Not quite, because I am referring to the possibility that certain techniques that some may consider "fundamentals" are actually optional and therefore not actually fundamentals.
Well I have a simple explanation for that:
Just because I am of the belief that it is fine to have a slight hinge in the shoulder (thereby "disconnected" in your words) during the forward swing does not mean that the arm will remain at that angle at contact. Besides, regardless of whether you agree on the loose noodle analogy or not, at contact the arm is not in line with your shoulder anyway so actually it is your riddle that is disconnected logically, really
Plus, I find that if I try to lock my shoulder too much, the tightened arm if anything makes it difficult to feel feedback at impact so I feel even more disconnected to the ball, whereas a forehand that is slung forward has such a buttery pop feeling at contact.
My logic disconnected ... that was good. Your disconnected Gumby arm/shoulder sounds a bit freak show ... do not video it. But the arm hinged forward on it's own at contact is exactly right. Everyone is disconnected at contact unless you are rotating through contact. Game, set, match @Bender. OH!!! more irony ... developing an armless swing only to rotate through contact and being more arm at contact. That hurts!!!
Yeah I don't think there's anything controversial in the bolded.
Too many posts, I kinda forgot your points.
of active arm thrust (midpoint micro burst arm muscling) Edit: for the FH flipper ... I would say at butt cap forward.
He’s suffering himself. He just doesn’t realize it.
It was pretty clear he meant 6 hours during 6 days, 1 hour per day.
How is it moot? Amplitude always will vary, even with tour Pros. Some Pros lag the racket more than others. Some use more open stance than others and just like rec players, some launch higher when serving.
An hour each 5 days a week plus any more I would like to play in the weekend. Please add it up and tell me why it is so constrained compared to what he suggested. You are the oldcomer in a debate where you haven't even understood what he proposed.
Speaking of fewer moving parts in the WTA fh, shouldn't we mention what FH we actually refer to? Or maybe take into account this distinction comes from 5+ years ago. Cause I agree Venus FH may have simpler composition, while evolving WTA FHs like Halep, Svitolina or Wozniacki seem to be rather complex, with combination of high-to-low-to-high swing, torso rotation and ISR/windshield wiper into contact. They also have strong accross component which actually challenges the "Longer window" premise as well.
Disagree. As we established (TM) Federer's commitment to the swings can happen later then Halep's. Which makes timing against heavier incoming balls easier. Meanwhile, all the "complex motion" concerns are resolved by mastering swing consistency, not by timing inconsistent swing. One shouldn't try to control the trajectory of flipping racquet - that's practically impossible. One should perform the swing and be confident where's the optimal contact point. Now meeting the ball at that contact point is actually "timing" (as well as anticipating and approaching/adjusting). And such timing is obviously easier with more compact stroke.
Yeah, we do muscle our shots to some extent, everyone does. But the only way to get a feel for modern strokes is to swing as if you aren't using any, then add some back afterwards. You don't know how tight you are until you have a day where you finally get the "loose noodle" feeling, and find yourself nonchalantly slapping balls for winners left and right. But it seems to me that you've made a lot of progress on this front since we last "explored" the topic, so now it seems we are meeting somewhere in the middle.You lost me a bit where we agree and disagree ... particularly the Limpinhitter reference ... but you just said exactly what I believe we are doing in most full fh and backhand strokes here:
"but it should be timed at around halfway through the forward swing in sync with the natural whipping acceleration to increase the force at impact"
That is exactly what I have been trying to say ... but you said it better. I think:
1) we are not muscling at the start of the swing other than maintaining arm structure (same as saying NOT MUSCLING)
2) you get initial arm momentum from #1 ... from big muscles
3) after momentum, you add a micro burst
4) micro burst over before contact ... you are not muscling at/through contact ... a properly hit smooth stroke involves the arm/racquet mass set on it's way doing the work for you.
Note: I would say we time the micro burst with the end of shoulder rotation ... but that would take some exploration
5) at contact - no muscling
When I hit both FHs and 2hbhs, it's clear as day that I am not arm muscling at the start of my swing (when shoulders start turning forward). It's also clear as day that I am not muscling at contact ... mass and momentum are doing it's thing ... it's why the stroke feels effortless. But also clear ... I would have WEAK TEA mass momentum (RHS) at contact without the well timed micro burst muscling. All of us that hit a 2hbh know this feeling with our left arm/hand. NYTA has described it well... we jump on the momentum and add with our left arm ... also feels effortless because we aren't moving arm from stationary ... arm mass was already in motion. That's all I have been saying ... I think we do the same thing on FHs ... even the ATP flip FHs.
Mid-point micro burst arm muscling ... virtually armless ... but NOT QUITE.
Edit: I think it's possible we do "some" muscling at contact with big topspin strokes ... I have a hard time seeing how we manage the low to high swing path with momentum alone.
Edit2: Thought of another complication ... more of a "guidance vs muscling" thing ... not sure where we draw the line. An example would be my 2hbh. Unless I am consciously thinking about it, my 2hbh follow through will break off quicker than the great left arm extension in front of their body you see with Djokovic and Nadal. But if I think about it, and hit that way in ball machine sessions ... I end up with good left arm extension toward net/target before it wraps and completes follow through. Is that guidance only ... seems like pretty active left arm muscling to me to force the arm to extend past where it wants to take it's natural wrap.
to win at male 5.0 USTA ... it's hard to stop laughing. BUT ... if you are going to be the rec version of 5.0 singles, then the ATP flip FH becomes your logical choice.
... I do not think we hit one fh ever without significant active arm effort muscle ... it just feels that way when we time it the best. I edited the post above ... I think that big adder happens when the butt cap is forward ... right before the racquet flips around. Any noodle arm only whip would be a weak tea whio. I finally figured out that is the point of my left arm firing in 2hbh ... flipping racquet around butt cap (lag).
You've mashed it all together... Re. a player need for better technique - it's ill arguement. Sampras would be better if he hit forehands like, say, Stan. And if he used different stick (I've heard he admitted). But he couldn't at his time. And he was good enough to be on top with what he had. There're plenty of 5.0 good enough to be there with various techniques. But this doesn't mean many of them couldn't be better if they had better technique (better than Halep-like, Agassi-like, whatever). Now could they be better if they started reworking their shots from where they were at the moment? Depends a lot, including on age.When one asks the "what is most simple fh" question like @ChaelAZ 's thread, it probably should be followed with two immediate follow-up questions:
1) what type of balls (topspin, pace, etc) do you play against
2) what type of ball do you hit ... flat, flattish, big topspin, heavy?
Maybe a third ... do you have goals to play big topspin, or against big topspin players in the future that you aren't now?
My answers are about most of us ... rec players 3.0 to 5.0. It's been my opinion for a long time that clearly an ATP flip FH is not required to play 5.0 tennis. If you tell me a player needs a better technique than Keys, Stevens, Halep, Garcia
I would put it this way. Assuming you answered those follow-up questions as:
1) play 4.5 tennis
2) want to hit decent topspin, but not rec version of Nadal.
I would say longer backswings with a loop would be a good choice. Your Garcia, or maybe a Hewitt seems like a good choice, although maybe question how big/high a loop. (fyi .. if totally flat hitter ... why not Mac?). If wanting to go a "little flippy" I would pick Agassi. Also like Tomic if you want to minimize the timing of a drop.
I think most rec players will end up with a more repeatable stroke (FH and BH) with longer, rather than shorter backswing. My preference is long but still barely on hitting side of body. IMO ... Mischa (sp??) mentioned in other thread would be about the worse model for a rec FH that I could come up with.
Point taken, we'll find you another variant.
You just:Agree with 1 for big spin games, but not 2):
"harder timing and all that crap is bullsh#t, you dont control timing of the flip, its impossible"
The added timing challenge of a flip fh is automatic because of more moving parts ... regardless of controlling the extra movement. Mac didn't have a racquet flipping around is hand ... Fed does. Since I'm the only one of the two of us to hit a Mac continental FH for a couple of decades ... you will just have to trust me on this ... frickin easier. Same without loop/drop, lag, and bigger low to high ... easier. Would I go back ... heck no ... even moderate topspin is a hoot.
Agree with 1 for big spin games, but not 2):
"harder timing and all that crap is bullsh#t, you dont control timing of the flip, its impossible"
The added timing challenge of a flip fh is automatic because of more moving parts ... regardless of controlling the extra movement. Mac didn't have a racquet flipping around is hand ... Fed does. Since I'm the only one of the two of us to hit a Mac continental FH for a couple of decades ... you will just have to trust me on this ... frickin easier. Same without loop/drop, lag, and bigger low to high ... easier. Would I go back ... heck no ... even moderate topspin is a hoot.
I would also add that unlike pro tournaments, the surface in a lot of public parks (at least where I play) are very fast with a high bounce as they are basically just cement with some paint on them.harder = takes more time.
It doesn't matter ... I agree that the ATP flip fh is the right choice for someone playing a big spin game. It takes whatever time it takes.
Yes, that time, and you wondering why laying racquet back preliminary was not the good way to get the flip. And I think the way you describe it - "got to pretty decent flip" - highlights the issues they called you for recently. Focusing on minute details and visuals. Getting racquet flip more or less is not the goal. It may be a visual marker. Hitting all key fundamentals is most important. Then the picture will take care of itself.
