mntlblok
Hall of Fame
Maybe not a problem with the racket face angle, but a major problem with the swing path - *if* he wants to "windshield wipe".
My FH after watching Murray/Djokovic/Thiem
- Thread starter jga111
- Start date
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
But, also moderate pace. Give me a bunch of those to work with, and you'll find out how much yer heart can get to pounding on a singles court. Forget the bike.
You mean you are going to punish my ball machine strokes? Not nice. Did I mention I was quite accurate ... and you already saw my main stroke ... the ones that bounced twice before the service line.
It already have a virtual challenge match with NYTA for a beer ... you will have to get in line. But it would be something I looked forward to. I would like to hit with Suresh and and run the hell out of him.
mntlblok
Hall of Fame
Once had a pro tell me that *his* coach had told him that a drop shot wasn't good unless it bounced three times before the service line. My thinking on the subject is *why* would you want yer dropper to ever get *to* the service line?? It also happens to be *my* main stroke.
Check out the 13 second mark:
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Once had a pro tell me that *his* coach had told him that a drop shot wasn't good unless it bounced three times before the service line. My thinking on the subject is *why* would you want yer dropper to ever get *to* the service line?? It also happens to be *my* main stroke.
"Check out the 13 second mark:"
Or 4:53.
I don't think either one of those go off the dirt ... hit like a golf ball landing in a sand trap. Both of those were off BH... which is my dropper side. I like your slice drive returns, and you have really good hands (can't imagine how anyone can still have that good of hands with wrist injury ... you must be tough as nails). My guess is you played some wicked chip and charge net in tournament singles days.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
I added two pics to your follow through in my post above. It shows exactly what you were referring to swinging on plane. Great follow through, btw.
Do you find it ironic that both of us could probably improve our 2hbh by just setting our arms and hands in a different spot (in my case rf also) at the backswing. If you consider all the timing issues involved with learning the 2hbh ... and ours is something about "just turning your shoulders and arms and putting your hand there". Sometimes you just have to laugh.
I was thinking about your 2hbh and what your instructor said:
"my instructor kept telling me that my backhand consists out of 2 phases ... half-takeback ... and then re-takeback as I hit"
I watched again, and I don't think it's a re-takeback. I think it's your standard 2hbh with initial takeback set outside the slot plane, and short of the back slot starting point.
Here's what I mean. A standard 2hbh would have:
1) take back with full shoulder turn
2) drop into slot and hit shot.
You do those two things... you don't have an extra step. When you set your hands at takeback ... your shoulder is fully turned. I was going to come back and tell you the reason you have to not have that initial set position is because you don't want a second stage of shoulder turn. Well... you completed your shoulder turn. The difference is when you drop into the slot, rather than a Djokovic who is already on top of the slot and just drops the tip of the racquet away from him ... your drop angles back and across to the back of the slot, and then you are a go. If you consider the FH loop, and the 2hbh backswing racquet up position basically timing tools for the swing ... well... you are getting that. Obviously you might as well change to the set position right over the slot ... it's a simple habit change really. Obviously I have the same task in front of me ... get the hands set at the right place plus square rf. But is it disturbing your timing in a big way ... I don't see it.
mntlblok
Hall of Fame
The same principles work on the forehand. I was blessed with quick hands, and the reactions don't seem to have dwindled from age - yet. But, unless it's a full out overhead, I do have great difficulty putting sitters away at the net - unless it involves dinks or angles. Well, sometimes off a "not too high and not too fast" backhand, but sudden moves of the racket perpendicular to the string bed and I see stars. Trying to learn to do more with just the fingers, but that is still pretty limited.
Everything has to be done via working the racket head parallel with the plane of the string bed, thus the goofy looking strokes. The power comes almost totally from trampoline effect from a Weed strung at 30 pounds. Without the excessive spin, everything would fly long. It's still a work in progress. Ten years ago I had a dandy topspin one-hander. :-(
Chip and charge in singles? Well, it "can" work against little second serves, especially if the server has read "dropper" and has already started his charge forward. But, there's an awful lot of area to cover in singles on clay. The better players play me from six feet inside the court. :-(
The greater the pace on the incoming shot, the less control I can manage from such an excessive swing. First serves are a definite problem. Had to learn to lob - and that is definitely still a work in progress. Come to think of it, won a little singles tournament this spring. The finals was a dropper-fest by both of us.
Everything has to be done via working the racket head parallel with the plane of the string bed, thus the goofy looking strokes. The power comes almost totally from trampoline effect from a Weed strung at 30 pounds. Without the excessive spin, everything would fly long. It's still a work in progress. Ten years ago I had a dandy topspin one-hander. :-(
Chip and charge in singles? Well, it "can" work against little second serves, especially if the server has read "dropper" and has already started his charge forward. But, there's an awful lot of area to cover in singles on clay. The better players play me from six feet inside the court. :-(
The greater the pace on the incoming shot, the less control I can manage from such an excessive swing. First serves are a definite problem. Had to learn to lob - and that is definitely still a work in progress. Come to think of it, won a little singles tournament this spring.
The finals was a dropper-fest by both of us.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
The same principles work on the forehand. I was blessed with quick hands, and the reactions don't seem to have dwindled from age - yet. But, unless it's a full out overhead, I do have great difficulty putting sitters away at the net - unless it involves dinks or angles. Well, sometimes off a "not too high and not too fast" backhand, but sudden moves of the racket perpendicular to the string bed and I see stars. Trying to learn to do more with just the fingers, but that is still pretty limited.
Everything has to be done via working the racket head parallel with the plane of the string bed, thus the goofy looking strokes. The power comes almost totally from trampoline effect from a Weed strung at 30 pounds. Without the excessive spin, everything would fly long. It's still a work in progress. Ten years ago I had a dandy topspin one-hander. :-(
Chip and charge in singles? Well, it "can" work against little second serves, especially if the server has read "dropper" and has already started his charge forward. But, there's an awful lot of area to cover in singles on clay. The better players play me from six feet inside the court. :-(
The greater the pace on the incoming shot, the less control I can manage from such an excessive swing. First serves are a definite problem. Had to learn to lob - and that is definitely still a work in progress. Come to think of it, won a little singles tournament this spring.
I meant singles tournaments when you were 20s, 30s ... I was guessing you have played forever like me. You can learn better technique over time ... but you get the hands that came with you off the press.
mntlblok
Hall of Fame
Guess I've been playing for close to 40 years, but have only become competitive in my age group in about the last ten. It's pretty cool to now get to play against some of my heroes from back when we had the National 40's here at our club. Kinda sad to see what age has done to a lot of em, though.
Agree about the hands. But, and I guess I'm an aberration in this regard, but most of my improvement has come from gaining a better understanding of the physics of ball and string interaction. Like the hands, I think I have a pretty good eye for what's going on with those things in tennis strokes - especially after it gets slowed down on video. . .
A real biggie for me has been categorizing incoming balls by height. Firm believer that you need different strokes for high, medium, and low balls. Hint: a clock face really helps.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
The terms "winshield wiper" and "flip" should probably banned.
Do you consider Federer's first FH in the video below WW? I do.
mntlblok
Hall of Fame
Of course. The racket face more or less remains on plane before, during, and after contact. He makes contact a touch below center so the face wobbles a bit, but then gets back to more or less on plane. Key is that the racket head is rapidly changing height as it goes from just before to just after contact - low to high makes topspin. It may "appear" that he's "rolling over" the ball, but that's just due to the (unintentional??) mishit. The physicists say that this sort of mishit adds spin. Seems crazy that it might be done intentionally. . .
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Is the swing path below from the 1) hand ... or 2) racquet head? You could grab screen shots from that slot start position, to contact and after ... and check 1) hand path ... and 2) racquet head path. I can do it later, right now have to finish Mongoose Beast (others ... that's a bike) surgery. With YouTube .25 speed ... it looks like to me the path is set (whether hand or racquet head) from the start of the slot position and stays pretty constant. That is how someone here described the flip (I want to say Bender) ... the flip is on line with the swing path. I thought that was a very good observation.
mntlblok
Hall of Fame
https://www.flickr.com/photos/menta...otolist-e1HNFC-HgThx-HgTii-HgTgM-HgPM1-H9W1E/
Wait. I can try my new ctrl+u skills!
It worked! I was wondering this same stuff almost 10 years ago before the wrist gave out. I used washable markers on my computer screen and then took a photo of it IIRC and then messed with it in Photoshop or something like that. Toly's stuff is infinitely better.
The idea was to demonstrate that my then hero, the recently departed Vic Braden, might have steered me wrong all those long years ago. I'll try another ctrl+u here:
For the commentary that goes with the above: https://www.flickr.com/photos/menta...otolist-e1HNFC-HgThx-HgTii-HgTgM-HgPM1-H9W1E/
Bottom line is that the hand path can be pretty flat - say only slightly low to high - yet have the racket head have an extremely steep low to high path due to the WW stuff both before and after contact. By also varying the amount of "closed-ness" of the racket face, lots of different variations of flight path, rate of ball speed, and magnus effect loaded topspin can be applied by a skilled practitioner of the sport, with Federer likely being the epitome. I've often wondered just how much the Fed knows about this kind of thing. My sneaking suspicion is that he knows a *lot*, and is smart enough to have not shared it around a lot prior to retirement. I expect an explosion of the sharing of all his knowledge, should he ever actually retire. Wouldn't surprise me to see that put off until he's finished being a doubles specialist once the singles becomes less than satisfying. I *have* been wrong before. . .
kb
Wait. I can try my new ctrl+u skills!
It worked! I was wondering this same stuff almost 10 years ago before the wrist gave out. I used washable markers on my computer screen and then took a photo of it IIRC and then messed with it in Photoshop or something like that. Toly's stuff is infinitely better.
The idea was to demonstrate that my then hero, the recently departed Vic Braden, might have steered me wrong all those long years ago. I'll try another ctrl+u here:
For the commentary that goes with the above: https://www.flickr.com/photos/menta...otolist-e1HNFC-HgThx-HgTii-HgTgM-HgPM1-H9W1E/
Bottom line is that the hand path can be pretty flat - say only slightly low to high - yet have the racket head have an extremely steep low to high path due to the WW stuff both before and after contact. By also varying the amount of "closed-ness" of the racket face, lots of different variations of flight path, rate of ball speed, and magnus effect loaded topspin can be applied by a skilled practitioner of the sport, with Federer likely being the epitome. I've often wondered just how much the Fed knows about this kind of thing. My sneaking suspicion is that he knows a *lot*, and is smart enough to have not shared it around a lot prior to retirement. I expect an explosion of the sharing of all his knowledge, should he ever actually retire. Wouldn't surprise me to see that put off until he's finished being a doubles specialist once the singles becomes less than satisfying. I *have* been wrong before. . .
kb
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/menta...otolist-e1HNFC-HgThx-HgTii-HgTgM-HgPM1-H9W1E/
Wait. I can try my new ctrl+u skills!
It worked! I was wondering this same stuff almost 10 years ago before the wrist gave out. I used washable markers on my computer screen and then took a photo of it IIRC and then messed with it in Photoshop or something like that. Toly's stuff is infinitely better.
The idea was to demonstrate that my then hero, the recently departed Vic Braden, might have steered me wrong all those long years ago. I'll try another ctrl+u here:
For the commentary that goes with the above: https://www.flickr.com/photos/menta...otolist-e1HNFC-HgThx-HgTii-HgTgM-HgPM1-H9W1E/
Bottom line is that the hand path can be pretty flat - say only slightly low to high - yet have the racket head have an extremely steep low to high path due to the WW stuff both before and after contact. By also varying the amount of "closed-ness" of the racket face, lots of different variations of flight path, rate of ball speed, and magnus effect loaded topspin can be applied by a skilled practitioner of the sport, with Federer likely being the epitome. I've often wondered just how much the Fed knows about this kind of thing. My sneaking suspicion is that he knows a *lot*, and is smart enough to have not shared it around a lot prior to retirement. I expect an explosion of the sharing of all his knowledge, should he ever actually retire. Wouldn't surprise me to see that put off until he's finished being a doubles specialist once the singles becomes less than satisfying. I *have* been wrong before. . .
kb
Wow ... glad I left that to you.... awesome. I guess you are charting a different swing than the one I posted. In this swing you posted ... the hand and the racquet ramp up as you had said. I think that's the thing with Fed... he has a lot of different FHs. I am now turning over all pics, graphs, charts, special effect to you.
mntlblok
Hall of Fame
Nah. Toly's stuff is by far the best to date, in my opinion.
I'm thinking that the racket head is moving pretty steeply low-to-high on most topspin forehands these days - with varying amounts of "across" fit in, depending on contact height. Keeping the racket face on pretty much the same, slightly closed, angle through the stroke seems most key to me - as opposed to trying to "help" with the trajectory by consciously or subconsciously trying to manipulate the racket face angle through contact. The WW has the potential of making that a non issue, by promoting keeping the angle the same, with the aid of a laid back wrist.
Chas Tennis
G.O.A.T.
Yes ... you are right... racquet face is open. Here are two videos from the back ... FH and BH. Check out the droppers at the end of the BH video ... that's my go to senior groundstroke.
Those videos require the viewer to sign in. Can you remove that requirement or post your forum videos on Vimeo or Youtube?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/menta...otolist-e1HNFC-HgThx-HgTii-HgTgM-HgPM1-H9W1E/
Wait. I can try my new ctrl+u skills!
It worked! I was wondering this same stuff almost 10 years ago before the wrist gave out. I used washable markers on my computer screen and then took a photo of it IIRC and then messed with it in Photoshop or something like that. Toly's stuff is infinitely better.
The idea was to demonstrate that my then hero, the recently departed Vic Braden, might have steered me wrong all those long years ago. I'll try another ctrl+u here:
For the commentary that goes with the above: https://www.flickr.com/photos/menta...otolist-e1HNFC-HgThx-HgTii-HgTgM-HgPM1-H9W1E/
Bottom line is that the hand path can be pretty flat - say only slightly low to high - yet have the racket head have an extremely steep low to high path due to the WW stuff both before and after contact. By also varying the amount of "closed-ness" of the racket face, lots of different variations of flight path, rate of ball speed, and magnus effect loaded topspin can be applied by a skilled practitioner of the sport, with Federer likely being the epitome. I've often wondered just how much the Fed knows about this kind of thing. My sneaking suspicion is that he knows a *lot*, and is smart enough to have not shared it around a lot prior to retirement. I expect an explosion of the sharing of all his knowledge, should he ever actually retire. Wouldn't surprise me to see that put off until he's finished being a doubles specialist once the singles becomes less than satisfying. I *have* been wrong before. . .
kb
Yea, Vic's 1970 book was a little off in that you don't have to get the hand 12 inches below contact. In your Federer example, the racket butt is roughly at contact level and never goes lower. But, the racket head is a bit lower. I try to the the racket head a bit lower than contact but not the hand. But, go easy on Vic, his book was my personal guide to tennis. For a year, all I did was practice things straight out of his book. I had just started playing and probably improved more in that year than any other year since.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
They are on YouTube. I toggled them back to private from unlisted because I thought this thread had played out. I just changed them all back ... so you should be able to play them now.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
I was thinking about the "timing" in tennis. My first two years in college, I lived next to a 4.0 Physics major. He was a couple of years older, so I was around him in his junior and senior years. I used to bug him until he would help me with some intro-programming class ... and he would finally give up and scribble out the entire program on a piece of paper in 5 minutes and tell me to get lost. One day he sees me heading out with my tennis racquet, and he says ... "you know, out of all the things we ever explain with physics ... it still should be physically impossible to hit a tennis ball where you want to". Bottom line ... tennis is hard. Sometimes we need to stop and just give our self some credit along the way.
When you gave me the tip "your swing plane is too narrow" ... I did what everyone here should do when they get a tip ... go check that against pro player video. For your tip... that took just a couple of minutes of watching Djokovic and Murray with their 2hbh. In particular ... the follow through on my swing was the most obvious ... no way the racquet should be closed/closing in the follow through. Also, absolutely no reason not to have the rf square at the backswing. Another example of "you just have to look at yourself on video" ... I had no idea I was open at the backswing. It didn't feel that way. Interestingly ... I went back and checked contact and right before contact ... and looks squared up there (btw ... not positive third pic is same stroke as first two pics, but I think it was):
But think of all the timing issues besides rf angle (open/closed). Every single swing the racquet is swinging around our body on an arc... regardless of FH or BH, flat or low to high or McEnroe or Federer swing. Think of the timing of that split second on it's arc. Throw in the FH flip, and now you have introduced a new mini-arc timed with the larger arc of the hand from the shoulder. Then consider the timing difference between a flat swing vs low to high. I have mentioned several times, I had the very good fortune to play with the same 12+ guys in doubles leagues for years. We had two guys that played with multi or gut ... you could see their string wear pattern because of the fraying (neither was a string breaker). I'm talking dead center ... like they sanded that spot to fool us. One of the guys finished in the top couple every year in the state in his age groups ... all the way from 35s to 55s. It always amazed me anyone could actually hit dead center so often. But thinking back ... both hit totally flat balls. I'm talking zero topspin ... ever. They could name the their spots ... and they would hit them with flat balls low over the net. I would say hitting that consistent near the center like that is virtually impossible with the more low to high swings now. Occasionally, I will stop pro video at contact ... and it's pretty amazing how often the contact is nearer the edges of the racquets. (we all know this ... because even the best frame a lot more balls now then the McEnroe era of flatter hitting). I can't remember how much Borg ever framed). But my point is ... topspin also created a lot more timing issues ... but obviously worth it for the gain. The modern FHs causes a lot more timing issues ... but again, for many the gain is worth the harder timing issues. IMO ... WTA has more timing issues than the classic (McEnroe), and for sure ATP w/flip the hardest FH timing of them all.
My closing of the racquet face didn't gain anything ... so not worth it. btw ... I don't think that is causing what you called the "slap". I think the "slap/snap" is just a very relaxed late as possible release of the racquet lag. I think that relaxed "snap" has to happen to get really good pace on the shot (that and a strong shoulder rotation past hips). What do you think ... do you see that differently?
Now let me play internet coach or your game. When I watch you play, I see more fundamentally sound, longer ground strokes than I had when I was having good success in 4.5 singles. If I was you ... I would work more on targeting (maybe you do with your drills or instructor). I will give you an example from your first video (clay) and your opponent. You had the more technically sound ground strokes than your opponent. But he was pretty good at going for targets ... hitting near the line or corners. Another way to say that is ... "can you make your opponents run". If all I saw was both of you warm up ... I would have thought your opponent was about to be doing all the roadwork. BTW ... I was a version of your opponent in tournaments. You most likely would have placed your bet on my opponent warming up. But when the match started, I could hit my targets... much of it with 1hbh slice ... and opponent got to do some running even with their better full ground strokes. Just my 2 cents.
btw ... to beat someone in singles, you have to be A LOT better than opponents that are quite a bit faster than you. I knew that from tournament days, but this really became obvious past 50 in tennis. I started being able to beat people in singles I couldn't touch earlier .. because they were 5 years older and you just slow down too much. They still had much better strokes ... more pace ... but singles is a game of running. I see this in reverse with a friend. I would say I have the better groundstrokes, and until this summer my wheels matched his ... so I came out on top. Well... I slowed down (partly because of toe issue) and he can run all day (at 59 ... seriously you wouldn't find many 59 year olds that can run like him). He just flat out covers the court better ... and got better with his targeting/placement ... and now it's a battle.
If you didn't see the Essential Tennis video "Circle Drill" NYTA had posted here a while back, check it out. If you changed that circle to a rectangle ... that went from the service line to the baseline ... that would be basically how I play singles. I don't think I ever had the conscious thought to do it ... it just evolved that way. I think the best "instruction" always comes from tournament play. I learned (often painfully) what seems to work at your level, and what does not. I learned I couldn't win 4.5 tournaments without a kick serve and living at the net. I also learned that ... even though I never hit "rope" ground strokes ... if I hit near the sidelines and toward the corners my opponent got to do some roadwork. Didn't mean I was getting out of the roadwork on my side ... but I was fast with a good defensive game so that was ok (at least with odds of winning ... I often wished I was one of those players that got off the court quick every time).
I just think this video was a very creative way to bring up the subject of placement... targeting ... tactics:
http://www.essentialtennis.com/the-circle-drill/
mntlblok
Hall of Fame
mntlblok
Hall of Fame
. I had no idea I was open at the backswing. It didn't feel that way. Interestingly ... I went back and checked contact and right before contact ... and looks squared up there (btw ... not positive third pic is same stroke as first two pics, but I think it was):
mntlblok
Hall of Fame
Ahhh. Seems to me that modern topspin technique mostly does *away* with timing issues. With the wider modern frames, and with the wiper technique keeping the racket face "facing" the target for a much longer period of time - all the way through the hitting zone - that timing only matters as far as making contact at about the right distance in front of you. Once to that point, the racket face sorta stays on a plane that *also* faces the target, in terms of both trajectory and direction. See Toly's composites.
I suspect Clay stole my ideas in this one that pretty well demonstrates what I'm talking about. Oops. Looks like he's now only selling that one. Just check out Toly's stuff that shows how long the racket face faces the target. Off center topspin strikes *still* yield decent shots. Even lots of *framed* topspin shots still land in the court.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
I don't think anything does away with timing issues. Contact is for a nano-second ... follow through doesn't matter ... it's all after the damage is done. Follow through can be a good teaching aid ... dimkin's "swinging on plane" example. Modern topspin... which is just more low to high IMO ... greatly adds to the timing issues. I know, I went from a mostly flat hitter to pretty good topspin when I want to. To me, adding more low to high swing on FH is "kind of" like going to a "kick serve". Heck of a lot more timing issues with a kick serve.
I don't understand your point about WW causing "racquet facing the target for a much longer period of time - all the way through the hitting zone". For example, what distinction are you seeing between 1) swing from low to high ... and 2) WW. The only value I have found in the term WW is as a description for one of the follow throughs that happen naturally from a very low to very high swing path... (i.e. your arms just go that way naturally because of the swing path).
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Why did you post that pic again? Extreme closed stance makes the shoulder turn look better than it is.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Beast out of surgery ... new chain and new rear sprocket. Did it make it easy to pedal a 50 lb bike... that would be a NO!!!
mntlblok
Hall of Fame
Because you have the racket face open. You'll have it somewhat closed on the follow through. That means it is rotating on its way to the ball. That means it is not staying on plane.Why did you post that pic again? Extreme closed stance makes the shoulder turn look better than it is.
Ahhh, but you now also claim that you don't know what I mean about "racquet facing the target for a much longer period of time - all the way through the hitting zone". Yer a dern *computer programmer*!! Yer *logical*! Drop a perpendicular from where the racket face is facing in one of Toly's composites. Both just before and just after contact, that perpendicular is facing the target. So, if yer a bit late or a bit early, things will work out. Post #145 at https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/3d-analysis.436076/page-3
Before you put them tools up, use em to take the cage off that table fan over there. Turn the fan on and bounce a few tennis balls into the spinning blades. They'll take off at pretty much the same angle every time. I've never done it, but I'll bet on it.
ByeByePoly
G.O.A.T.
Because you have the racket face open. You'll have it somewhat closed on the follow through. That means it is rotating on its way to the ball. That means it is not staying on plane.
Ahhh, but you now also claim that you don't know what I mean about "racquet facing the target for a much longer period of time - all the way through the hitting zone". Yer a dern *computer programmer*!! Yer *logical*! Drop a perpendicular from where the racket face is facing in one of Toly's composites. Both just before and just after contact, that perpendicular is facing the target. So, if yer a bit late or a bit early, things will work out. Post #145 at https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/3d-analysis.436076/page-3
Before you put them tools up, use em to take the cage off that table fan over there. Turn the fan on and bounce a few tennis balls into the spinning blades. They'll take off at pretty much the same angle every time. I've never done it, but I'll bet on it.
"Because you have the racket face open. You'll have it somewhat closed on the follow through. That means it is rotating on its way to the ball. That means it is not staying on plane."
Exactly ... already knew this. Your open face in the backswing comment ... and Dimkin's "swinging on plane" more comment. I got it the first time. I'm not slow.
I just wondered why you posted it again... you must of thought I asked again... or developed a case of denial.I posted the pic of contact ... and pre-contact to show that during that zone ... the racquet face is vertical, so it's not a last second rotation thing. Doesn't really matter ... I will be fixing that in spring.
"Ahhh, but you now also claim that you don't know what I mean about "racquet facing the target for a much longer period of time"
No... I asked how WW makes that happen. More specifically I think you are calling low to high swing paths WW ... which I guess is what many are. I just view it as a term for "some" follow throughs. I glanced at your insufficient link (***) ... and will read a bit more later. My logic on a very steep low to high as far as timing would be 1) the arc around us ... the timing would be easier because the racquet face is changing throat to tip less fast ... but 2) the racquet face going from low to high introduced a timing issue of face cutting across ball that wasn't there with a flat swing. Something like that ... sure Chas has better terminology than that. So low to high "keeps racquet face pointing towards target plane longer", but "target height shorter". HAHAHA ... something like that.
None of this matters ... the beast will kill me by spring.
*** btw... here is how to link that post. Click on that #145 at the bottom of the post, and copy the url in the top line. Then paste that to your post ... and the link will take your followers (like a cult followers) to the post. Sweet!!!
mntlblok
Hall of Fame
Ahhh. We're gaining on it. It's not merely low to high that manages to get the racket face on plane.
Were one to leave the wrist laid back and swing forward from, say, pat the dog, the racket face would go from facing the ground to facing the sky in the follow through, leaving only a short moment in time for the racket face angle to be in the range of verticalness that would lead to a good result.
The old Eastern forehand has the racket face facing somewhere to the right of the target until right at contact, and then continuing on that arc to facing the left fence soon after contact. Only perfect timing will have it facing the right direction at contact time to yield a shot that isn't wide of its intended target.
However, with a laid back wrist, and a forearm and upper arm rotating counterclockwise during the period just before, during, and after contact, the racket face can be in the right verticalness *and* facing the right direction for long enough that timing becomes less critical. It just sorta becomes a "bank shot" off a rail with a predictable result, with the added benefit that the faster you do it and the more steeply upward you "wipe", the more clearance you'll have over the net, the faster the ball will go, the steeper it will drop on the other side of the net, the the deeper it will land in the court, and the less chance there'll be of missing the shot.
It is *not* recommended that this style of stroke be tried with a 9 inch wide wooden racket. The timing would then become critical.
Is that bike tire *really* supposed to be that fat?? No wonder it weighs 50 pounds.
mntlblok
Hall of Fame
mntlblok
Hall of Fame
I think it worked!
