Open or Closed Stance?

[iChen]

I just took my second ever lesson, trying to make my forehand much more consistent after a close match in a rec league. He said that because of my open stance, I'm sometimes trying to do too much with my arm and sailing my forehand. He also said when I close stance hit, I drive through the ball pushing off my back leg.

Is this true? Is it easier for beginners to hit with an open or closed stance? Or perhaps I was just hitting incorrectly with open stance...I did notice however that I was using less energy and getting more pace just pushing off my back leg with close stance.

 

[golden chicken]

A closed stance elongates your stroke through the hitting zone. It's easier to cover up slight timing issues compared to an open stance where if you're slightly off, you spray the ball side to side.

A closed stance recruits more of the large muscle groups to initiate the kinetic chain of power, which makes it more efficient, but it also means you have to take an extra step to the ball, so you have to run a little harder to get there in the first place.

 

[Knox]

Coach claims that your stance has something to do with what your arms are doing? Fire them. That's total nonsense. Find someone who at a bare minimum knows the open stance forehand.

If you're not getting enough rotation using the open stance then it can appear to be an 'army' and 'flaily' shot. The solution is not to abandon the open stance, simply learn how to power the shot more with the outside leg by turning and rotating. You actually drive more off the back leg using open stance than when using closed.

If your coach doesn't understand this simple technical concept and how to develop it then they're going to mislead you in a myriad of other ways. Seriously, fire them.

 

[FiReFTW]

You are talking about NEUTRAL stance, not closed stance.
You ahould NEVER EVER use a closed stance unless its physicaly impossible not to (completely stretched for a wide ball for example).
And coaches that say u shouldnt use a stance are just stealing ur money imo, trying to give you a "cause" for ur problems that isnt really the cause just so you feel like he taught u something.

 

[PittsburghDad]

You are talking about NEUTRAL stance, not closed stance.
You ahould NEVER EVER use a closed stance unless its physicaly impossible not to (completely stretched for a wide ball for example).
And coaches that say u shouldnt use a stance are just stealing ur money imo, trying to give you a "cause" for ur problems that isnt really the cause just so you feel like he taught u something.

This.

 

[ptuanminh]

Neutral stance first would be a good idea.

 

[styksnstryngs]

Yeah, closed stance is only for backhands...

 

[mad dog1]

Op was hitting in an open stance and coach might have said, “you need to close your stance” and not actually “use a closed stance”

 

[NuBas]

I just took my second ever lesson, trying to make my forehand much more consistent after a close match in a rec league. He said that because of my open stance, I'm sometimes trying to do too much with my arm and sailing my forehand. He also said when I close stance hit, I drive through the ball pushing off my back leg.

Is this true? Is it easier for beginners to hit with an open or closed stance? Or perhaps I was just hitting incorrectly with open stance...I did notice however that I was using less energy and getting more pace just pushing off my back leg with close stance.

Well if you are a beginner close your stance for both shots so you get the feeling of rotation etc and then later you can incorporate open stance for your forehand. Of course an open stance you will arm the ball more because you are less balanced and cannot generate power or as much rotation as if you were to hit it sideways. I personally would not say you should 'push' off your back leg but instead its a unison of both legs and its more of a stepping into the shot as opposed to pushing off one leg.

Stay sideways for both forehand and backhand, your coach is right. Closing your stance on the forehand automatically makes you turn sideways which means your chest/shoulders rotate with your hips/spine so you getting natural rotation as opposed to standing flush facing your opponent then you rely more on arm.

 

[Shroud]

I just took my second ever lesson, trying to make my forehand much more consistent after a close match in a rec league. He said that because of my open stance, I'm sometimes trying to do too much with my arm and sailing my forehand. He also said when I close stance hit, I drive through the ball pushing off my back leg.

Is this true? Is it easier for beginners to hit with an open or closed stance? Or perhaps I was just hitting incorrectly with open stance...I did notice however that I was using less energy and getting more pace just pushing off my back leg with close stance.

Some vids

 

[heninfan99]

I just took my second ever lesson, trying to make my forehand much more consistent after a close match in a rec league. He said that because of my open stance, I'm sometimes trying to do too much with my arm and sailing my forehand. He also said when I close stance hit, I drive through the ball pushing off my back leg.

Is this true? Is it easier for beginners to hit with an open or closed stance? Or perhaps I was just hitting incorrectly with open stance...I did notice however that I was using less energy and getting more pace just pushing off my back leg with close stance.

Just do what Shroud does and you'll be okay

 

[SinjinCooper]

Coach claims that your stance has something to do with what your arms are doing? Fire them. That's total nonsense. Find someone who at a bare minimum knows the open stance forehand.

If you're not getting enough rotation using the open stance then it can appear to be an 'army' and 'flaily' shot. The solution is not to abandon the open stance, simply learn how to power the shot more with the outside leg by turning and rotating. You actually drive more off the back leg using open stance than when using closed.

If your coach doesn't understand this simple technical concept and how to develop it then they're going to mislead you in a myriad of other ways. Seriously, fire them.

From what he said, the coach didn't say anything about more open stances being bad.

He said that the student was using more arm when he hit more open. That's not only very likely, it's almost a slam dunk below 5.0.

Learning to hit more closed (neutral, ideally) first smooths out that learning curve, and since you always need neutral stance forehands in your arsenal, it's worth mastering that concept first. All the essential parts of the chain still exist in those strokes, just in ways that are less athletically demanding to access.

With respect to the original post's question: it's FAR easier for beginning and intermediate students to learn to hit CORRECTLY with a neutral stance. But there's nothing about a more open stance stroke that's inherently bad for anyone at any level. It's simply different.

Let's hold off on firing anyone just yet.

 

[iChen]

With respect to the original post's question: it's FAR easier for beginning and intermediate students to learn to hit CORRECTLY with a neutral stance. But there's nothing about a more open stance stroke that's inherently bad for anyone at any level. It's simply different.

Okay I’ll do quite a bit of reps with more neutral stance. What’s the difference of an open stance? Pros and cons?

Edit: actually watching Salzensteins vid explained a bit. Interesting...

 

[SinjinCooper]

Okay I’ll do quite a bit of reps with more neutral stance. What’s the difference of an open stance? Pros and cons?

A neutral stance is a very efficient and effective way of getting the hips, core, and shoulder girdle rotating in sequence (as you see with baseball pitchers, incidentally), and is a way of virtually assuring you get more of your body (and body WEIGHT) involved in power production. When you shift forward, it's almost impossible to have nothing but an arm-and-single-shoulder's worth of swing being applied to the ball. In the worst case scenario, even if your upper body mechanics are atrocious (or if a shot comes so quickly you simply don't have time), you're at least adding the momentum of your bodyweight transfer to the swing to some extent.

An open stance takes that door that allows for the potential to hit the ball with nothing but the arm and kicks it WIDE open. It's utterly demanding of full body work in order to do anything useful with the ball. If you don't use both your lower and upper body effectively in executing the stroke, not only is it POSSIBLE that you'll wind up swinging with nothing but your arm...it's a virtual certainty.

That said, open clearly has advantages. It's less demanding in terms of movement and footwork. Obvious is the fact that it's at least a half-step less to get into position to hit the ball each time. Less obvious is that its execution aids in recovery to a more central position as well. You're driving off an outside foot, back toward the center (at least from the forehand side of the court). That makes it even more efficient, still, since that's the way you're going to want to move to set up for the next shot 9 times out of 10. And at its top end, it has insane potential to generate power -- power that can be put into pace, spin, or a combo thereof. That's because a linear weight transfer forehand is all about timing and technique, which you can perfect, but can't really INCREASE. But an open stancer's power plant is only limited by the plyometric potential you can generate starting off that plant leg. Since the power transfer is up, into, and around, instead of forward, you can infuse a massive surplus of power without launching yourself willy-nilly toward the service line. That's not really true when stepping into the ball to initiate rotation is your primary power engine.

In practice, a neutral FH has way more than enough power to rally well and even punish your opponent -- even at high levels. But it's not quite on the same level as the open (or semi-open, really), when it's executed perfectly. And with adequate fitness and athleticism, the "launch" of the open stance only serves to make your movement even more effective.

But make no mistake: it's a more complex, more athletic, more demanding movement. That doesn't mean intermediate players can't learn it and execute it well. But practically speaking, most of the time it turns out that way.

If a good coach tells you that you're arming the ball when you hit open stance, and would like to see you focus on neutral stance for now, it's probably because he feels that's the best way for you to achieve higher-level technique and success in the short term. And it's not short-sighted, because again, you'll need to hit situational neutral stance forehands for the rest of your competitive life, even if you turn out to be a Nadal clone some day. And as you learn to use your body more effective in neutral stance, you'll absorb a lot of data that will translate once you're ready to hit open more effectively.

 

[iChen]

Wow thank you for that!

 

[Wise one]

Some vids

Excellent advice from Mats!

 

[Shroud]

Just do what Shroud does and you'll be okay

Worst advice of the year! But definately the wisest

 

[Knox]

it's FAR easier for beginning and intermediate students to learn to hit CORRECTLY with a neutral stance.

How many beginners and intermediates have you legitimately trained? Bold claims.

 

[Wise one]

Yeah, closed stance is only for backhands...

Hogwash!

 

[ByeByePoly]

Semi open fh helped me solve bad FH timing issues this spring. My timing on bh wing has always been better than my fh, but this spring was BAD. I created a thread about "pointing at ball on FHs" ... that bad JujU. Good news is I don't need to point anymore.

Totally agree with @SinjinCooper that even if you hit open stance FHs, you will also need the neutral in the bag. The pros hit the vast majority of their FHs behind the baseline open stance. When I was struggling, I remember watching lots of FHs at the French Open, and almost every neutral (not on the run) FH behind the baseline was open stance hit off the back leg. Many times the front leg was completely off the ground which is what sinjin was talking about regarding the power source.

But we are rec players, and what matters is your best repeatable FH. We do get to standardize our neutral baseline FH if we want. You need hip and shoulder turn with both ... so no matter what you pick you aren't escaping that.

I picked semi open as my standard, and here are some of the things I like about it:

- with a standard semi open stance ... I have visual (or feel) clues on whether I had full hip and shoulder turn. I know the sum of all turns/coils has my right shoulder pointing to back fence. It is very obvious on video if your hip line is past feet, and if your shoulder line past hips.

- I had several issues (still do, always will) ... being late in prep, insufficient shoulder turn ... and a big one ... not enough space from the ball. Keying off the back leg, and marrying that with the bounce helped immediately. I plant the right leg in the right spot in time with full turn ... and much improvement. You can only think of a couple of swing thoughts at a time, but this right leg thought worked for me. The problem is it's way to easy to revert back.

I see sinjin's point that the open stance has the bigger potential to create the "weakest tea" FH than the neutral stance, because at least with neutral you probably get some weight transfer into the shot even with insufficient shoulder turn. But imo, it's going to be weak regardless without the shoulder turn. My thought is insufficient shoulder turn is acceptable for us/me ... so commit to it and pick your stance preference with it as a given.

You are signing up your back leg and hip a lot. Leg drive up, rotation of body over right hip, all that other k-chain stuff. The biggest way to see it ... is just stand on right leg and shadow swing a full forehand.

Here is another way to get it. Hurt your right calf or hamstring. My hamstring is mostly healed (maybe 100% … not sure how I know) , but today with the ball machine I was very reluctant to drive with the right leg. It was letting me know to share some with the left leg.

I will be curious what you pick.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

@iChen

Yeah, closed stance is only for backhands...

I assume you are referring (primarily) to 1-handed BHs.

We should make a distinction between neutral stance and stances that are significantly closed. A closed stance that limits/locks the uncoiling of the hips, should be something of a last resort on FHs and 2-handed BHs. Ok in some situations but the back leg needs to swing around lo allow allow some uncoiling of the hips and prevent the shot from being to much of an 'arm stroke'. This action of the back leg may hamper recovery time in some situations.

Neutral stances (or even slightly closed stances) allow the hips to uncoil freely (w/o needed an extra step with the back leg on the follow-thru). Neutral and semi-open are typically preferred stances for FHs and 2-handed BHs. Note that semi-open is often preferred to a fully-open stance. However,there are some situations where a fully-open stance might be optimal.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

How many beginners and intermediates have you legitimately trained? Bold claims.

I've got agree with him on this. I wouldn't be surprised if he's taught a significant # of novices/intermediates. I, for one, have. For novice/intermediate players that naturally gravitate to a neutral stance, we'll stick with that for a while. Will introduce semi-open some time later. And fully-open, some time later than that. For those who start off fully-open, I'll teach them neutral and semi-open open more or less concurrently. For any open stance, adequate torso coil should be emphasized. Too many that start with an open stance do not coil enough or sue the arm too much (to prepare the racket and for the forward swing).

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Okay I’ll do quite a bit of reps with more neutral stance...
Edit: actually watching Salzensteins vid explained a bit. Interesting...

Good idea to have both in your arsenal. Jeff brings up some good points on this.

 

[styksnstryngs]

I always found open stances easier for defense/on the run shots if you need to stop and turn quickly, and neutral for a ball you can really lean into and get into the court off of.

 

[iChen]

I've got agree with him on this. I wouldn't be surprised if he's taught a significant # of novices/intermediates. I, for one, have. For novice/intermediate players that naturally gravitate to a neutral stance, we'll stick with that for a while. Will introduce semi-open some time later. And fully-open, some time later than that. For those who start off fully-open, I'll teach them neutral and semi-open open more or less concurrently. For any open stance, adequate torso coil should be emphasized. Too many that start with an open stance do not coil enough or sue the arm too much (to prepare the racket and for the forward swing).

I'll have to watch for the coil next time I hit. Did about 250 shots this morning with neutral and I like the feeling of stepping in. Never did it on FH before

 

[Slicerman]

I agree with what some of the posters have said. Closed stance (front leg crossing back leg) typically shouldn't be used on a forehand, you would only do it in situations like hitting on the run or stretching on reaction.

Open stance is commonly used, but I would not recommend for beginners because it does not promote good habits for forehand mechanics, since you have less range of motion to coil the hips and trunk. Also in open stance since you won't have enough unit turn, the racquet takeback won't naturally happen, forcing you to primarily use your arms to take back the racquet, so as a result the tendency to "arm the ball" is greater. In my opinion, another issue about using open stance for beginners is that it promotes lazy footwork and preparation. I would say open stance is more suited to when you're in a defensive situation or when a ball is coming close to your body.

Instead I would rather use a stance that is semi-open, basically something that is in between neutral (90 degrees to BL) and open (0 degrees to BL), rather than open or closed stances. It allows you to load up the legs, hips and trunk more efficiently and also more consistently to find your contact point.

 

[ByeByePoly]

OK ... anytime there is a thread with @nytennisaddict , @SinjinCooper , @SystemicAnomaly ... it's time to ask questions ... and challenge some observations. I figure even if my observations are wrong and dealt with harshly ... others will benefit at my expense.

I think:
1) more coil in open FH ... and neutral doesn't promote more coil, actually less (there will be supporting pics )
2) on the typical neutral stance step-into-FH ... you 1) coil off back leg 2) step without uncoling 3) uncoil off front leg (no equivalent leg drive and hip uncoiling as the open FH)
3) not sure how much the "stepping to front leg" really adds to pace of shot ... you see a lot of short steps still rip ... also on 2hbh
4) I think the neutral stance FH has a lot of the same stroke dyanmics as the 2hbh stepping to front foot (pics and link)
5) most of the pro FHs behind the baseline in that middle are hit open ... Salz might have a great point for us rec players, but that is not what the pros are doing behind the baseline mainly. Matts was wrong also.
6) LOTS of closed stance 2hbhs from the pros... @SystemicAnomaly that's another post with pics once I go get some snapshots from video.

OK ... first defense of #1 ... open has more coiling, and neutral much weaker coiling in comparison:

From Salzenstein's own video (I think he is great by the way, I love a lot of his stuff):

OK ... neutral on left, open on right. Shoulder line basically pointing to back fence in both. I captured the snapshot at his max shoulder turn in his stroke.

To me, he clearly has more coil from the open stance (hip line past feet, shoulder line past hips). In fact, I would say in his video his neutral stance FH examples (including this one) doesn't really have that much coil. The "turning sideways" thing really isn't coil... right? It's the 1) hips past feet, and 2) shoulder line past hip line. To me, in his neutral stance (pic #1), his shoulder line has to be turned way more ... toward backhand corner direction ... to match the coiling in pic #2.

Now... @SinjinCooper may have already said it if I remember correctly. You don't need as much coil in the neutral, because you have other dynamics (the step and weight transfer to front leg) in the stroke. That makes sense. But in my #3 ... I wonder how much we actually get from the step/weight transfer. Zverev takes a huge stride with his 2hbh, but others take a very small step in a lot of shots that end up with a ton of pace. I have a question here ... not really an opinion.

I think all FHs are hard ... so I think open or neutral stance is hard. That said, I think perhaps it's a bit misleading to to say the neutral step-to-the-front-leg is automatically easier. There are timing issues in all strokes ... but that sucker has a lot. Rather than repeat my point here ... I will just link to a previous post I made regarding the 2hbh with Nadal pics. I think the 2hbh step-forward and the neutral FH step-forward share the same "one hip coils ... the other hip uncoils" dance. BTW ... @J011yroger thinks I'm smoking pot on this ... so that probably means I have no frickin clue. Wouldn't be the first time.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-on-two-handed-backhand.601480/#post-11695623

 

[J011yroger]

OK ... anytime there is a thread with @nytennisaddict , @SinjinCooper , @SystemicAnomaly ... it's time to ask questions ... and challenge some observations. I figure even if my observations are wrong and dealt with harshly ... others will benefit at my expense.

I think:
1) more coil in open FH ... and neutral doesn't promote more coil, actually less (there will be supporting pics )
2) on the typical neutral stance step-into-FH ... you 1) coil off back leg 2) step without uncoling 3) uncoil off front leg (no equivalent leg drive and hip uncoiling as the open FH)
3) not sure how much the "stepping to front leg" really adds to pace of shot ... you see a lot of short steps still rip ... also on 2hbh
4) I think the neutral stance FH has a lot of the same stroke dyanmics as the 2hbh stepping to front foot (pics and link)
5) most of the pro FHs behind the baseline in that middle are hit open ... Salz might have a great point for us rec players, but that is not what the pros are doing behind the baseline mainly. Matts was wrong also.
6) LOTS of closed stance 2hbhs from the pros... @SystemicAnomaly that's another post with pics once I go get some snapshots from video.

OK ... first defense of #1 ... open has more coiling, and neutral much weaker coiling in comparison:

From Salzenstein's own video (I think he is great by the way, I love a lot of his stuff):

OK ... neutral on left, open on right. Shoulder line basically pointing to back fence in both. I captured the snapshot at his max shoulder turn in his stroke.

To me, he clearly has more coil from the open stance (hip line past feet, shoulder line past hips). In fact, I would say in his video his neutral stance FH examples (including this one) doesn't really have that much coil. The "turning sideways" thing really isn't coil... right? It's the 1) hips past feet, and 2) shoulder line past hip line. To me, in his neutral stance (pic #1), his shoulder line has to be turned way more ... toward backhand corner direction ... to match the coiling in pic #2.

Now... @SinjinCooper may have already said it if I remember correctly. You don't need as much coil in the neutral, because you have other dynamics (the step and weight transfer to front leg) in the stroke. That makes sense. But in my #3 ... I wonder how much we actually get from the step/weight transfer. Zverev takes a huge stride with his 2hbh, but others take a very small step in a lot of shots that end up with a ton of pace. I have a question here ... not really an opinion.

I think all FHs are hard ... so I think open or neutral stance is hard. That said, I think perhaps it's a bit misleading to to say the neutral step-to-the-front-leg is automatically easier. There are timing issues in all strokes ... but that sucker has a lot. Rather than repeat my point here ... I will just link to a previous post I made regarding the 2hbh with Nadal pics. I think the 2hbh step-forward and the neutral FH step-forward share the same "one hip coils ... the other hip uncoils" dance. BTW ... @J011yroger thinks I'm smoking pot on this ... so that probably means I have no frickin clue. Wouldn't be the first time.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-on-two-handed-backhand.601480/#post-11695623

You are in love with this idea of coiling. It's where the hips and shoulders face at the beginning and end, the feet are less relevant.

Jeff pictures are tough because they aren't oriented the same.

J

 

[ByeByePoly]

You are in love with this idea of coiling. It's where the hips and shoulders face at the beginning and end, the feet are less relevant.

Jeff pictures are tough because they aren't oriented the same.

J

I love nothing ... I just get bored.

I only mention feet because hard to gauge hip line without them. Maybe hips relative to nipples ... nope, they travel together

 

[J011yroger]

I love nothing ... I just get bored.

I only mention feet because hard to gauge hip line without them. Maybe hips relative to nipples ... nope, they travel together

No they don't! Hip to nipple is exactly what coiling is! The other stuff is just facing a different direction.

J

 

[SinjinCooper]

You are in love with this idea of coiling. It's where the hips and shoulders face at the beginning and end, the feet are less relevant.

Jeff pictures are tough because they aren't oriented the same.

J

This.

Take a neutral stance. Do it in your living room, without a racquet. Take a shoulder width stance, with both your toes and your chest facing the wall with the velvet Elvis painting.

Now, stride forward with your lead foot. As you do this, allow your rear foot to pivot on the ball of the foot, but keep your chest facing Elvis.

See how this stride/pivot forces your hips to rotate? Good. Nips still pointing at The King? In the kinetic chain game, that's what we call hip-shoulder separation. What it does is it builds up a tightness in your core, which when you allow it to unwind, will all but force your shoulder girdle to catch up. And as long as you haven't forced the swing with your arm muscles prematurely, your racquet arm will now accelerate through with all due haste as your shoulders speed through.

But to your "hips and nipples rotate together" bit...NOOOO! They may want to, but don't let them. Without that separation, forehands, serves, baseball pitches...they all amount to nothing.

 

[RetroSpin]

Interesting video.

Sasha, near court, often preps with a neutral or closed stance and makes a quick move to semi open before he starts his swing. Mischa seems to hit with a fully open stance most of the time. Notice that his shoulders rotate more on his backswing than his hips typically. Sasha's tend to turn more together.

Either technique is fine. Frankly, I think a lot of this talk of kinetic chain and rotating is overdone. I don't see a whole lot of torque in Sasha's swing. I do see a lot of racquet lag and pulling across. Seems like I recall some old guy named Oscar talking about that.

 

[J011yroger]

Furthermore, if you are hitting closed stance and your rear leg doesn't come forward/up on toe/toe drag, you are arming the ball.

J

 

[iChen]

Furthermore, if you are hitting closed stance and your rear leg doesn't come forward/up on toe/toe drag, you are arming the ball.

J

Sort of like leaning or standing on toe? Do you square up often besides running forward into ball or on the move?

 

[FiReFTW]

Furthermore, if you are hitting closed stance and your rear leg doesn't come forward/up on toe/toe drag, you are arming the ball.

J

Neutral stance, why does everyone mention closed stance, closed is when ur front leg is crossing ur back leg.

Anyway you make a good point about the toe drag and leg going up, but players need to firstly understand how exactly they coil and uncoil and transfer their weight into the shot, else they can just kind of try to force that toe drag but not really hit the shot that well.

Many people, miself included, when they start learning about the neutral stance don't have a good idea exactly how you should hit it so that you transfer ur weight and uncoil into the shot.

When I started I wasn't sure where to put my weight and how to hit, so I had the weight even on both feet and then as I hit I kind of tried to push forward with my front foot thinking that im gonna transfer my weight into the shot like that, sounds a bit silly I know, but its really hard to know exactly how you should put ur weight and how you manage it and push it around, unless you study it a bit from videos of people explaining, u try a few different things but ur unsure which is correct.

Its only later that ive learned that the weight should be pretty much the same as if your going to hit a semi open stance for example, on your back foot, and u should coil ur upper body, almost identical to the semi open stance, only that you then step foward with ur other foot while uncoiling into the shot and transfering ur weight forward, in a good sequence and timing, and then you will uncoil into the shot and ur body weight will also be moving forward, while ur back foot will come upwards on ur toe and perhaps drag a bit.

It might sound easy and logical to someone like you for example, who learned it a while ago and is automatic now, but for people starting out it can be very challenging believe me.

 

[J011yroger]

Sort of like leaning or standing on toe? Do you square up often besides running forward into ball or on the move?

I try to hit open stance as little as possible but I still hit open more than I should.

J

 

[Limpinhitter]

I just took my second ever lesson, trying to make my forehand much more consistent after a close match in a rec league. He said that because of my open stance, I'm sometimes trying to do too much with my arm and sailing my forehand. He also said when I close stance hit, I drive through the ball pushing off my back leg.

Is this true? Is it easier for beginners to hit with an open or closed stance? Or perhaps I was just hitting incorrectly with open stance...I did notice however that I was using less energy and getting more pace just pushing off my back leg with close stance.

As a general premise, a forehand should be hit with an open stance. A closed stance inhibits upper body rotation, causes a later contact point which diminishes topspin, inhibits followthrough and leaves you off balance and in a weaker stance to recover positioning. All of this is cured with an open stance.

 

[ByeByePoly]

This.

Take a neutral stance. Do it in your living room, without a racquet. Take a shoulder width stance, with both your toes and your chest facing the wall with the velvet Elvis painting.

Now, stride forward with your lead foot. As you do this, allow your rear foot to pivot on the ball of the foot, but keep your chest facing Elvis.

See how this stride/pivot forces your hips to rotate? Good. Nips still pointing at The King? In the kinetic chain game, that's what we call hip-shoulder separation. What it does is it builds up a tightness in your core, which when you allow it to unwind, will all but force your shoulder girdle to catch up. And as long as you haven't forced the swing with your arm muscles prematurely, your racquet arm will now accelerate through with all due haste as your shoulders speed through.

But to your "hips and nipples rotate together" bit...NOOOO! They may want to, but don't let them. Without that separation, forehands, serves, baseball pitches...they all amount to nothing.

OK ... now we are talking ... Elvis and nipples. If we could get Cibulkova to demonstrate the hip to nipple separation, I would never forget this lesson. See... I would be one of those seniors from the geezer thread that would buy you beer and tell you boobie jokes.

Further definition of nipple related coiling:

1) if I am staring at Elvis on the wall (how did you know I had Elvis on the wall?) ... and just rotate left and right with my nipples staying even with my hips ... that would be HIP COILING.
2) if I am full right HIP COILED (can barely see Elvis now out of my peripheral vision), and I move move nipples farther past my hip line ... that is SHOULDER COILING beyond HIP COILING.

It takes two to tango.

With that said ... let's check your "if you build it (step) they (coiling) will come".

Salzy sees Elvis and takes a stride. Before he does, he sets some nipple coiling tension over his neutral hips:

Look at that ... Sinjin said this would happen. The stride created an opening of the hip ... while at the same time, Salzy skillfully kept is original Nipple-over-hip coiling. The end result is the hip coiling during the step was added to the nipple coiling... a full coil if you will. I think we should drop k-chain ... and rename this nipple-chain. Just sayin.

Note ... hate to add this since we are all getting along... but: That back/right leg action (step) is not the same as the open back leg FH. With that ... we COIL over the back/right leg ... then we drive with that back leg, and then that causes UNCOILING over that same leg. I would say with the neutral FH ... no leg ever drives any UNCOILING.... the front leg just accommodates the uncoiling.

I got pics for that also:

So Salzy to a stride and weight transferred to front leg. During that stride the hips coiled at the end Salzy is standing on left leg. The left leg did not drive any uncoiling.

Then he is up on the front/left leg... full coil delivered. The left leg doesn't help coil anymore ... no need (already there) and no time. What the right leg does is provide the carousel (lazy Susan if you prefer) for the unwinding of the hip/nipple tension.

I offer the following as an example you can either 1) nipple tension first and then add hips in the stride ... or 2) just add a whole lot of nipple tension in the stride

To me, Nadal didn't open up his hips any in that stride. But what he did for sure is go full coil above the hips during the stride.

Here is the video it came from ... around 00:24ish.

 

[J011yroger]

As a general premise, a forehand should be hit with an open stance. A closed stance inhibits upper body rotation, causes a later contact point which diminishes topspin, inhibits followthrough and leaves you off balance and in a weaker stance to recover positioning. All of this is cured with an open stance.

Disagree.

J

 

[Limpinhitter]

Disagree.

J

Congratulations!

 

[StringSnapper]

I just took my second ever lesson, trying to make my forehand much more consistent after a close match in a rec league. He said that because of my open stance, I'm sometimes trying to do too much with my arm and sailing my forehand. He also said when I close stance hit, I drive through the ball pushing off my back leg.

Is this true? Is it easier for beginners to hit with an open or closed stance? Or perhaps I was just hitting incorrectly with open stance...I did notice however that I was using less energy and getting more pace just pushing off my back leg with close stance.

Neutral stance is ideal imo.

Open stance is fine if you're rushed and cant get into neutral. You just need to swing harder or hit a loopier spinnier ball. It takes more energy.

Neutral stance you can plow through the ball, redirect pace, hit flatter, but you also have the option for spin.

 

[ByeByePoly]

Neutral stance is ideal imo.

Open stance is fine if you're rushed and cant get into neutral. You just need to swing harder or hit a loopier spinnier ball. It takes more energy.

Neutral stance you can plow through the ball, redirect pace, hit flatter, but you also have the option for spin.

"Open stance is fine if you're rushed and cant get into neutral. "

Are you making this recommendation for rec players? The reason I ask is it seems to be the opposite for ATP players. I just watched Fed and del Potro, and almost every single time they had the option to hit open off back leg behind the baseline, they did. I watched Gasquet in the previous match and hit some from the middle with neutral, but not many.

When they are on the run, along baseline or into the court they hit many variations. But for the most part, if they have time on a neutral ball behind the baseline, they are hitting open off back leg.

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

Some vids

The best players hit both in a situation dependent fashion! [emoji462]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[mad dog1]

As a general premise, a forehand should be hit with a neutral stance. A closed stance inhibits upper body rotation, causes a later contact point which diminishes topspin, inhibits followthrough and leaves you off balance and in a weaker stance to recover positioning. All of this is cured with an open stance.

Much better!

 

[J011yroger]

"Open stance is fine if you're rushed and cant get into neutral. "

Are you making this recommendation for rec players? The reason I ask is it seems to be the opposite for ATP players. I just watched Fed and del Potro, and almost every single time they had the option to hit open off back leg behind the baseline, they did. I watched Gasquet in the previous match and hit some from the middle with neutral, but not many.

When they are on the run, along baseline or into the court they hit many variations. But for the most part, if they have time on a neutral ball behind the baseline, they are hitting open off back leg.

Fed hit a ton of neutral and semi open FH against Dick.

You realize that stance is relative to where you are hitting the ball, not the baseline right?

J

 

[Limpinhitter]

Much better!

Excellent! Only partial inhibition of upper body rotation, topspin. follow through, and recovery of position

 

[mad dog1]

Excellent! Only partial inhibition of upper body rotation, topspin. follow through, and recovery of position

There is no inhibition of body rotation with the neutral stance. The rear leg/foot should come around/forward during the stroke.

 

[Limpinhitter]

There is no inhibition of body rotation with the neutral stance. The rear leg/foot should come around/forward during the stroke.

You can lead a horse to water. . . .

 

[J011yroger]

There is no inhibition of body rotation with the neutral stance. The rear leg/foot should come around/forward during the stroke.

Dude, don't bother. He is an old guy who arms the ball with both feet flat on the ground.

J

 

[mad dog1]

You can lead a horse to water. . . .

If leading you to the water will help...