


The answer is easy unless you have a half-assed understanding of Wegner and none of the "modern school".
 
Up to the side and across?

The point A (contact point) to point B (the wrap) Wegner proponents advocate, seems to go out of it's way to ignore that linear contact zone which again is visible in every professional fh. It occurs to me that making that direct connect between follow-through and resulting shot and implying that there is only one follow through, seems as "throw back" as "follow through to the top of the fence" just a different spot. When someone suggests “up to the side and across” if taken literally will result in many students pulling off contact prematurely, and mis-hitting in the lower outside quadrant of the racquet face, the dissenter pointing it out is labelled as "stone age" and accused of espousing a “follow-through to the top of the fence. HERETIC! BURN HIM! BURN THEM ALL!” Take it easy fellas. No one is saying follow through to the top of the fence. The fact is, the modern school acknowledges that while the pros may end up in that general vicinity, the pros demonstrate multiple finishes, citing Federer as a case in point, ALL, not some, ALL, show a linear track through the contact zone, whether that zone is flatter or steeply angled upward. It is verifiable in those frame by frame videos and I encourage everyone to go look.

John Yandell, who appears to take the much more objective approach of reporting what the videos show, has pointed out the commonality the pros exhibit from contact to extension through the zone, no matter the grip, no matter how fast or wristy a particular pros fh appears at speed, to the naked eye. Again, to all, don’t take it on spec, go see for yourselves. And before you say it: Yandell's "Universal Finish" does NOT mean “follow through toward the top of the opponent's fence". Why? Because the follow through hasn't happened yet. It, the follow-through, the end, happens later. I feel silly having to mention that fact.

See the high speed video of the Federer fh below,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1273724609613333533&q=federer

Wegner supporters will most likely be drawn to the wrap like moths to a flame.

I encourage the objective observers here to focus on the video from 00:07 through 00:08 seconds displayed at the bottom of the frame.

Fed's racquet face seems to be accelerating through a linear contact zone, with the string bed facing his target for that period of time.

Fed's racquet face travels further forward to the Universal Finish Yandell describes as a common thread which runs through all pro fh's and how they actually do it. And that's finish not follow-through for the Wegner crazies, gathering kindling to burn me at the stake with. Neither I nor Yandell is saying "follow through to the top of the fence".

Then.................after that extension to the Universal Finish is when the racquet...............finally................finishes in a wrap by Fed's opposite shoulder.
 
The follow through. The end.

In truth, what I'm gathering is that they, Wegner followers posting here, are much more hung up on follow throughs than the modern school is. IMO the modern school could care less where you end up, wrapped, by the opposite hip, anywhere in between, because it is a result. The truth is a follow through CAUSES NOTHING. It can't. It's as much a result as where the ball goes after contact. The reality is that the ball is GONE by the time the follow-through occurs. Finito.

And that RESULT will change depending on the amount pace and spin the pros or anyone else hitting a ball applies. No? Look at Federer. How many different follow-throughs does he have? How the pros do it? One follow-through? No.

The truth which Wegner supporters talk right past and then have the audacity to say that the modern school are the ones that are wrong and stuck in some imaginary "old-school" methodology, is that what makes the ball go where it goes with consistency and allows for variety is dictated by how the string bed interacts with the ball in that contact zone. By extending the linear path through the zone, and rarely a pure horizontal path, increases the odds of getting the desired result in terms of trajectory, pace, spin and direction, even if the timing of the contact between strings and ball is not perfect to the nano-second, which in the reality it rarely is even in the pros. In the minds of the Wegner supporters that ain't that important. It provides a margin, a zone of consistent contact in all pros swings and How the Pros actually Play.
 
The Bottom Line

Quoting John Yandell from another debate among OW followers and the Modern School teachers they insist on refering to as "old school" here:

This is the concept of the "straw man". Make a parody out of the views of the "straw man" in this case "old school" then knock them down with brilliant "new school" insights.

There are only two problems. The old school straw man never existed in the form described here. Many of the new school insights don't acurately describe what happens when good players hit the ball.

If you convince people they are wrong and uninformed off the bat then you have taken the first step to becoming the shaman.

For those wondering, I do not hate OW. I own OW's DVD and book and happen to like some of the cues he uses. It's the BS thrown around, and labels assigned to other instructors who appear to be much more in tune with modern technique than OW's followers slinging the BS, that I find offensive. I'd hate to learn that all this crap was somehow motivated by the fact that there are only "X" number of shopping days left til the Holidays.
 
Nice video clip. It looks like Fed isn't getting much body into this shot as he is almost falling backwards and late in the takeback in a very open stance and is using mostly arm and is hitting very flat on grass using maybe a semiwestern grip. His racquet looks closed before contact but maybe opens slightly on contact with nice follow through. He keeps his eyes on the ball all the way in as usual.

I would like to see more video of a more spinny stroke with more whip, loopier takeback, more topspin added and a more western grip which is what I consider the modern stroke. Fed's is somewhere between new and old school in this video clip but then he is playing on grass where it's better to flatten your shots out.
 
kehven,

hand and forearm rotation will vary from grip to grip when adding more or less spin via pronation in applying a "windshield wiper" effect to a given stroke, and from the same perspective the interaction with the ball will occur on a much steeper vertical angle and obviously result in the racquet moving through the zone less horizontally. The same zone in which the racquet face maintains its lay back in the zone of contact will be visible. Due to the hand and forearm rotation the racquet's path through the zone moves more like this / than on a more horizontal plane but the lay back is maintained in that zone. As a result, while the distance the racquet travels with the racquet face in a fixed lay back position will be the same or longer than a flat ball, the distance the racquet face travels forward on the horizontal will be shorter, the extension visible in this Fed fh will also shorten and can result in a follow through ending by the opposite side of the ribs or hip instead of the shoulder. In a "reverse forehand" the effects of the vertical acceleration will be even more evident. More extreme grips allow for the potential of more hand and forearm rotation than less extreme easterns do. The swing path will vary with the amount a player wants to "flatten out" a shot and the amount, if any hand and forearm rotation he chooses to apply to a particular shot. The lay back through the zone, as the swing path accelerates on either a more horizontal path or a more vertical one, will be visible.
 
I think there is a difference between "take back" and a real back swing
that truely contributes to the momentum of the entire swing.
As I read this thread, some people appear to bundle these two
together ???
 
The videos i could get to play were not very good,i am not a member of any of these sites ,the one of agassi on tennisplayer doesnt show the ball bouncing.But there he is holding the racket in front with his left hand,+ note he is not running he is set up waiting to hit the ball, why does he not have the racket back already? The racket goes back in the same motion with the swing. Nobody said the pros dont take racket back, its when.I have the federer+ ljubicic match on tape i went + watched it before responding to the critics.I must have watched at least a half hour of it i would watch the forehands in slowmo+again they would have racket in front +takeback+ swing were all one motion.Most of the time they would actually start to raise the racket at the beginning of swing, then they would take racket back+ continue with swing. On some strokes the the racket would start to come back right before ball bounces,but never would the racket get all the way back untill after the ball bounced! I did not see one time were the racket was back waiting for the ball,and the funny thing is the more time they have on an easier shot, the more you can see that they dont take back until after the bounce.Because the take back is all part of the swing i dont see why that is so hard to undestand.You guys can make fun of me all you want, i had a few tennis buddies over+ they saw the same thing on the tape as i am trying to tell you.Do any of you have matches on tape were you can see repeated forehands please watch them in slomo,with tv view you can always see the ball+swing.
 
OK I swore I would stay out of this one, but apparently that is not going to be the case.

First tlm, you are commended for trying to actually document the issue by looking at video. That's something--although what you did appears to have been a tortuous path to further confusion and uncertainty.

For $20 you could see things that are totally definitive, but some people would prefer to spend hours arguing over things and searching old video tapes. Not good cost/benefit usage of precious time, but that's just my view.

Why this phenomenon of defense of belief to the death? It probably has to do with the need to believe in the magical knowledge held only by our personal Shaman. (AND the Shaman could be George W. Bush, or the Dali Lama or even yes, sadly, Oscar Wegner...just depends on the topic.) It's probably in our DNA going back to when the tribal magic man was the only choice for explanation of the many things we feared and didn't understand in that cold, cold, hostile, and hungry world of pre-history...

So here are the facts as a few thousand video clips reveal them. NO please don't immediately "take your racket back." Nobody does that and it's one of the worst phrases even invented or used in teaching although I still hear it all the time.

What good players all do is Turn. This should be better understood by now, but it's unfortunately not. So let's go over it. The body turn or unit turn starts the racket preparation. The racket starts to move when the body turns. The turns starts immediately. The racket does not stay in front. At some points the hands go up, usually together. The body turn continues. The loop begins. As these motions continue the players reach a characteristic position, with the left arm stretched across the body, basically parallel to the baseline.

The racket at this point typically will be at or near shoulder level and WELL past the top of the backswing. In fact the hand and racket are usually a couple of feet BEHIND the torso. The exact, split second timing of reaching this position seems to vary directly with how far the players are going to the ball. But it's normal to see them there at about the time the ball bounces on the court whether the ball is center, wide, inside, running, etc.

Those are the facts. There is no Stalking. It is a myth. Stalking doesn't exist--at least among players with good forehands. Once the turn move starts the movement of the racket is continuous. It starts with the unit turn, continues to the full turn at the ball bounce and them smoothly to the bottom of the backswing.

The players do not run with the racket motionless in front of them or to the side. Not on 95% of all balls. The only time you will see it is when the players are coming directly forward for a short ball. Soemtimes it's a step or two--I've seen Federer take five steps. But all this will depend on how far they are moving. Most balls the sequence is just the same as above. I don't think this is what we are discussing--the extreme short ball--are we, in trying to understand preparation on the forehand? In general the racket motion starts with the first move and is CONTINUOUS. Period.

The most obvious high level exception I've seen is Venus Williams. Did she develop her horrible jerky rhythm based on the claimed association with Oscar and this belief in stalking? I hope not. Sometimes Venus does actually stop the racket--with a wide range of different motions and in different, horrible places. It's just sad and ugly. Ironically the one player who we could point to as an example of this belief has the worst technical forehand motion in the pro game. But what about Guga??? Sorry not a stalker, either. He has a good motion just like the vast majority of other top players. If there was really an influence there on Guga, it didn't take.

The fact is that thousands of great pro forehands are hit with smooth continuous motions, with beautiful, rhythmic movement of the racket beginning with the start of the unit turn, the body and racket working together seemlessly. But somehow I still don't think this going to settle it, do you think?

So you have to ask yourself--what psychological needs am I fulfilling by hanging on this belief when the evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive to the contrary? (Or possibly by just avoiding the evidence entirely?) It's much harder, unfortunately, to admit you are wrong, wrong, wrong--than to defend a long chereished and dear misconception. (I know I've done it publicly. It's humbling--and I'm pretty sure it won't be the last time.) Our policy in Iraq does comes to mind--unfortunately the consequences there are far worse than just having a bad forehand. But it falls into the same category of irrational delusion in my book. Better a Shaman who is wrong, than no Shaman at all??
 
JohnYandell said:
Once the turn move starts the movement of the racket is continuous. It starts with the unit turn, continues to the full turn at the ball bounce and them smoothly to the bottom of the backswing.

The players do not run with the racket motionless in front of them or to the side. Not on 95% of all balls. The only time you will see it is when the players are coming directly forward for a short ball. Soemtimes it's a step or two--I've seen Federer take five steps. But all this will depend on how far they are moving.

IMO, another exception, beside the short balls, are the really wide balls, where again they need to take several steps:

at your
site:
Ferrero FH Running Rear2
or with separated hands:
Federer FH Running CourtLevel Front5
Henman FH Running Rear1

or

Borg here:
http://www.ultimatebalance.com/art2_tennisone.html
 
Great post, John. But then we expect it from you! :-)

I have been going over the videos in tennisplayer.net after reading this thread, and I believe John's description is dead on. It seems to me that what really matters is the smoothness of the stroke and timing, with the general mechanics most pros use - a continuous motion starting with a unit turn, timed so that the racquet meets the ball at exactly the right spot. Put this way, when exactly the ball bounces during this sequence doesn't seem to be the key on which to base one's timing.

Anyway, what this means, boys and girls, is that there are no easy pickings here - get out and practice hard if you want to hit like Agassi!
 
Marius,

You are thorough! And I will definitely agree that this happens on a small number of balls on the dead sprint.

Vin,

Strange and bad magic. And unfortunately being implemented...
 
I never debated the turn +smoothness of pros stroke,i dont know how many times i said the take back + swing are all one.What are you showing me with the borg clip ,looks like exactly what i have been saying.On the same site it shows federer starting with racket in front + take back+ swing are all one.Let me see borg tape is not old tape, but my video from fed+lubi from year end championships in november are old? when you watch a match with whole picture + numerous strokes you get much better look.Number one thing is this discussion came from article by doug king which i agree with 100%,i never mentioned the word stalking one time.But i did mention that most hated man oscar wegner.Plus you never replied to why on a ball the pros have time to set up on they wait even longer to start take back.That is why watching match video is much better than one isolated stroke.As i stated on some of the video i watched of match play, the take back would start just before bounce but never was the racket all the way back until after bounce.And again on balls they have plenty of time to set up on the take back is after the bounce. BB hammered me on another thread when i was saying oscar wegner was right.He said all pros get shoulder turned+ racket back as soon as possible on nearly every ball, and well before bounce.Your own shot of federer shows he does not take racket back as soon as possible.
 
tlm said:
I never debated the turn +smoothness of pros stroke,i dont know how many times i said the take back + swing are all one.What are you showing me with the borg clip ,looks like exactly what i have been saying.On the same site it shows federer starting with racket in front + take back+ swing are all one.Let me see borg tape is not old tape, but my video from fed+lubi from year end championships in november are old? when you watch a match with whole picture + numerous strokes you get much better look.Number one thing is this discussion came from article by doug king which i agree with 100%,i never mentioned the word stalking one time.But i did mention that most hated man oscar wegner.Plus you never replied to why on a ball the pros have time to set up on they wait even longer to start take back.That is why watching match video is much better than one isolated stroke.As i stated on some of the video i watched of match play, the take back would start just before bounce but never was the racket all the way back until after bounce.And again on balls they have plenty of time to set up on the take back is after the bounce. BB hammered me on another thread when i was saying oscar wegner was right.He said all pros get shoulder turned+ racket back as soon as possible on nearly every ball, and well before bounce.Your own shot of federer shows he does not take racket back as soon as possible.

I think you are playing on words.

It is painfully clear that the pros prepare their racquet well before the bounce and the racquet is back before the bounce for their forward swing. Film after film after film proves it. It is the main reason they have excellent timing on their shots. Early preparation (not "just-in-time" preparation) is critical to a pros success. They will get that racquet back as soon as possible.

Remember that saying if you aim for the roof you will land in the basement? If you aim for the stars you will land on the roof? The racquet back drill aims for the stars (exaggeration) to allow a person to move with their racquet on the roof (initial preparation).

When you watch a pro they will begin their racquet preparation as soon as they pickup the side the ball is coming to. If it is close to them, you will see the shoulders turn, the grip changed, the feet set, and the racquet go back. This happens very fast and well before the ball bounces.

When a player drills using the racquet back exercise, it is not designed to teach the student to run with their racquets back - that is very stupid to even think that.

Here is the bottom-line:

1. The pros prepare the racquet (by preparing their grip, shoulders, etc.) well before the ball bounces. If you want to use Oscar's way of teaching the preparation phase that is fine. But don't chime in and say the other way is wrong - because Oscar said so. And please dont believe Oscar's little extreme observations. Remember Oscar is selling something.

2. Many pros did not learn under Oscar's system. Many of them learned under the get the racquet back system. They have developed their rhthym around what they automated through that drill which is racquet preparation and balance.

3. You should not take the "run with your racquet back" exercise literally. As if you need to do that in all your matches and practices. This is not true. Oscar should be more honest to his fans and let everyone know why coaches use the racquet back drill and allow the student to see if this drill is needed in their training.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the racquet back drill. It is an excellent drill.

What I wish Wagner would do is find out how many pros learned with or used the racquet back early drill (or some sort of early preparation drills) in their development to become a pro. But I don't think he would do that. He has something to sell and found someone like you to buy it.
 
BB,

You know what, it reminds me of talking to Oscar himself...the facts are dodged, the statements are half changed, the objections are misrepresented...new assertions pop up from nowhere...

The whole other issue of course is what you teach. But I doubt this debate is, shall we say, "going forward to resolution and mutal growth." It's just scary and disappointing to me that people will twist the facts and what other people say to hold onto something they want believe...not one of our most positive human characteristics.

JY
 
I do agree with BB that the pros make grip change+ start to turn before bounce, but i dont agree that they make takeback before bounce.Now for john the philosopher, what is half changed ? What new assertions, you mean like stalking the ball which you through at me, even though i never mentioned it once.Again this discussion started from the article by doug smith,he clearly states that the old way was take racket back early with long swing towards net,and the modern forehand is nothing like that.I just wish anybody who has some pro matches on tape would watch the forehands in slomo.I did say that they do start to actually raise the racket first before takeback + on some swings the racket does start to come back right before bounce ,but on most every shot i watch most of backswing is after bounce.And if you watch yourself you will see what i mean .Even on the shots were they start before bounce, the last half of backswing is after bounce.And nobody has explained why on slower balls they have plenty of time to set up on, that they definitely wait till bounce to start swing,seems like this would be the time were you would see them with racket back early if they always make takeback as soon as possible.Again they dont because takeback+swing are all one.Please just watch some modern matches with numerous forehands in slomo,and then tell me what i dont understand+what i misrepresent.
 
Yeah the stalking thing is not directed at you. It's just part of the overall mis-picture. I guess you (amazingly!) got a hold of some video pro matches with hundreds of exceptions that went against the 18,000 examples we filmed in matches all over the world... about 50 players and amazingly they all did one thing, and. wow, the guys in the video you have, all did exactly what Oscar said...amazing!

But seriously, if you look even in that match footage you'll see that in almost every case the racket is past the top of the backswing at the bounce. It's on the way down and maybe two feet from completely down and back at most. How did it get there if it wasn't part of a take back? You did look at the posted Nadal pictures right? I don't believe I saw you acknowledge that. The Borg clip starts in the middle of the turn and he has already been moving his racket with the turn--just like all the other good players. How do I know this? Because I was one the one that filmed it in Naples when he won his first seniors event.

This is what I mean by shifting truth. When evidence is presented the strategy is to ignore it and make the same assertions again and even cite evidence again that clearly doesn't support the claim. Just keep doing that over and over and no one will ever truly pin you down. they just get disgusted and stop listening to you.

If you are a player what you might also really want to note, assuming all this has something to do with actually hitting the ball well--that is the stretched position of the left arm across the body at the bounce.

Just as a test let's see if you can respond directly to this question: How did the left arm get stretched across the body and how did the racket hand get two feet behind the body at the bounce?

Anyone out there want to take my bet that this question will not be answered?
 
************
Ignore this post
************
I thought I was a nerd but there are ppl out there that write about forehands?
/didn't rtfa
 
Back
Top