The double bend forehand

[trenzterra]

Is it true that the double bend forehand has less power than a straight arm?

I used to hit a straight arm most of the time, and my shots landed in rather deep. Then recently my footwork got a little lazy and naturally somehow my straight arm became more bent.

However, when hitting with a bent arm, I find myself unable to push my weight into the stroke. No matter how hard I try, the ball usually finds the service line rather than the baseline. I didn't realise my straight arm was become bent btw. Only when I realised it and started using back my straight arm stroke could I feel the control and power that I regained. But a problem with the straight arm stroke is that I must be far more meticulous with my footwork.

So which should I stick with?

 

[wihamilton]

You should be meticulous with your footwork regardless of how you're hitting your forehand. Footwork = key to winning tennis.

I'd go w/the double bend. It's more stable / requires less physical strength so it's an easier configuration to learn. Advantages of one vs. the other aren't really appreciable until you reach high levels of play.

 

[trenzterra]

Hmm, footwork aside, I am still finding that I am able to generate a larger moment with a straight arm. Strangely, I find myself arming the ball w/ a double-bend.

Should I re-learn my forehand all over again to incorporate a double bend or just stick with my straight arm? I find it easier to change directions with a straight arm too.

 

[aimr75]

sounds like you prefer the straight arm.. just up your footwork and keep it.. i've tried hitting with a double bend for the reasons given by wihamilton above, but whenever i try it, my arm straightens out anyway.. i guess it takes a certain motion that im not accustomed to

 

[longnt80]

Hmm, footwork aside, I am still finding that I am able to generate a larger moment with a straight arm. Strangely, I find myself arming the ball w/ a double-bend.

Should I re-learn my forehand all over again to incorporate a double bend or just stick with my straight arm? I find it easier to change directions with a straight arm too.

When your footwwork is not active, you will find yourself arming the ball, straight arm or not.

 

[trenzterra]

Hmm, but what's the swing path for a DB forehand? This is because I find that when I hit through the ball I am able to push it deeper. But I find it hard to hit through with a double bend without extending fully?

 

[5263]

the biggest FHs in the game are double bend.

 

[Power Player]

Double bend works great for me. What I notice is that when I get my whole body into the shot and make contact, the power level is bliss.

I do not hit through the ball. I hit across it on both wings.

 

[trenzterra]

Hmm what do you mean by hitting across??

 

[5263]

Hmm what do you mean by hitting across??

It is the MTM way of hitting topspin, as you bring the racket up for TS, you also bring it across the contact point with acceleration.

 

[teachestennis]

Hmm, but what's the swing path for a DB forehand? This is because I find that when I hit through the ball I am able to push it deeper. But I find it hard to hit through with a double bend without extending fully?

Are you attacking the FH shot with a closed racket face, as if you were going to try and slice off the top half the ball, so to speak. I also recommend trying to hit the ball on the strings nearer the trailing edge, meaning below the sweet spot, given the pros hit their best shots from there. This also stabilizes the arm and adds power given MTM teaches the two sources of power in the racket are the butt and the edge. When I need more power, I either add more edge by closing the racket face more and torque the shot by pulling the butt quickly inward in an immediate change of direction and whips across the ball, shaping the shot as you accelerate to the finish. Change of direction of the force is why pros can be seen with the butt pointing as they approach the ball to find it, then they quickly pull inward with the bending of the arm going up and across, sort of like form 5 o clock to 11 o clock in my case, or whatever works best for you.

Fed hits with a straight elbow arm hitting structure where he finds the ball with an extended arm, but he does not push through the target line as much as he then wipes across by pulling his hand across from right to left.

I hope this is not too technical, but most on here like it more technical, it seems, in hopes of understanding it.

 

[Power Player]

Yeah..the swing path for Fed's is just like TT said. I have a similar swing path even with a more bent arm.

 

[trenzterra]

Yes, I know that Fed does the WW-style forehand as seems to be described, but I want to get my basics right before incorporating this style into my forehand. I tried it before and while it did add more spin the ball spun rather high.

Also, I did some shadow swings in the mirror and found that my arm isn't really completely straight. However, it straightens out upon impact. How would you classify such a forehand then?

From what I gather, Fed, Nadal and Verdasco are the only three top pros using a straight arm forehand. However, I checked out videos of pros using a supposedly DB forehand but sometimes they hit straight? Eg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5l6NiQ1Upg

Hmm with regards to the racquet face, mine isn't really that closed anymore. I'm using around an Eastern grip compared to a SW grip in the past.

Also what's MTM?

 

[Grizvok]

Yes, I know that Fed does the WW-style forehand as seems to be described, but I want to get my basics right before incorporating this style into my forehand. I tried it before and while it did add more spin the ball spun rather high.

Also, I did some shadow swings in the mirror and found that my arm isn't really completely straight. However, it straightens out upon impact. How would you classify such a forehand then?

From what I gather, Fed, Nadal and Verdasco are the only three top pros using a straight arm forehand. However, I checked out videos of pros using a supposedly DB forehand but sometimes they hit straight? Eg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5l6NiQ1Upg

Hmm with regards to the racquet face, mine isn't really that closed anymore. I'm using around an Eastern grip compared to a SW grip in the past.

Also what's MTM?

I believe a forehand is classified as either "double bend" or "straight armed" by what the arm is doing at the exact point of contact.

 

[trenzterra]

Also, one thing I want to clarify, do you actually use the wrist to whip into the shot? Do you purposely turn your wrist back in order to show the butt cap more and pronate it so that the racquet face appears more closed or are they just a consequence of torso rotation and grip?

 

[Grizvok]

Also, one thing I want to clarify, do you actually use the wrist to whip into the shot? Do you purposely turn your wrist back in order to show the butt cap more and pronate it so that the racquet face appears more closed or are they just a consequence of torso rotation and grip?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. The wrist should not be consciously used in the forehand, what you want is to pronate with the forearm. Make sure to keep your wrist nice and relaxed throughout the entire motion.

 

[trenzterra]

So the wrist will naturally lean forward in the course of torso rotation, is that it?

So the only conscious thing to do is to close the racket face completely?

 

[teachestennis]

So the wrist will naturally lean forward in the course of torso rotation, is that it?

So the only conscious thing to do is to close the racket face completely?

Grizvok is exactly right. Don't do it conciously, let it happen. Here is a video that will explain by Oscar Wegner doing a demo with a top coach at Long Boat Key in Florida.

If you are pushing out after contact, that is likely very bad. That will cause the racket head to decelerate. You are correct in that only three pros use the straight arm elbow hitting structure and Fed does not do it all the time. Jeff Counts, of www.hi-techtennis.com, who also teaches with MTM or Modern Tennis Methodology (since you asked...its a simplistic natural biomechanically efficient way to learn to play developed by Oscar Wegner), did three groundbreaking articles on tennisplayer.net and then Yandell picked up the ball and did a video series which I transcribed word for word as he made some great points.

The double bend is used by most pros because you have to be an expert at "finding" the ball in the correct contact point to use it. Think about it this way, if you put your arm straight out from you, what is the chance that you will be able to "find" the ball with your body the exact same distance from the ball every time, which you must do in order to have your arm extended straight every time. Which is easier, to move your hand by bending of the arm and only moving a little bit of mass, or jump way up in the air and fall back with a "stiff arm" which is what Nadal, Verdasco and Federer all do. As Yandell pointed out, it takes more body rotation. I hit pretty well with a straight arm as long as I don't go forward; I often have to drop step off the ball, as pros often do. The key is not to let the hand go forward once you contact the ball, let the racket whip across the ball and close hitting up and across. Fed may be viewed as going from 3 oclock and then his hand wipes every number on the clock as he finishes at 9 oclock if you want a visual.

You must realize that the three, Fed, Rafa, and Verdo all pull their hands inward across the ball and they don't consciously push through the target line. I think Jeff Counts is correct it's kind of like a reverse lever, a stiff arm lever, such as when you see a 180 pound wide receiver stiff arm a 300 pound lineman but there is little margin for error when you hit across the ball with a straight elbow hitting arm structure.

http://www.tennisonevideonetwork.com/view_video.php?viewkey=27ad868d138f2b4fdd6f

I hope this video helps.

 

[trenzterra]

Thanks a lot. Watched the video and had a rather good idea of it.

My motion is such that I am pushing my arm out right before contact, and not after contact. I thought this sudden jerk would increase racquet head speed? maybe I'm wrong, heh.

Hmm I think instinctively, we all tend to hit double bend when the ball is too close to the body? Could my problem of hitting short balls result from the fact that with my lazy footwork I am hitting balls not at the ideal contact point in front of my body but rather at my side, where the racquet acceleration is not ideal?

 

[teachestennis]

Thanks a lot. Watched the video and had a rather good idea of it.

My motion is such that I am pushing my arm out right before contact, and not after contact. I thought this sudden jerk would increase racquet head speed? maybe I'm wrong, heh.

Hmm I think instinctively, we all tend to hit double bend when the ball is too close to the body? Could my problem of hitting short balls result from the fact that with my lazy footwork I am hitting balls not at the ideal contact point in front of my body but rather at my side, where the racquet acceleration is not ideal?

Here is Oscar in one of his weekly tennis tips, free to anyone who signs up for them at www.tennisteacher.com. This deals with what Federer is doing versus the claim of a coach who claims that Federer is pushing out with his hand.


Oscar: You are right on the ball, so to speak, on the role of the hand and the roll. What I strongly disagree, although most players do it, is that it is necessary "to push the racquet up and AWAY from the body". As Modern Tennis develops and further studies are done at super-slow motion analysis of the contact of attacking shots, not the defensive ones, especially in Roger Federer's repertoire, you'll start finding that he bends the arm forcefully, bringing the hand across, from a point just prior to the contact. When well anchored for the shot, the body also pulls across. This would seem, as you point in your article, off-line, but it is compensated by the racquet head dragging behind the hand. These two actions, in terms of the physical universe forces, are much more efficient, more like Martial Arts (you can see the parallels I draw between tennis and Martial Arts in my latest book). In a test done at MIT in 2005, filmed at 1,000 frames per second, I was able to move the ball across (sideways and slightly upwards) close to 1/4 inch within my racquet strings while still imparting topspin and hitting the ball perfectly in the same direction it came in.

Later in the tip the coach debates Oscar and claims:

Other Coach: If I look at the all of the videos of Federer I always see the same thing and that is a push out from the body through contact. The elbow always finishes up and away through the hit. If I stop the video on contact and then move to the next frame I always see a push out from the body rather than a pull in - without exception. If he were pulling in we would see the elbow quickly compress into a position low on the right ribcage through contact. This is a move that is classic for an underspin forehand. On the other hand, the forearm often produces a rotation which could be described as a pulling in feel. This lets the racquet apply the proper spin to the ball to control contact.

Oscar's reply: , thank you for your answer. I too looked at TennisOne videos of Roger Federer, and seen, as you say, the elbow coming out away from the body as well. But if you observe the hand, it is coming in a higher ratio than the elbow going out. This is achieved by contraction of the biceps, and this contraction actually connects the body weight to the impact, while in your model, there is a separation, and therefore a disconnection.

With the large ball you have in your article, I could show you the Bruce Lee theory of power, and most likely propel that ball over the net and into the opposite fence.

And also, out of physics, force equals mass times acceleration. Any lessening of the weight connected with the impact would mean less ball speed, while the opposite, connection of more body weight would mean more ball speed.

Everyone is amazed at how much acceleration Federer gets and how much ball speed he generates with apparently lesser effort, especially on his lethal forehand side. Here is the answer, biceps contraction, which, regardless of the elbow going out, is in essence a shortening of the radius. And this starts occurring just prior to the impact.

You can go to an experimental page I made http://www.tennisteacher.com/exp.htm with a movie from TennisOne, and measure Federer's head movement and hand movement against the background. You'll see that while the body is still moving to the right before and after the impact, the hand is coming across his body so severely that it is seen doing so against the background. Take the frame prior to the impact and his hand is below the P of PACIFIC LIFE, and the forehead below the F. In the next frame his forehead is almost below the I, and the hand is clearly below the A. The easy math is that the distance between the hand and the body has been reduced from P to F to A to I, a dramatic shortening.

You can verify this happening at higher ratios of frames per second, if you have access to them. And by the way, this has been at the roots of my coaching system for decades, and the reason for the success of those who follow these teachings, even if they are not too clear of the importance of this aspect (Spain, Russians, South Americans). Federer has taken this to the next level, and that is very surprising for the tennis world at large who were never told of this fact.

Watch the video link in this tip and watch Fed's head move to the right while his hand moves to the left. Try this on the court and you will hit big.

 

[NamRanger]

Look, there are 3 guys currently on the tour who hit the mythical straight arm forehand. Two of them are the two best players in the history of the sport, and the other guy is as strong as a bull and extremely talented.



Obviously we all know what the choice should be.

 

[aimr75]

The double bend is used by most pros because you have to be an expert at "finding" the ball in the correct contact point to use it. Think about it this way, if you put your arm straight out from you, what is the chance that you will be able to "find" the ball with your body the exact same distance from the ball every time, which you must do in order to have your arm extended straight every time. Which is easier, to move your hand by bending of the arm and only moving a little bit of mass, or jump way up in the air and fall back with a "stiff arm" which is what Nadal, Verdasco and Federer all do.

Straight arm hitters like Federer dont always hit with a completely straight arm, they make adjustments with the elbow if required

 

[chico9166]

Straight arm hitters like Federer dont always hit with a completely straight arm, they make adjustments with the elbow if required

I think his point Aim, is that "finding the ball" which is just another term for establishing the proper swing path alignment and contact point , is much easier when the elbow is "slotted" or "drawn in" which occurs with the double bend. With the straight arm, the elbow kind of floats, and is much further away from the body, which can really be problematic for the layman.

 

[sh@de]

You should be meticulous with your footwork regardless of how you're hitting your forehand. Footwork = key to winning tennis.

I'd go w/the double bend. It's more stable / requires less physical strength so it's an easier configuration to learn. Advantages of one vs. the other aren't really appreciable until you reach high levels of play.

A question for you Will. I've just realized my forehand is kinda... weird. It's a hybrid between a straight arm and a double bend, i.e. the double bend is minute, yet my arm isn't straight. Does that mean my forehand is more similar to the double bend, or the straight arm? And also, is that normal?

 

[Grizvok]

A question for you Will. I've just realized my forehand is kinda... weird. It's a hybrid between a straight arm and a double bend, i.e. the double bend is minute, yet my arm isn't straight. Does that mean my forehand is more similar to the double bend, or the straight arm? And also, is that normal?

If there is any bend in your elbow, it's a double bend.

 

[sh@de]

If there is any bend in your elbow, it's a double bend.

But the bend is sooo slight. It's so slight... it might as well not exist. The things is, I can hit with a double bend or a fully straight arm, and this weird forehand I have right now actually feels more like my straight arm one, except... it has a bend!

 

[trenzterra]

Hello guys, got the opportunity to hit the courts today.

I realise that all the while I don't really pay attention to the type of forehand I wield, and I think that perhaps it doesn't really matter? I mean I believe Federer doesn't consciously tell himself that he needs to hit straight or what.

One thing that really helped though, was the closing of racquet face on low balls. I was able to hit them really deep. But the problem I'm having is with waist height balls. I can't really get the groove on it after about two hours of rallying. At the end of it, I was hitting a little harder, but isn't that too long for a warm up? It just mysteriously disappears the next time I hit the court again.

There were days about few months ago where I was really in the zone and could hit deep balls line to line. Now, I feel that I'm nothing more than a pusher. Even on my first serve when the opponent returns a sitter I'm unable to kill it. Argh.

How do you guys figure out the ideal contact point? I think when I hit just a wee bit closer to my body it doesn't feel right. Yet when I hit too far in front, I tend to overhit. I must say that my ball judgement isn't that good, even if I look at the ball all the way.

 

[5263]

Hello guys, got the opportunity to hit the courts today.

I realise that all the while I don't really pay attention to the type of forehand I wield, and I think that perhaps it doesn't really matter? I mean I believe Federer doesn't consciously tell himself that he needs to hit straight or what.

One thing that really helped though, was the closing of racquet face on low balls. I was able to hit them really deep. But the problem I'm having is with waist height balls. I can't really get the groove on it after about two hours of rallying. At the end of it, I was hitting a little harder, but isn't that too long for a warm up? It just mysteriously disappears the next time I hit the court again.

There were days about few months ago where I was really in the zone and could hit deep balls line to line. Now, I feel that I'm nothing more than a pusher. Even on my first serve when the opponent returns a sitter I'm unable to kill it. Argh.

How do you guys figure out the ideal contact point? I think when I hit just a wee bit closer to my body it doesn't feel right. Yet when I hit too far in front, I tend to overhit. I must say that my ball judgement isn't that good, even if I look at the ball all the way.

I think his point Aim, is that "finding the ball" which is just another term for establishing the proper swing path alignment and contact point , is much easier when the elbow is "slotted" or "drawn in" which occurs with the double bend. With the straight arm, the elbow kind of floats, and is much further away from the body, which can really be problematic for the layman.-- great post by chico

this and your points above, remind us of why we need to find the ball (or gain alignment) then accel up and ACROSS the ball. Acceleration gives controllable power and hitting across the ball can mitigate much of racket face error that can creep in. All this together allows you to be very aggressive in striking the ball.

 

[Power Player]

Watch Roddick. He is hitting so well right now. He hits across the ball on both wings and his racquet speed is ridiculous. It looks like he is playing ping pong, and his WW is real easy to see.

 

[aimr75]

I think his point Aim, is that "finding the ball" which is just another term for establishing the proper swing path alignment and contact point , is much easier when the elbow is "slotted" or "drawn in" which occurs with the double bend. With the straight arm, the elbow kind of floats, and is much further away from the body, which can really be problematic for the layman.

right, i see what youre saying..

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Just saw this post.

Anyone can hit either way if they want. The key is understanding the straight arm so you dont screw yourself up.

COMMON ELEMENTS
1. Racquet preparation and racquet drop are nearly indentical with the exception of what the player is trying to do, ball height, style, etc...

2. In the followthrough after contact, the arm bends or stays bent and does its thing for the finish.

3. In both cases the arm is still reasonably relaxed and elastic.

This leaves one area. The forward portion of the swing and the slight preparation beforehand.

STRAIGHT ARM
In the forward portion of the swing, the arm works in conjunction with the shoulder turn and not seperate from it. Therefore, the elbow is NOT dangling away from the body. It is gliding forward with the body.

The arm straightens out at the trough of the down swing and remains in the position through contact. It simply goes along for the ride with your shoulder rotation.

The braking mechanism of the non-dominant arm allows for arm acceleration.

The other thng is the elbow is slightly farther away from the side of the body. However, we are not talking about a gate like swing also with the elbow way out. We have to keep that in perspective.

BEND FOREHAND
As explained above, the preparation and the followthrough are virtually the same.

When the racquet is brought forward in the bend forehand, it shapes differently as the shoulders rotate almost independently and uses the shoulder joint to allow the elbow to move forward in an independent fashion with the shoulder rotation.

However, if all things were equal it can be argued that the straight will produce more power, in reality this depends on many other factors. Such as timing, weight transfer, energy transfer into the ball, balance, swing speed, etc...

SUMMARY
The key factor in both types of swing is in how you bring the racquet forward. Do you want to bring it with the elbow leading? Or do you want to bring it forward with the elbow fixed and gliding along with the shoulder rotation.

Shoulder rotation will be common in both.

Take a look and run the controller back and forth for study.

My position is, you can teach both forehands safely because Federer really isn't doing anything weird. That is of course until you get into his extraordinary professional shots. Then we have to save that for a different discussion on a different day. This serves as a basic analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmhvKafCYsk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-D32RwsD_w

 

[trenzterra]

Thank you BB for your insights!

One question though, does the racquet take-back affect the acceleration on the ball? What take back works best for giving pace on a ball?

 

[NamRanger]

Just saw this post.

Anyone can hit either way if they want. The key is understanding the straight arm so you dont screw yourself up.

COMMON ELEMENTS
1. Racquet preparation and racquet drop are nearly indentical with the exception of what the player is trying to do, ball height, style, etc...

2. In the followthrough after contact, the arm bends or stays bent and does its thing for the finish.

3. In both cases the arm is still reasonably relaxed and elastic.

This leaves one area. The forward portion of the swing and the slight preparation beforehand.

STRAIGHT ARM
In the forward portion of the swing, the arm works in conjunction with the shoulder turn and not seperate from it. Therefore, the elbow is NOT dangling away from the body. It is gliding forward with the body.

The arm straightens out at the trough of the down swing and remains in the position through contact. It simply goes along for the ride with your shoulder rotation.

The braking mechanism of the non-dominant arm allows for arm acceleration.

The other thng is the elbow is slightly farther away from the side of the body. However, we are not talking about a gate like swing also with the elbow way out. We have to keep that in perspective.

BEND FOREHAND
As explained above, the preparation and the followthrough are virtually the same.

When the racquet is brought forward in the bend forehand, it shapes differently as the shoulders rotate almost independently and uses the shoulder joint to allow the elbow to move forward in an independent fashion with the shoulder rotation.

All though if all things were eqaul it can be argued that the straight will produce more power, in reality this depends on many other factors. Such as timing, weight transfer, energy transfer into the ball, balance, swing speed, etc...

SUMMARY
The key factor in both types of swing is in how you bring the racquet forward. Do you want to bring it with the elbow leading? Or do you want to bring it forward with the elbow fixed and gliding along with the shoulder rotation.

Shoulder rotation will be common in both.

Take a look and run the controller back and forth for study.

My position is, you can teach both forehands safely because Federer really isn't doing anything weird. That is of course until you get into his extraordinary professional shots.

Then we have to save that for a different discussion on a different day. This serves as a basic analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmhvKafCYsk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-D32RwsD_w

Well I wouldn't say you can teach both forehands "safely" without some precaution. For one, the straight arm type forehands put a significant amount of stress on the elbow and shoulder. Not exactly a shot I would be teaching a young kid IMO.



However, there are pros and cons to everything.

 

[sh@de]

Well I wouldn't say you can teach both forehands "safely" without some precaution. For one, the straight arm type forehands put a significant amount of stress on the elbow and shoulder. Not exactly a shot I would be teaching a young kid IMO.



However, there are pros and cons to everything.

Where does that stress go to if you're hitting a double bend forehand then?

 

[teachestennis]

Just when I think I'm out; I get dragged back in....to paraphrase Pacino in The Godfather III. Six lessons rained out in St. Louis. It's pouring all day, ugh! So here goes. I don't know that the straight elbow arm hitting structure causes more stress. I have read Jeff Counts' three groundbreaking articles on tennisplayer.net and I'm the kind of tennis nerd that transcribes word for word videos onto paper (I transcribed Braden's videos for years, put them in plastic or laminated tham, laid them in the bottom of my basket of ball to ensure I would teach exactly like he did).

I still do the same with videos I see today so I can share accurately what is represented given I work with coaches in promoting MTM at the grassroots, plus to be on this forum, with BB around, you have to know your facts before you speak and he's still trying to figure out if I really know as much as I do about modern tennis and teaching in general or if I am just an Oscar clone. I read Yandell's stuff voraciously and find his recent stuff excellent. Johnny Yandell picks up the mantle from Jeff Counts and does a video analysis wondering should we be teaching it, and I see many of you have read it because I hear his facts in your posts. He notes Phillipousis was the first to use it and Scrichaphan also hits with it. Here is Yandell in 2009 in his own words transcribed from video (not the complete post, just the last 3/4:

Yandell: "When players hit with the arm straight, they make contact with the shoulders basically parallel to the net or sometimes rotated even further. This makes sense and you can try modeling it yourself. It’s difficult or impossible to reach that extreme contact point typical of this structure unless the shoulders rotate at least 90 degrees and are roughly parallel to the net. The contact point is roughly in the middle of the shoulder rotation. The shoulders rotate about 90 degrees to reach the hit, and then they rotate about another 90 degrees through the end of the stroke. So now we have our first clue as far as applying the straight arm to your own game. The question to ask is whether the average player is really capable of rotating in the same extreme fashion. Without this massive rotation, there is not another way to create that extreme contact point. And the more total motion, the more difficult it is to time and control precisely, ball after ball. In addition, it also takes more energy. Can you really rotate this way as part of your normal stroke on a routine basis?

This brings us to stance. Pro players hit the vast majority of all balls with some version of an open stance. This can be related to grip, but also to ball height. The ball is so high and so heavy, that stepping in with a neutral stance is very difficult, instead the players are literally exploding up into the air to control the contact height and keep the ball in their strike zones. Open stances are ideally suited for the extreme torso rotation
associated with straight arm Fhs. You can see the players have problems with lower balls when they are forced to step in. Watch, how to continue the torso rotation, the front foot has to twist up and off the court, and go to the other side of the body so the player can rotate through the shot. Usually the rotation is somewhat reduced in these cases and the shots are not as phenomenally explosive as when they can rotate more fully in the air.

Players with DB FHs can also use extreme body rotation. Djokovic does, as well as Roddick, and virtually all the other top players at least at certain times. But, there is more flexibility with the DB structure. It may happen rarely in the pro game, but with the DB they can use neutral stances and less extreme rotation and still make their natural contact point, something that is less natural and more awkward with the straighter arm and the more extreme rotation. Typically this is more on a lower slower ball with the contact height somewhere between the waist and mid chest, the ball height that is most common in club play. The total forward rotation in this case is more like 90 degrees, with the shoulders ending roughly parallel to the net instead of continuing to rotate through. Note also at the contact point, the shoulders are still somewhere in the middle of this rotational pattern, typically at an angle of about 45 to 60 degrees. The DB structure is very flexible here. You can use it to hit a perfect square stance FH drive, if the ball is higher, you can also go open, and even increase the amount of torso rotation, but it’s more of an option than a necessity. It’s fun to try the S Elbow position and rotate massively through the forward swing. Make sure you are capable of really executing the elements if you decide to try it and they apply to your game and your level." end of Yandell's video.

I have heard Spain is thinking about teaching this to their players and I'm not sure it's a wise idea. Oscar Wegner was at Sanchez Casal a while back when he attended the Nadal Federer Mallorca match on the hybrid grass/clay court and then was a guest of Tony Roche in Hamburg when Roche was coaching Federer. Oscar, meeting with many of his old Spanish compatriots, noted a fascination with the straight arm structure due to Nadal and Verdasco hitting with hit. Even I can hit one pretty well as long as I do not go forward and do my usual right to left or drop step footwork. When I mentioned Yandell is advocating it for trying it out at lower levels, Oscar pointed out it's very difficult to get the body mass positioned the exact radius of the arm the same distance every time behind the ball. That is why the bending of the arm allows very slight adjustments or a lot of latitude in "finding the ball" and firing across it from a zone of contact (maybe 6 to 18 inches) in front of you.

He told me to think of it this way. It's easier to move a small mass (your hand by bending of the arm) than it is to get your entire body mass into the air the exact distance from the ball. Though I have taught the straight elbow arm with some success, I almost never ask my students to try it (I try to never tell my students what to do) until they are 4.5 or above and then I let them know that Fed does not do it all the time, but some of the time, and that Nadal and Verdasco have great succcesss also with it with very different grips than Fed, and then I observe the results. Everyone will at one time likely accidently hit one when you reach out to find the ball. I just make sure I go any direction but forward when I do it. My inside out FH with a straight elbow arm hitting structure is a killer even at my age as I push the left side of the invisible wall in front of me inward and then I pull my hand along that now diagonal wall dragging the racket head behind with severe sidespin. I hope this explains why the double bend is the safe and preferred way to start with and why it is the standard for nearly all pros except the few who have developed their timing and their "finding the ball" skills to the highest levels. My opinion.

 

[Lotto]

the biggest FHs in the game are double bend.

Not all of them........Verdasco.....Nadal......Federer??? Federer's is probably the greatest of all time but to be fair he varies his hitting arm position from straight to double bend to anywhere in between as John Yandell has shown us.

 

[NamRanger]

Where does that stress go to if you're hitting a double bend forehand then?

There's just alot less stress on the elbow and shoulder. Think of it this way. The arm acts as a lever that moves the racquet right? Well if you extend that lever, you have to apply more force to move it correct? Kind of simplifying it, but it's not exactly a forehand I would try and hit if I was out of shape or not strong.

 

[sh@de]

There's just alot less stress on the elbow and shoulder. Think of it this way. The arm acts as a lever that moves the racquet right? Well if you extend that lever, you have to apply more force to move it correct? Kind of simplifying it, but it's not exactly a forehand I would try and hit if I was out of shape or not strong.

Ok I see. Thanks.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Thank you BB for your insights!

One question though, does the racquet take-back affect the acceleration on the ball? What take back works best for giving pace on a ball?

It depends. Acceleration of the racquet can be created effortlessly or through your own effort (using muscle).

What you want is to distribute how you accelerate the racquet effortlessly more than through effort. The way you take the racquet back can help you with that.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Well I wouldn't say you can teach both forehands "safely" without some precaution. For one, the straight arm type forehands put a significant amount of stress on the elbow and shoulder. Not exactly a shot I would be teaching a young kid IMO.[

No it does not. I provided the word "safely" indicating you do have precautions. The straight arm forehand is not the same forehand as the "gate-like" forehand.

First, this forehand now days is used with a more Western grip. Therefore, your contact point with the ball is further in front. In the past, gate-like swings were arm only with incomplete rotaton. Further, they were usually performed with Eastern or Continental grips.

If a player used a grip that allows him to hit ou in front more, keeps the arm elastic as describe or implies in my post above, makes contact with the ball in front of the body plane, the can use momentum and the shoulder area to hit through the ball with little stress on the arm. This is how the double-bend is setup as well.

Also, the double bend does not eliminate risk of injury for a player. If dot improperly, it can also lead to injury.

So, yes, I can say the straight arm forehand can be taught SAFELY.

However, there are pros and cons to everything.

I thought that was pretty much assumed. I didnt think I needed to spell everything out.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

There's just alot less stress on the elbow and shoulder. Think of it this way. The arm acts as a lever that moves the racquet right? Well if you extend that lever, you have to apply more force to move it correct? Kind of simplifying it, but it's not exactly a forehand I would try and hit if I was out of shape or not strong.

This is not true. You are using old thinking for a current method you don't understand.

Both the double bend and the current straight arm technique can lead to injury if you do not perform it correctly.

The staight arm that I am describing and provided analysis and film, if taught properly, is and can be used safely.

Safely means that the player is taught how to hit the ball with a straight arm with little stress. You can't eliminate stress in either. This teaching includes teaching a player to shape their arm thoughout the entire preparation, contact, and followthough motion and using the natural ebb and flow of the body.

 

[trenzterra]

Hit the courts again today. I notice that when I close my racquet face prior to contact, my follow-through on about hip-high balls always go at around above my head. What gives?

Other than that though, this follow-through has given me some depth on my forehand, but I believe that's not the proper follow-through?

 

[teachestennis]

Hit the courts again today. I notice that when I close my racquet face prior to contact, my follow-through on about hip-high balls always go at around above my head. What gives?

Other than that though, this follow-through has given me some depth on my forehand, but I believe that's not the proper follow-through?[/QUOTE

Without seeing you, this is hard to suggest a fix. Are your shoulders turned with the racket near the front until the ball bounces or is very close to you when you then start to blast across it right to left? Try ensuring that your butt of the racket is pointing at where you want the ball to go regardless of your finish. If I know that you are rotating from right to left on your forehand while hitting up and across the ball, the arm forcefully bends to where the butt points at the ball at some point in your finish. I like to reverse over my right shoulder, sometimes over my head like Nadal, but as a teacher, I have to usually emphasize finishing more near the shoulder, unless they are advancing and it's time to try a more pure windshield wiper, with the finish near the bicep but it still goes near the shoulder on its way toward a finish nearer the hip. Regardless, the only mental image I try to have is of the finish. I touch the ball and then I rip to the finish as fast as I can, keeping my head still, trusting the racket head and allowing my body rotation to then lift my head up to then start looking at where the ball goes.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Hit the courts again today. I notice that when I close my racquet face prior to contact, my follow-through on about hip-high balls always go at around above my head. What gives?

Other than that though, this follow-through has given me some depth on my forehand, but I believe that's not the proper follow-through?

Why are we concerned about the follow-through so much!!!!!!

The followthrough is not a prerequisite to your stroke!!!! It is subbordinate to what you do beforehand!!!

The followthrough uses whatever momentum is established that is DECELERATING and the relaxation of the arm.

What happens before the followthrough is what is important. There are several ways to followthrough that are considered correct so long as what happened beforehand was within the parameter of best-practices for the particular stroke you chose to use.

Just because you finsihed with your elbow pointing toward the opponent does not mean what you did beforehand was performed correctly. Just because you finished with catching the racquet doesn't mean you performed the stroke correctly.

 

[teachestennis]

Why are we concerned about the follow-through so much!!!!!!

The followthrough is not a prerequisite to your stroke!!!! It is subbordinate to what you do beforehand!!!

The followthrough uses whatever momentum is established that is DECELERATING and the relaxation of the arm.

What happens before the followthrough is what is important. There are several ways to followthrough that are considered correct so long as what happened beforehand was within the parameter of best-practices for the particular stroke you chose to use.

Just because you finsihed with your elbow pointing toward the opponent does not mean what you did beforehand was performed correctly. Just because you finished with catching the racquet doesn't mean you performed the stroke correctly.

Bill, can you consider this viewpoint? (I know I'm about to get a screenful, lol) What if tennis was best played by instinct and the follow through represented the finish line of that instinct which encourages maximum torso rotation? I don't ever mention a double bend or tell my student to point the butt at the ball consciously because I want my student to peform those things without thinking. That is why so many pros claim things that they do occur naturally, without thinking. The finish is roadmap. Federer likes to swing at a 45 degree angle. Braden teaches a 30 degree angle. Even Nadal sometimes uses 45 degrees. Monfils looks like he plays up against a window, but the finish should not be underrated in its' importance. I have seen many testimonies (I can post one from a player who just made the finals of the Singapore Open) who write about how they learned from Oscar Wegner that the finish is the destination that best propels the ball over the net naturally and without having to think too much. Many players claim the finish shapes the shot and I have found their claim to be true. Tennis is best played by instincts, by feel, and not by mechanics. Simplicity is the key. That is my belief. I find in interesting not one pro does not invariable finish entirely with a body wrap on all 1H FH and 2HBH groundstrokes. It must mean something. And with my one handed backhand, if I don't finish with arm extended up in the air while lifting and keeping my body closed with closed stance, my shot is not at its best.

 

[drak]

Bill, can you consider this viewpoint? (I know I'm about to get a screenful, lol) What if tennis was best played by instinct and the follow through represented the finish line of that instinct which encourages maximum torso rotation? I don't ever mention a double bend or tell my student to point the butt at the ball consciously because I want my student to peform those things without thinking. That is why so many pros claim things that they do occur naturally, without thinking. The finish is roadmap. Federer likes to swing at a 45 degree angle. Braden teaches a 30 degree angle. Even Nadal sometimes uses 45 degrees. Monfils looks like he plays up against a window, but the finish should not be underrated in its' importance. I have seen many testimonies (I can post one from a player who just made the finals of the Singapore Open) who write about how they learned from Oscar Wegner that the finish is the destination that best propels the ball over the net naturally and without having to think too much. Many players claim the finish shapes the shot and I have found their claim to be true. Tennis is best played by instincts, by feel, and not by mechanics. Simplicity is the key. That is my belief. I find in interesting not one pro does not invariable finish entirely with a body wrap on all 1H FH and 2HBH groundstrokes. It must mean something. And with my one handed backhand, if I don't finish with arm extended up in the air while lifting and keeping my body closed with closed stance, my shot is not at its best.

Teach, you have a vaild point IMO. My daughter has problems on the FH where her left arm often moves into her stomach area when hitting her right handed FH - severely impinging her rotation. It really stood out to me last weekend watching her play 3 tourney matches and spray forehands everywhere. I have tried many things to correct this but nothing really worked. Then after scouring the internet I found a very simple drill that worked awesome - it was an end of stroke (finish) drill.
It involves actual transfer of the racket from right hand to left hand at the END of the stroke, not just "catching it". I'll tell you what, all of a sudden her rotation thru the ball was excellent and that pesky left arm was totally out of the way and where it should be! Racket speed increased dramatically as did ball rotation and especially consistency! I tried it myself and it's a great drill, one additional benefit is that it relaxes the grip a lot and for me that was a big plus as too often I try to muscle the ball and hence my stroke decelerates too soon and I lose racket head speed.
So to sum it up this "end of stroke" drill/technique helped cure a big flaw "during" the stroke. By the way it will obviously take some time to "rid" her of that bad habit, but after two drill sessions with her the improvement is dramatic.

Drak

 

[teachestennis]

Teach, you have a vaild point IMO. My daughter has problems on the FH where her left arm often moves into her stomach area when hitting her right handed FH - severely impinging her rotation. It really stood out to me last weekend watching her play 3 tourney matches and spray forehands everywhere. I have tried many things to correct this but nothing really worked. Then after scouring the internet I found a very simple drill that worked awesome - it was an end of stroke (finish) drill.
It involves actual transfer of the racket from right hand to left hand at the END of the stroke, not just "catching it". I'll tell you what, all of a sudden her rotation thru the ball was excellent and that pesky left arm was totally out of the way and where it should be! Racket speed increased dramatically as did ball rotation and especially consistency! I tried it myself and it's a great drill, one additional benefit is that it relaxes the grip a lot and for me that was a big plus as too often I try to muscle the ball and hence my stroke decelerates too soon and I lose racket head speed.
So to sum it up this "end of stroke" drill/technique helped cure a big flaw "during" the stroke. By the way it will obviously take some time to "rid" her of that bad habit, but after two drill sessions with her the improvement is dramatic.

Drak

I like and understand what you say, Modern Tennis Methodology (MTM) teaches that a player doesn't have time to think about what they do during the course of a stroke. The finish is what clears the mind and allows a player to "feel" his way to a natural kinetic chain, if you want to get technical.

Try this drill. As a coach, I prove to my players that preparing early might not be so important. I have even very good players rip balls at me and I hold the racket in my LEFT HAND, and then when the ball gets close or bounces, I then toss or just smoothly place the racket into my right hand and take a big blast at it emphasing a right to left movement and finishing with the butt of the racket always going down the intended target line. People don't think they can do this, but because I never move too quick by preparing too early, but instead just relax in present time waiting to observe where the ball goes, I thus don't set up too early and can plant my right foot (which might be my back foot or from an open stance is still my plant foot) at the last second without having to then reach for the ball. Then I find it well and then blast up and across it only thinking of the finish.

Try this on the court, hold the racket in your left hand, let the ball bounce for a FH and then take a big whack at it after transferring the racket to your right hand (if right handed). I've never asked anyone try this who is not on court with me demo-ing how it works, but I'm curiouos to see if it works for anyone based on my description. You'll be shocked at how much shoulder turn you can still get but it's the waiting until the last second to discharge force against the ball using your large muscle groups that is the point of this drill.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Bill, can you consider this viewpoint? (I know I'm about to get a screenful, lol) What if tennis was best played by instinct and the follow through represented the finish line of that instinct which encourages maximum torso rotation? I don't ever mention a double bend or tell my student to point the butt at the ball consciously because I want my student to peform those things without thinking.

I think you are taking a lot of risk here. Establishing parameters through instruction is not suppose to hinder a players ability to naturally grow within those parameters. Further, one of the main reasons you instruct a player is to not tell them what to do, but to give them information or parameters so they can become problem solvers themselves. When they hit the ball wrong, after giving them the knowledge, you ask the question! "Why did your ball do that?" They answer! They fix! They become owners of their own game. We don't become feeders and enablers of players dependant on coaches to play the game of tennis. Are matches like that? Are players allowed to get feedback from the coaches (not counting team tennis)? No!

Teach them how to be tennis players, not lesson takers.

You need to understand Bloom's Taxonomony of learning because much of what I am saying above is sprinkled through here. Further, you really are at a disadvantage if you don't know this when you are teaching anything:

BLOOM'S TAXONOMY AND THE STAGES OF LEARNING

1. Knowledge: This is where people gain information in various ways. Through teaching, through trial and error, etc...The domain is Remembering [Knowledge], which is defined as the knowing of previously learned material or retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge from long-term memory. This may involve the recall of a wide range of material, from knowing common terms, specific facts, methods, procedures, basic concepts, and principles which can be used on a multiple choice examination.

2. Comprehension: This is where instruction speeds up things. By providing the player a short cut in their ability to comprehend what they are learning quicker. You intervene with instruction to help them comprehend faster. This domain involves being aware of the literal message contained in communication and being able to show a grasp of the relationships between each of these elements in your subject. The components of understanding include self-regulation, interpretation and extrapolation.

3. Application: By definition and can happen while the other two stages are being performed. This domain applying or application refers to the ability to use learned material in a new or unprompted use of an abstraction.

4. Analysis: This is where I jumped to above. As an instructor you are using instruction to mix these four things together. If you have no clue you are doing this, you are clueless about where you are taking your instruction. You have to know the brain because that is what you are training and not necessarily the player themselves. This domain can be described as the ability to examine a problem area in your subject and identify the various components [breaking the problem down] in order to better be able to focus attention on each. Analyzing distinguishes between facts and inferences and determines how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure.

5. Synthesis: This is the ultimate goal of learning and the ultimate goal of learning through instruction. This domain and refers to the ability to make judgments based on criteria or standards or to combine parts to form a new concept or idea. This domain may involve the ability to judge the value of material which can include statements, reports etc., for a specific purpose. The evaluation is based on definite criteria or relevance to the stated purpose.

6. Creating [Evaluation]: This is the highest in the cognitive hierarchy because they contain elements of all the other categories, plus conscious value judgments based on clearly defined criteria. In this domain, there is an expectation that the person can correlate elements in order to form unique or functional whole. It may also include terminology that includes: judgements being made, the values, purpose, or ideas; solutions, as perhaps even methods.

Where do you think the pros are? They are everywhere depending on the circumstances. Let's say they have a match strategy and it isn't working out. What do you think happens from a cognitive perspective?

Or how about the beginner. Where do you think he is at? Probably more in the lower numbers but somethings may jump up to Some players that can recall and apply quickly depending on aptitude will zoom up in the higher areas of Bloom's Taxonomy. A tennis coach is ebbing and flowing throughout these areas when it comes to the cognitive side of the mind.

Instruction is about transferring knowledge so that knowledge can be transferred to action and results.

That is why so many pros claim things that they do occur naturally, without thinking. The finish is roadmap. Federer likes to swing at a 45 degree angle. Braden teaches a 30 degree angle.

Braden emphasizes the 30 degree angle as the NATURAL rise in the stroke from your arm without enhancing anything else. It is instruction or wisdom so that recreational players can realize they can naturally produce topspin from a low to high swing. Which is true. It is also for those that try to turn over the ball to add topspin without considering a low to high motion. It is also for those that swing too steeply and hit short in the court thinking they need to go up more to get topspin.

It is not to prevent players from hitting more steeply but can hit the ball deep.

Braden's instruction is also not geared towards the Professional Tennis player. It is geared towards those that are learning or need to refresh their knowledge of topspin. Why do you keep taking things out of context? The pros have spent years and years modifying and fine-tuning their strokes and the game is very different from club play. Even Wegners players have evolved from his basic teachings. Why aren't you treating things the same?

You keep trying to link Braden to "new" tennis to make him look foolish. This is exactly what 5263 and Dave Smith tried to do. Oh but "he is a nice guy."

Are you a liar? A thief? A false informant? Do you like to lie and cheat and steal? No you don't. So why spread things around about a person you really haven't researched or understand? Because that is what you are doing when you spread a bunch of half-truths arounds.

Does Guga hit exactly the same way from Oscars basic instruction from your so-called claim that you had something to do with him in his "early" years?

Even Nadal sometimes uses 45 degrees. Monfils looks like he plays up against a window, but the finish should not be underrated in its' importance.

Again, you are out of context. You are comparing a stroke performed that has evolved and linking to yesteryears instruction to say it is bad instruction. If you continue to do so, I will continue to show how stupid it is to think that pros DONT prepare early and how Oscar changed his tune of late.

Further, I am pretty sure the 30 degree angle was more linked to the onehanded backhand than anything else or more of the classic stroke types. Have to look into that.

I have seen many testimonies (I can post one from a player who just made the finals of the Singapore Open) who write about how they learned from Oscar Wegner that the finish is the destination that best propels the ball over the net naturally and without having to think too much. Many players claim the finish shapes the shot and I have found their claim to be true. Tennis is best played by instincts, by feel, and not by mechanics. Simplicity is the key. That is my belief. I find in interesting not one pro does not invariable finish entirely with a body wrap on all 1H FH and 2HBH groundstrokes. It must mean something. And with my one handed backhand, if I don't finish with arm extended up in the air while lifting and keeping my body closed with closed stance, my shot is not at its best.

I don't give a hoot about your testimonies!!! Anyone can pull testimonies out of their butts!!! You are building an argument on misinterpreted and made up conclusions. Your analysis is invalid because you are taking instruction based on a certain style of play and applying it to a different style.

I already showed you that you are wrong about the so-called modern stroke. Do you really want to continue with me?

 

[NamRanger]

This is not true. You are using old thinking for a current method you don't understand.

Both the double bend and the current straight arm technique can lead to injury if you do not perform it correctly.

The staight arm that I am describing and provided analysis and film, if taught properly, is and can be used safely.

Safely means that the player is taught how to hit the ball with a straight arm with little stress. You can't eliminate stress in either. This teaching includes teaching a player to shape their arm thoughout the entire preparation, contact, and followthough motion and using the natural ebb and flow of the body.

Well from what I know I think alot more can go wrong with the straight arm technique though, and it's much easier to teach the double bend forehand. Then again, I'm not a tennis coach

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Well from what I know I think alot more can go wrong with the straight arm technique though, and it's much easier to teach the double bend forehand. Then again, I'm not a tennis coach

Again, it depends on how you teach it and which form you are using and considering as the "Straight-arm"

A traditional straight arm does not take the racquet up in common with the double-bend. It just goes out and away from the body extending the elbow away. Usually it is also performed with an Eastern grip so the contact point is later rather than sooner. With a later contact point, you are right, it would put more stress on the elbow area than one would want.

However, in the straight arm forehand that Federer uses his elbow goes in front of the body plane and angular momentum is also used to help get the back shoulder behind and into the stroke thorugh contact.

With a relatively flexible arm (not locked down at the elbow), the extention of the arm is less of a concern because the arm remains relatively relaxed.

Now, I guess the key question is should someone teach it? Well, I would have to say it depends.