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