The Eastern Forehand and the Straight Arm Forehand

[5263]

Well, you are welcome to your opinion but I don't think the concept of a longer lever delivering more pace and spin is a fallacy.

I didn't say that all other things being equal that is wrong....just that all other things are not equal.

The fallacy I believe is this idea that it is more efficient that some seem so quick to accept....and sure, I could be wrong, but like on a bicycle, pushing a taller gear will help you go faster, but they tend not to do that and keep a high spin for efficiency because the body is limited. In fact, JY even acknowledges that Fed strays from the SA quite a bit, in the article referenced above.

Efficiency in tennis is a tough thing to measure, so sure it is even possible it is more efficient while not being superior; and that is what I felt was his intent, to insinuate SA was a more desirable Fh. I guess you might burn less calories while losing with the SA?

 

[TennisCJC]

I guess you might burn less calories while losing with the SA?

And others might burn more calories while losing with the bent elbow forehand. My opinion is it is the better option and your opinion is it is not. I am OK with that and you have not changed my mind. I expect I have not changed yours either.

 

[enishi1357]

BA has more control but SA is more efficient. I do both so I should know. One thing for sure forearm was smaller compare to before. Just goes to show how SA changes the body.

 

[5263]

And others might burn more calories while losing with the bent elbow forehand. My opinion is it is the better option and your opinion is it is not. I am OK with that and you have not changed my mind. I expect I have not changed yours either.

For sure, and I'm not trying to change anybody's mind, and yes, I'm pretty convinced that the DB is a far better base for the Modern Forehand, which is a position shared by Oscar btw. What I like to do on here when I see questionable info like this is to challenge it and let those who are considering options know that there are other opinions to consider.

But are you agreeing with his position that the SA is more efficient or just your preference? and if so, efficient measured in what way? Looking at his post he says it is called more efficient, as though that is some accepted position. Is that true, and by who? Are they saying the SA somehow takes less overall energy? Power? Effort? Whole idea seems ludicrous to me.

 

[Rafa4Ever]

The best idea is to start with the general double bend modern forehand and then to tell the student to hit it with a loose arm and to try and hit out in front of them. This normally gets people hitting with a DB that has really good extension. Sometime people will start extending even more on there own and then it turns into a straight arm forehand. This is how federer developed his. It used to be an obvious double bend as a junior and then a slight bend, and then completely straight. It is a BAD idea to try and start with a straight arm forehand. The ugliest and least effective stroke imo is someone who is trying way to hard to hit with a straight arm and it ends up being a really bad/inconsistent shot.
Here's mine I use a slightly bend forehand with good extension. I was taught to hit the same forehand as pre 2007 federer.

 

[Rafa4Ever]

Another thing. Sometimes when I get jammed I bend it more. Other times my arm will occasionally straighten. I don't think there needs to be this fine line we have now. If you read the yandell article you'll see that he says Federer has 25 different forehands. Forcing a straight arm forehand in all situations will really limit your game. Just hit relaxed and if it's bent it's bent and if it's straight then (you get the point)

 

[SpinToWin]

Another thing. Sometimes when I get jammed I bend it more. Other times my arm will occasionally straighten. I don't think there needs to be this fine line we have now. If you read the yandell article you'll see that he says Federer has 25 different forehands. Forcing a straight arm forehand in all situations will really limit your game. Just hit relaxed and if it's bent it's bent and if it's straight then (you get the point)

I agree with you, but there is a difference between a player who only hits double bend forehands (see somebody like Roddick) and a player like Blake or Federer who use different techniques based on the situation. When the ball is very close to my body I also have a slight bend in my arm, but it's nowehere near that of somebody with a full western grip, where the double bend is very well defined. What I'm trying to say is that it is relatively easy to play a double bend forehand (or a forehand with a slight bend) out of reflex when you have the straight arm forehand technique down, but vice versa is much harder (IME).

I am not saying that the straight arm forehand is a by far superior technique as 5263 seems to think, but it definitely has its merits and it is something a few players (especially rec players) try to learn as of late. I merely posted this thread to suggest that it is easier to learn and use a straight arm forehand with a relatively conventional grip (eastern or modern eastern [what I like to call Federer's grip]) and that people therefore should not shy away from it, despite the development in tennis where many go towards more modern grips.

 

[SpinToWin]

For sure, and I'm not trying to change anybody's mind, and yes, I'm pretty convinced that the DB is a far better base for the Modern Forehand, which is a position shared by Oscar btw. What I like to do on here when I see questionable info like this is to challenge it and let those who are considering options know that there are other opinions to consider.

But are you agreeing with his position that the SA is more efficient or just your preference? and if so, efficient measured in what way? Looking at his post he says it is called more efficient, as though that is some accepted position. Is that true, and by who? Are they saying the SA somehow takes less overall energy? Power? Effort? Whole idea seems ludicrous to me.

If the double bend forehand truly is a better base for the modern forehand, then why have the most successful users of the modern forehand been players who based their forehand on a straight arm forehand technique? You have no evidence to support your claim.

I never said that the straight arm forehand is the only option or that it is the best option, otherwise obviously everybody would be using it. Efficient in terms of energy does not make it the most successful technique for a specific player, different strokes for different folks. This is predominately a board for rec players and if you check out some of the threads around here, you'll notice that the straight arm forehand is a frequently recurring topic. This thread was intended for those people as my personal observation that more conventional grips are better suited to learning the straight arm forehand technique, not as a comparison between SA and DB forehands (of which there are plenty out there).

I call the straight arm forehand more efficient energy-wise based on the stroke's mechanics in comparison to the double bend (I have seen this claim be made by several people and I have not ever seen the opposite claim be made, also my own experience with both techniques confirms this claim for me). The double bend uses a lot of energy out of the torso and the legs to cause racquet head speed, which is more energy consuming than the more relaxed SA FH. You seem to be only able to accept knowledge by authority, which makes it impossible for me to prove my claims, but you could take a look at slow motion footage of both techniques during match play and see which one is more relaxed and/or has a greater ratio of power:effort.

Finally, a few people here (who use both techiques) have agreed with me that the SA FH yieds more result with a given effort.

I find this video to be a great guide for the two techniques and the slow motion analysis is very revealing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4WiJ64pU7c

 

[5263]

Another thing. Sometimes when I get jammed I bend it more. Other times my arm will occasionally straighten. I don't think there needs to be this fine line we have now. If you read the yandell article you'll see that he says Federer has 25 different forehands. Forcing a straight arm forehand in all situations will really limit your game. Just hit relaxed and if it's bent it's bent and if it's straight then (you get the point)

You make excellent points and very similar to what I stated in our debate on this years ago, where JY was not nearly so open to the idea of Fed using other Fhs besides the SA. I came out and rejected the fine line you speak of and just consider them as variations of the modern Fh. Good to see things coming around a bit on this with some new insights for some.

 

[5263]

If the double bend forehand truly is a better base for the modern forehand, then why have the most successful users of the modern forehand been players who based their forehand on a straight arm forehand technique? You have no evidence to support your claim.

Sure I have evidence and experience. I won't claim proof, but Oscar, the developer of the Modern Fh instruction and likely the foremost expert on Modern tennis internationally, believes the DB is a much better base along with more insights I won't go into; but we have discussed it at length. In my work with him, we have spent quite a bit of discussing the pros and cons of this. That is evidence and I agree with his perspective on this... but no reason you should

As to debate of the most successful players, well, I could just as easily argue that the one that came in and unseated them both uses the DB, but really, either way that proves little since success in tennis relies on so many factors.

 

[GuyClinch]

Being efficient is not the only goal of the modern forehand. A double bend like Roddick's enables him to leverage his entire bodyweight into the stroke.

Its a very powerful position if you have someone push on you during a double bend forehand position - you have a lot of strength behind it..

Roddick's forehand was tremendous - it was his volley's and lousy movement that doomed him..

For some athletes being able to use more physical strength and bodyweight in their strokes is a good tradeoff for getting less power from the same effort.

 

[5263]

Roddick's forehand was tremendous - it was his volley's and lousy movement that doomed him..

Yes, you could make a great case for Roddick's Fh taking him farther, given his avg or below Bh, slice, volley and movement.

 

[TennisCJC]

Yes, I have seen the video analysis and it does like Roddick BE requires him to use more body.

But, there probably has never been a player that has more rythmic relationship between his core and arm/hand than Roger Federer and he uses SA. The 2 freaky things about Federer are his still head at contact and how coordinated his core is to his arm. He transfers energy from the legs and core into the arm/hand much better than Roddick.

 

[Fintft]

But, there probably has never been a player that has more rythmic relationship between his core and arm/hand than Roger Federer and he uses SA. The 2 freaky things about Federer are his still head at contact and how coordinated his core is to his arm. He transfers energy from the legs and core into the arm/hand much better than Roddick.

Good things to keep in mind! The still head is the only think I think of doing while hitting (with SA).

 

[5263]

Good things to keep in mind! The still head is the only think I think of doing while hitting (with SA).

Not sure what you were saying here(small typo I think), but Imo the still head is important on all shots and even all sports.

 

[5263]

But, there probably has never been a player that has more rythmic relationship between his core and arm/hand than Roger Federer and he uses SA. The 2 freaky things about Federer are his still head at contact and how coordinated his core is to his arm. He transfers energy from the legs and core into the arm/hand much better than Roddick.

Yes, that is likely very true of Fed and goes much more to his excellence than his choice of SA or DB. Just like he has an excellent serve and great model (one of the best active), his serve technique is still not a full up, max 1st serve that some have mastered. I can buy the idea that he hits a certain fluidity/efficiency level with his strokes as he uses them, but not ready to say it applies directly to the technique on it's own. Imo when Fed goes to the DB he still achieves his balance and efficiency there as well. Imo it's more about Fed. Rafa uses the SA to great effectiveness an disguise, but I don't see a Fed kind of efficiency in his SA Fh. Again, not trying to change anyone's mind, but just explaining what I see.

 

[Fintft]

Not sure what you were saying here(small typo I think), but Imo the still head is important on all shots and even all sports.

Thanks and I try to listen to you and other people here who provide great coaching advice! And I've read the anology with golf etc.

I meant that "staying with eyes at contact point through contact"/"keeping the head still" is the only thing I let my mind think conciously about during the shot...

You know how the Inner game of tennis advises you to not think about technique during the shot (but rather watch the ball, to take your mind off? And have your mind only in observer mode during the shot, while trusting the body to learn by feeling?)

Well this is my only exception to the rule, the "still head" part.

 

[SpinToWin]

Thanks and I try to listen to you and other people here who provide great coaching advice! And I've read the anology with golf etc.

I meant that "staying with eyes at contact point through contact"/"keeping the head still" is the only thing I let my mind think conciously about during the shot...

You know how the Inner game of tennis advises you to not think about technique during the shot (but rather watch the ball, to take your mind off? And have your mind only in observer mode during the shot, while trusting the body to learn by feeling?)

Well this is my only exception to the rule, the "still head" part.

IMO, the best way to learn a technique is by doing shadow swings over and over in order to to get a feel for where the contact point should be. Finally, when you get on court, your aim should not be to hit the ball, but to move into a position so that the ball's position coincides with that of your stroke. Basically, instead of moving your racquet to the ball, you are moving your body so that your normal stroke hits the ball. I think that understanding and implementing this is the biggest step in developing a player's game (from my experience coaching kids and juniors).