Question on WW swing path for Will/FYB/ Other experts

[ShooterMcMarco]

Yep -- that's because Federer isn't relying on the direction his arm is moving to produce the WW motion. Roddick / Djokovic are lifting w/their arms to produce the WW. Federer is pronating -- "turning a door knob" -- to create the WW. Thus, he can pretty much swing straight through the ball.

Is the same door knob action applicable to high forehands too?

 

[GuyClinch]

The current swing paths to hit a tennis ball have been around for years and years whether you use the WW pattern or the more classic Nike Swoosh pattern. Each swing path was important in their era. Most instruction was centered around the classic style in the US because that was most beneficial for the net rushers and doubles when this style of play was popular and successful.

I use several swing paths and neither of them do I say one is better over another. I use several because I have an all-court game and use them for specific purposes.

I don't disagree - i was wondering why biomechanically one path has gained so much favour (the WW) and why the finish is so much lower. I was saying you can create topspin with a traditional swing by starting below the ball and finishing up high..

This makes sense to me...from a physics standpoint. But is it the shoulder rotation that makes the WW even more effective at creating topspin and responsible for the low finish?

 

[Bungalo Bill]

I don't disagree - i was wondering why biomechanically one path has gained so much favour (the WW) and why the finish is so much lower. I was saying you can create topspin with a traditional swing by starting below the ball and finishing up high..

This makes sense to me...from a physics standpoint. But is it the shoulder rotation that makes the WW even more effective at creating topspin and responsible for the low finish?

When you say shoulder rotation are you talking about the angular momentum? Or just the rotation of the arm in the shoulder socket?

The lower finish is created by the motion itself. A windshield wiping motion on your car goes from left to up to right. Same with the WW motion in a tennis swing. That is why it finishes lower.

However, there is also a motion that you can get your finish higher. I see this as a combination of the classic swing with a windshield wiping element to it.

I am not a fan of the elbow pointing to the opponent and the hand by the ear finish. I have seen too many short swings from this. However, if taught right it can work.

The forward portion and the momentum created should help dicate the finish one has. Focus should be on ball contact and not finish. If your swing path dicates a WW type finish, then it should come as a result of what you do beforehand.

I hope I am making sense here.

 

[GuyClinch]

When you say shoulder rotation are you talking about the angular momentum? Or just the rotation of the arm in the shoulder socket?

The rotation in the socket..

The lower finish is created by the motion itself. A windshield wiping motion on your car goes from left to up to right. Same with the WW motion in a tennis swing. That is why it finishes lower.

However, there is also a motion that you can get your finish higher. I see this as a combination of the classic swing with a windshield wiping element to it.

Yeah. Maybe I should work on this...

I am not a fan of the elbow pointing to the opponent and the hand by the ear finish. I have seen too many short swings from this. However, if taught right it can work.

Really? Man you tennis pros need to get together and decide on things. The guys I am working with are very big on this. They stress having a repeatable swing every time..

The forward portion and the momentum created should help dicate the finish one has. Focus should be on ball contact and not finish. If your swing path dicates a WW type finish, then it should come as a result of what you do beforehand.

I hope I am making sense here.

Yeah this makes total sense - of course. That's why I was wondering what happens with the finish like my pro wants.. vs what pros do. Though Clijsters will finish like how my pro wants..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AicCkXhp-c0

Its this exact finish I am talking about... This is a good paced ball with some top coming of the racquet I imagine..

 

[Power Player]

I hit with a wiper finish. I also use a horizontal swing path. I know this because when I try to go too vertical, I mishit.

I think that Verdasco's arm is more straight though then mine. I need to get video of myself so bad!

 

[Bungalo Bill]

The rotation in the socket..



Yeah. Maybe I should work on this...



Really? Man you tennis pros need to get together and decide on things. The guys I am working with are very big on this. They stress having a repeatable swing every time..



Yeah this makes total sense - of course. That's why I was wondering what happens with the finish like my pro wants.. vs what pros do. Though Clijsters will finish like how my pro wants..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AicCkXhp-c0

Its this exact finish I am talking about... This is a good paced ball with some top coming of the racquet I imagine..

Yes, I understand. Just make sure you still go through the ball and then finish. The reason I say I am not a fan of it is because how it is intepreted by player or coach.

You can have a pro explain it right with the student then going out and doing something else. Or you can have a pro misinterpret and not know the subtlies of what he should be looking for in case he needs to correct or prevent something.

The other phrase used for this is "butt cap pointing toward the opponent" or "wrap aroiund the neck."

For my stroke, I don't quite come over so far like Clisters.

And remember, a finish is a finish. Ultimately it is the quality of the contact with the ball that is most important.

 

[user92626]

In term of WW and whatnot, does anyone know what Verdasco uses? His FH is just too monsterous!

To me the easiest and simplest to copy is Fed's FH. It looks very traditional and NOT extreme in pace and spin (but I'm sure his losing opponents will beg to differ).

 

[Power Player]

Verdasco uses a WW straight arm. Like Federer's but I am pretty sure his grip is SW or Western.

 

[NamRanger]

In term of WW and whatnot, does anyone know what Verdasco uses? His FH is just too monsterous!

To me the easiest and simplest to copy is Fed's FH. It looks very traditional and NOT extreme in pace and spin (but I'm sure his losing opponents will beg to differ).

Verdasco has roughly the same swing and grip as Nadal does (talking about the conventional follow through here).



Federer is not an easy forehand to copy, trust me.

 

[user92626]

Federer is not an easy forehand to copy, trust me.

Frankly I can't find any pro who demonstrates an easier FH. Nadal has a weird elbow tuck in takeback and an extreme swing path. Verdasco is gonna influence me to overhit, Murry looks tensed and pushing. Tsonga and Djokovic have a unique swing path that's only suitable for their western grip. The rest don't have enough youtube clips.

 

[Knightmace]

Yes -- within a week or two. However, while the video will explain what Federer does when he hits a forehand we won't "teach" it, per se. I strongly recommend you learn the Roddick / Djokovic version of the WW. It is way, way, way, way easier to learn. You can have a world-class forehand w/that technique. Hitting w/a straight arm and pronating prior to and through contact is not a requirement for a great forehand. And you're probably doing yourself a disservice if you work on that stuff at the expense of improving your footwork, perfecting your strategy, etc.

So then explain something to me will, if that is way way easier why do Federer Nadal and Verdasco do it and they have awesome forehands? What's the difference?

 

[wihamilton]

So then explain something to me will, if that is way way easier why do Federer Nadal and Verdasco do it and they have awesome forehands? What's the difference?

Why do Federer, Nadal and Verdasco use a technique that's more difficult to execute?

The advantage of pronating is that it separates the vertical motion of the racket from the direction your are is swinging with your arm. Thus, the trade off between spin and power is avoided because the direction the arm is swinging doesn't control both these variables (the are DOES control both in the "other" type of WW).

What makes this technique difficult is timing. It's hard to pronate extremely fast and hit the ball in the middle of the strings. Federer -- as great as his forehand is -- probably shanks more balls than any other top pro.

Bottom line is that this technique is really only worth trying if you are already very, very good. There are many other technical adjustments that will produce great returns if you focus on them instead, and they are the proverbial "lower-hanging fruit."

 

[Knightmace]

thanks for the post will

 

[GuyClinch]

The advantage of pronating is that it separates the vertical motion of the racket from the direction your are is swinging with your arm. Thus, the trade off between spin and power is avoided because the direction the arm is swinging doesn't control both these variables (the are DOES control both in the "other" type of WW).

Interesting so reading this and Bill's commments..

Okay in a nutshell then - only a few players use their lower arm and wrist to aid their WW motion with a door nob turning type of motion..

But all the other players rotate their entire arm (from the shoulder) as if you were making a waving motion. Though some like Nadal and Verdasco do both..

I hope so because this makes sense to me.

Pete

 

[wihamilton]

Interesting so reading this and Bill's commments..

Okay in a nutshell then - only a few players use their lower arm and wrist to aid their WW motion with a door nob turning type of motion..

But all the other players rotate their entire arm (from the shoulder) as if you were making a waving motion. Though some like Nadal and Verdasco do both..

I hope so because this makes sense to me.

Pete

Ya that's a pretty good characterization.

 

[Nikae]

Excellent stuff here. What type of forehand (1. or 2.) would Safin be?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYW7DaiX6hk