Trying to hit strokes like Federer?

[jorji23]

I've been teaching tennis for a long time, and since I started I cringe when beginners come to me saying, "How can I hit my forehand like Federer"
Usually my answer is, "how about hitting the ball in the dark green?"
Stroke technique has developed so much these days that we have all kinds of different types of stances, strokes, spins, follow throughs, you name it. some tennis pros are part to guilt because they are trying to sell the ultimate "sexy" technique or shot that people see on tv.
If you are starting on this sport concentrate on hitting the ball like yourself , and you'll see that the results will outweigh the cool look. I'm not stating that technique is not important, but get a teaching pro that develops YOUR potential efficiently and you will enjoy the learning process a lot more. Obviously guys like Federer and Nadal are great examples of some of the techniques, but if I tell good old "Nancy" with tennis elbow and 2 bad knees to hit inside out forehands trying to recreate Nadal's swing, I might as well just take her money and walk away.
Start smart, develop your own potential under your own capabilities and you will play this sport on your terms for a lifetime.

 

[sureshs]

I see some contradictions. You talk about beginners and then mention Nancy with tennis elbow and bad knees, who would not be a beginner I assume. I find it perfectly OK for Nancy to try out inside-out forehands. These forehands are not exclusive to Nadal even if she mentions him, so I don't see why she should not try them and have fun in what is obviously not her day job (which is the one paying you).

A good way to learn is to watch pro players on TV and mold yourself after them, experimenting with the boundaries all the time.

 

[jorji23]

I see some contradictions. You talk about beginners and then mention Nancy with tennis elbow and bad knees, who would not be a beginner I assume. I find it perfectly OK for Nancy to try out inside-out forehands. These forehands are not exclusive to Nadal even if she mentions him, so I don't see why she should not try them and have fun in what is obviously not her day job (which is the one paying you).

A good way to learn is to watch pro players on TV and mold yourself after them, experimenting with the boundaries all the time.

Thanks for your input!
I see your point, but at the same time a person has more fun when they are seeing success than experimenting with something they might never get. As you said the pros do it to get food on the table, most people don't. I rather take a guitar lesson and play a song the first time around, than have someone tell me to learn every chord before I can play. Watching the pros is great for understanding the fundamental aspect of the stroke (hitting in front, preparing early, etc) but at the same time you and me both know, nobody that hits a few times a week will ever get that great. I rather improve the persons own potential maximizing their learning time. Going back to "nancy" why would she go inside out forehands when she has 2 bad knees? She leaves the whole court open and she can't move

 

[caugas]

i want to hit like federer too. if you teach you should teach the modern forehand based off of necessity, I would model fed for sure.

 

[v-verb]

Thanks for your input!
I see your point, but at the same time a person has more fun when they are seeing success than experimenting with something they might never get. As you said the pros do it to get food on the table, most people don't. I rather take a guitar lesson and play a song the first time around, than have someone tell me to learn every chord before I can play. Watching the pros is great for understanding the fundamental aspect of the stroke (hitting in front, preparing early, etc) but at the same time you and me both know, nobody that hits a few times a week will ever get that great. I rather improve the persons own potential maximizing their learning time. Going back to "nancy" why would she go inside out forehands when she has 2 bad knees? She leaves the whole court open and she can't move

Agreed! Inside out forehands are for those who can move very well and have an overpowering forehand.

For the rest of us, a serviceable backhand is much more useful. Far less running needed

 

[jorji23]

i want to hit like federer too. if you teach you should teach the modern forehand based off of necessity, I would model fed for sure.

Hahaha who doesn't? But you have to walk before you can run.

 

[jorji23]

Agreed! Inside out forehands are for those who can move very well and have an overpowering forehand.

For the rest of us, a serviceable backhand is much more useful. Far less running needed

Amen v-verb

 

[sureshs]

Thanks for your input!
I see your point, but at the same time a person has more fun when they are seeing success than experimenting with something they might never get. As you said the pros do it to get food on the table, most people don't. I rather take a guitar lesson and play a song the first time around, than have someone tell me to learn every chord before I can play. Watching the pros is great for understanding the fundamental aspect of the stroke (hitting in front, preparing early, etc) but at the same time you and me both know, nobody that hits a few times a week will ever get that great. I rather improve the persons own potential maximizing their learning time. Going back to "nancy" why would she go inside out forehands when she has 2 bad knees? She leaves the whole court open and she can't move

If her opponent also cannot move, she can get away with it.

I personally like the challenge of trying to do everything a pro does.

 

[winstonlim8]

So do I, Sureshs. It's the losing because I can't recover in time to get to the next ball like them that I hate.

 

[heninfan99]

Federer is so elegant I believe it's a bad choice to imitate him or compare video with him unless you're training a ballet dancer.

 

[uncle pollo]

With gracefulness comes power.

 

[GoudX]

Federer is so elegant I believe it's a bad choice to imitate him or compare video with him unless you're training a ballet dancer.

Slightly off topic - I've been seriously asked by three seperate opponents whether or not I have done ballet. Partially to blame is my footwork, my upper body separation, and my tendency to stick out the opposite arm to counterbalance. However much more to blame is my tendency to go airborne on big shots!

Back on topic - I know plenty of weaker players who would prefer miss trying for a single Federer style winner, than win. If that is what they want then I say good for them, as not everyone needs or wants to develop a winning consistent slower shot.

 

[LeeD]

Funny ding....
All thru the ages, players have been asking, "who would you like to hit like?".
This since I started tennis in 1974.
I always said..."a version of myself trained, grooved, conditioned, and interested".

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

i want to hit like federer too. if you teach you should teach the modern forehand based off of necessity, I would model fed for sure.

One problem with Federer and Nadal as examples is the straight-arm (single bend ) forehand that they hit. Many lesser players will have problems with control with the straight-arm. Many are better off with a double-bend. Ok, to study other aspects of their strokes but only use the straight-arm technique if you can do it with a decent semblance of control.

 

[LeeD]

Instead of modeling strokes like the TOP pros, perhaps it's better to model off a conglomeration of very good pros.
The TOP players are extraordinarily gifted, and can get away with most things that a mere human would struggle with.
Out of the top 1,000 ATP and top 1,000 WTA, how many hit like Nadal and Federer?
Most hit with a somewhat bent elbow, and WTA, lots more with bent elbows.

 

[magnut]

A good way to learn is to watch pro players on TV and mold yourself after them, experimenting with the boundaries all the time.

thats probably the worst way to learn. tennis pros like it though LOL. thats money in the bank right there. weekly lessons to infinity. teaching pros hear that and they see money falling from the sky. ....Yeah i will teach you the roger federer forehand LOL.. while we are at it you can learn the pete sampras serve, edberg volleys, and gasquet backhand.

first though you need roger federers racquet...cha-ching

then you need to use a poly gut hybrid....cha-ching, cha-ching

oh yeah...the shoes.....cha-ching

we also carry his new seasons clothing line....cha-ching

dont forget the racquet bag...cha-ching


i swear...sometimes. i think tennis players have some kind of holloween trick or treat costume hang up. meanwhile they are out on court shanking every other ball with some ******** version of the federer forehand saying the balance on their racquet is not right and they need a smaller grip ......cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching.....

hey tennis pro....why does my elbow hurt .....LOL.

 

[LeeD]

Wow, nothing positive to add?
Aren't we in a negative mood.
I guess there is really only ONE way to learn tennis.

 

[magnut]

Wow, nothing positive to add?
Aren't we in a negative mood.
I guess there is really only ONE way to learn tennis.

q
its not complicated. you either study fundamentals independently or have a good rare pro that knows fundamentals teach you....then you go hit a couple million balls. Probably a couple of trillion when it comes to serving.

this is as far as developing shots anyways. actually playing is a bit different. Lots of intrinsic things need to happen there. usually when you have players of equal shotmaking ability the more mature individual is going to dominate regardless of style and aesthetics.

strokes are easy.

 

[LeeD]

Shouldn't it be "rare good pro"? Lots of pros out there, few good ones.

 

[sureshs]

Shouldn't it be "rare good pro"? Lots of pros out there, few good ones.

Same with their students

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Instead of modeling strokes like the TOP pros, perhaps it's better to model off a conglomeration of very good pros. The TOP players are extraordinarily gifted, and can get away with most things that a mere human would struggle with.
Out of the top 1,000 ATP and top 1,000 WTA, how many hit like Nadal and Federer? Most hit with a somewhat bent elbow, and WTA, lots more with bent elbows.

Exactly. At one point, the only top pros that used the straight-arm FH consistently were Roger, Rafa and Fernando Verdasco. Other pros may have employed something close to a straight-arm FH on very high balls but use the double-bend on most other shots.

Videos of young Rafa shows that he was using a double-bend. Apparently he intentionally copied Roger's FH and his unusual gaze (vision) technique. I'm sure that many junior players have copied the FHs of Roger and Rafa but my guess is that a majority of the successful high-level junior players are still using a double-bend.

 

[Rafa4Ever]

IMO the best possible forehand you can hit is right in between the straight arm and bent arm. Rafa uses it here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb9snljFkKo&list=FLY2BclNaENFiDxjh6hf6WyQ&index=63

federer here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlTZKShIOcw&list=FLY2BclNaENFiDxjh6hf6WyQ&index=96

It lets you be relaxed but at the same time the contact point is a lot easier to find then a straight arm.

 

[Rafa4Ever]

Here's a better video of what I mean. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRzLgGPShUw&list=FLY2BclNaENFiDxjh6hf6WyQ&index=101
Technically it's just a doubles bend forehand with good extension. Djokovic also does something similar during practice/ when he sets up. During matches djokovic gets a little crazy on his groundstrokes at least form wise.

 

[Mick]

i think some people can swing like Federer. The problem is they can't do it on the tennis court because most of the time the ball is not in the ideal position for them to make that swing. So in my opinion, you have got to have excellent footwork as well in order to hit like Federer.

 

[magnut]

i think some people can swing like Federer. The problem is they can't do it on the tennis court because most of the time the ball is not in the ideal position for them to make that swing. So in my opinion, you have got to have excellent footwork as well in order to hit like Federer.

It is somewhat entertaining to watch people try though.

Honestly, people should just try and hit the ball like Laver, McEnroe or some other classic style player. Simple, efficient, fundamental....etc. But noooooooo lets whip through the strike zone in an attempt to creat as much racquet speed as humanly possible....when you miss its the racquet or strings....cha-ching....cha-ching....cha-ching.

I usually tell them if you want to hit a shot like a pro focus on the serve. You dont have to move for that one.

 

[Mick]

It is somewhat entertaining to watch people try though.

Honestly, people should just try and hit the ball like Laver, McEnroe or some other classic style player. Simple, efficient, fundamental....etc. But noooooooo lets whip through the strike zone in an attempt to creat as much racquet speed as humanly possible....when you miss its the racquet or strings....cha-ching....cha-ching....cha-ching.

I usually tell them if you want to hit a shot like a pro focus on the serve. You dont have to move for that one.

haha. This reminds me of the time i talked to a tennis buddy about a Video of Serena Williams I that I had seen on Youtube. Forget about it, he told me, you don't have the muscles to do what she does :shock:

 

[mental midget]

for people who are young and in good physical shape, it's not a bad idea to try and imitate the strokes of pros--not necessarily with the goal of replicating them, but simply as reference for the many different ways one can approach hitting a tennis ball. cycling through different techniques is a good way to discover your feel for the ball in general. certain techniques might give you a better understanding of what it means to truly hit 'through' the ball, or how to impart more spin, or how contact point affects the stroke...all good things to learn.

i know my backhand is without doubt a cocktail of lendl and edberg influence, i watched those guys like a hawk and tried to take away as many fundamental principles from their shots as possible. and i don't mind saying that i wound up with a pretty damn good 1hbh.

 

[heninfan99]

as an aside to an aside, the worst serves I've seen are the people who try to imitate Mcenroe's serve.

 

[magnut]

i know my backhand is without doubt a cocktail of lendl and edberg influence, i watched those guys like a hawk and tried to take away as many fundamental principles from their shots as possible. and i don't mind saying that i wound up with a pretty damn good 1hbh.

too funny. I did the same exact thing. i would bet money our backhands look exactly alike.

there is no changing my backhand now. i couldnt even if i tried. Dont want to either.

 

[magnut]

as an aside to an aside, the worst serves I've seen are the people who try to imitate Mcenroe's serve.

his service motion during his prime is extremely difficult to time and get a rhythm on. Its kind of machine like. i think they called it like a broken toy many years back. the way he hits it now is easier. check out his motion the first time he played wimbledon....its vastly different. Looks old school aussie like.....maybe tony roche.

I never heard the full story with mac changing his motion. i know about the back problems but dont really see how it made a difference. He didnt have a big back arch or anything. Makes me wonder if he was just screwing around one day and it felt good so he went with it.

 

[Curiosity]

............ ....Yeah i will teach you the roger federer forehand LOL.. while we are at it you can learn the pete sampras serve, edberg volleys, and gasquet backhand.
.......................................................

hey tennis pro....why does my elbow hurt .....LOL.

The Fed (and Nadal, really) forehand isn't particularly difficult. I think it makes clean contact with fast balls easier, really. The question of teaching it is moot, though, because very few local pros understand what the Fed forehand is.

I have no idea what all the equipment talk has to do with the Fed forehand. No special gear adjustments are required.

As for hurt elbows, that's just not a problem with a straight-arm forehand. What is a problem is hurt wrists for those who do not get a clear explanation of how you go through the transition to the forward/outward swing from the ready-to-lag-the-racquet setup.

 

[Fxanimator1]

The Fed (and Nadal, really) forehand isn't particularly difficult. I think it makes clean contact with fast balls easier, really. The question of teaching it is moot, though, because very few local pros understand what the Fed forehand is.

I have no idea what all the equipment talk has to do with the Fed forehand. No special gear adjustments are required.

As for hurt elbows, that's just not a problem with a straight-arm forehand. What is a problem is hurt wrists for those who do not get a clear explanation of how you go through the transition to the forward/outward swing from the ready-to-lag-the-racquet setup.

What he said!
Now maybe it's hard to "unlearn" an old forehand to get to a modern one, but to understand and execute a modern forehand is not rocket science.

 

[heninfan99]

To me he was imitating Borg in his first Wimby.

his service motion during his prime is extremely difficult to time and get a rhythm on. Its kind of machine like. i think they called it like a broken toy many years back. the way he hits it now is easier. check out his motion the first time he played wimbledon....its vastly different. Looks old school aussie like.....maybe tony roche.

I never heard the full story with mac changing his motion. i know about the back problems but dont really see how it made a difference. He didnt have a big back arch or anything. Makes me wonder if he was just screwing around one day and it felt good so he went with it.

 

[LeeD]

If we're talking about Laver....why should he change his strokes to keep up with your idea of "modern" tennis?
His game spoke for itself thru the years.
He doesn't need to convince YOU nor I he can play a "modern" game.
To judge his hitting vs a almost prime Fed is assinine.

 

[WildVolley]

But some students want to hit very hard.

One of the guys I first gave lessons to saw me hitting hard forehands with a friend and asked if I'd give him lessons. His previous coach had him hitting with something like an eastern verging on continental forehand grip, closing his stance, aiming the ball, etc.

I took the guy out and showed him a SW-fh grip, unit turning to the ball out of an open or neutral stance, patting-the-dog, etc. All the fun stuff that people like to talk about here. I'm not claiming his shot was immediately brilliant, but he was soon hitting the ball as hard as he could with a decent amount of topspin. I can't say that I was precisely teaching him the Federer FH, but I was definitely teaching him a shot that was influenced by my study of high speed video of the top pros hitting in actual matches.

That student still lives to bash a tennis ball.

 

[LeeD]

McEnroes service motion....
Notice Connors is very close. More closed stance than normal, but not as much as Mac's.
One good thing about Mac's service motion is that if you adopt that stance, you do everything the same every serve. That closed stance and heavy bend forces the mechanics to work as they should.
I thought Sampras and Rafter/Cash also serve extreme closed stance and prep bent over.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

What he said!
Now maybe it's hard to "unlearn" an old forehand to get to a modern one, but to understand and execute a modern forehand is not rocket science.

He was referring specifically the the Federer/Nadal (straight-arm) forehand. Verdasco used it as well. Most of the "modern" forehands on the pro tour use a double-bend structure on most of their FH shots. So you are not really backing up Curiosity's assertion.

To Curiosity: I don't believe that "all the equipment talk" was meant to be taken seriously.

 

[OTMPut]

Thanks for your input!
I see your point, but at the same time a person has more fun when they are seeing success than experimenting with something they might never get. As you said the pros do it to get food on the table, most people don't.

The "experimenting" bit is what makes us human and it is what is fun. Especially if you are doing something not to get food on the table!

Going back to "nancy" why would she go inside out forehands when she has 2 bad knees? She leaves the whole court open and she can't move

1. Nancy with 2 bad knees is not playing in 5.0 opens
2. An occasional inside out f/h winner will keep Nancy smiling all day than the so called "success" you pointed out.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

^^^

The Fed (and Nadal, really) forehand isn't particularly difficult. I think it makes clean contact with fast balls easier, really...

Many players who attempt a straight-arm FH will often have control issues because of a "wandering elbow". On low and medium high shots (about waist level or lower), it is usually best if the elbow does not stray too far from the body for much of the forward swing prior to contact. This was an issue that Edberg often struggled with on his forehand side. He was know more for his outstanding backhand than his FH.

 

[JonC]

Almost every fix to my bad strokes I've discovered on my own. Most recent, I was forgetting to aim for the underside of the ball when hitting topspin - could a pro ever pick that up by watching me? You might here, "go more low to high" or something like that maybe. I'm not knocking them, and maybe some pros would pick it up but for me it's solitary practice that is most helpful.

 

[sureshs]

Almost every fix to my bad strokes I've discovered on my own. Most recent, I was forgetting to aim for the underside of the ball when hitting topspin - could a pro ever pick that up by watching me? You might here, "go more low to high" or something like that maybe. I'm not knocking them, and maybe some pros would pick it up but for me it's solitary practice that is most helpful.

Correct. We are not like juniors who keep hitting every day and learn rapidly. We want specific tips that we can try out, not some complete package of drills and development because "everything counts." If the tip takes 2 minutes to convey, that is all we require. One of the guys here has developed a 2 handed BH based solely on his learning curve and urged along by his "mentor" (who uses a 1 hander LOL). No coach, no lessons. A little hint now and then, and he has a decent stroke now.

 

[Topspin Shot]

It is somewhat entertaining to watch people try though.

Honestly, people should just try and hit the ball like Laver, McEnroe or some other classic style player. Simple, efficient, fundamental....etc. But noooooooo lets whip through the strike zone in an attempt to creat as much racquet speed as humanly possible....when you miss its the racquet or strings....cha-ching....cha-ching....cha-ching.

I usually tell them if you want to hit a shot like a pro focus on the serve. You dont have to move for that one.

McEnroe? His strokes are virtually impossible to replicate. I understand what you're saying about people who try to get overly modern, but wouldn't someone like Agassi be a better model?

 

[Mick]

hehe. you can copy mcEnroe's strokes by not completing the follow through. he rarely would do that
to me, his forehand/backhand resemble those of a pusher, except mcEnroe has excellent serve and volley skills

 

[Spin Doctor]

I agree with the OP and magnut in this thread. Most rec players should be adopting a simpler technique. Even worse than the straight-arm, the biggest issues I see are players using too much wrist (causing shots to be erratic) and hitting too much open stance (generating no power because they don't complete their unit turn and also don't know how to use their bodies to generate power).

 

[magnut]

hehe. you can copy mcEnroe's strokes by not completing the follow through. he rarely would do that
to me, his forehand/backhand resemble those of a pusher, except mcEnroe has excellent serve and volley skills

man i have to disagree with you here for once. i dont really consider Mcenroe a pure serve and volleyer. mcenroe could do some damage at the back of the court with variety, feel, and taking the ball early. he was kind of an all court craftsman IMO. when the game got more powerful and john lost a step players were able to power through him at the baseline sometimes and he would do the most damage at the net. he was still pretty crafty when his return game was clicking though and he could neutralize the serve and get some control in the point.

as opposed to Edberg who was a pure serve and volleyer IMO. edberg could just play solid from the back court and try to work his way in. he couldnt really hurt you. he was pretty dangerous on the running passing shots though. once in a while his backhand would be really clicking and he could pull the trigger from the baseline with incredible effect.

then you have rafter...rafter is an interesting one. i consider rafter a pure serve and volleyer with a edberg/mcenroe hybrid mixed in. Form 93 to 96 he was straight up serve and volley and would scrap at the baseline. 97-99 he was serve and volley and grinding from the baseline. from 2000 to the end of his career he was a better player than when he was winning slams IMO. he developed a really tactical and variety driven baseline game to the point being an effective all court player. he would mix in variety, speed and trajectory change ups, sneek in, and even pull the trigger from the back of the court. Rafter was really smart and crafty. his matches in that time perios against agassi are some of the best tactical examples i have ever seen. maybe the best. constant change ups...unbelievable smart serving....the guy was a genious. i put him on par with wilander in terms of intelligence during his 2000-2001 time frame. maybe higher. he was beating andre from the baseline in those years. You can learn an incredible amount from studying those matches. I think he made something like two or three tactical errors in the 2000 wimbledon semi. He pulled off one of the points and lost the other two.

 

[Mick]

man i have to disagree with you here for once. i dont really consider Mcenroe a pure serve and volleyer. mcenroe could do some damage at the back of the court with variety, feel, and taking the ball early. he was kind of an all court craftsman IMO. when the game got more powerful and john lost a step players were able to power through him at the baseline sometimes and he would do the most damage at the net. he was still pretty crafty when his return game was clicking though and he could neutralize the serve and get some control in the point.

as opposed to Edberg who was a pure serve and volleyer IMO. edberg could just play solid from the back court and try to work his way in. he couldnt really hurt you. he was pretty dangerous on the running passing shots though. once in a while his backhand would be really clicking and he could pull the trigger from the baseline with incredible effect.

then you have rafter...rafter is an interesting one. i consider rafter a pure serve and volleyer with a edberg/mcenroe hybrid mixed in. Form 93 to 96 he was straight up serve and volley and would scrap at the baseline. 97-99 he was serve and volley and grinding from the baseline. from 2000 to the end of his career he was a better player than when he was winning slams IMO. he developed a really tactical and variety driven baseline game to the point being an effective all court player. he would mix in variety, speed and trajectory change ups, sneek in, and even pull the trigger from the back of the court. Rafter was really smart and crafty. his matches in that time perios against agassi are some of the best tactical examples i have ever seen. maybe the best. constant change ups...unbelievable smart serving....the guy was a genious. i put him on par with wilander in terms of intelligence during his 2000-2001 time frame. maybe higher. he was beating andre from the baseline in those years. You can learn an incredible amount from studying those matches. I think he made something like two or three tactical errors in the 2000 wimbledon semi. He pulled off one of the points and lost the other two.

actually, I agree with what you are saying. Although McEnroe's forehand/backhand resemble those of a pusher (because he often doesn't follow through) but clearly, he could inflict a lot of damages with them from the back court when playing with the greats like Connors, Borg, Lendl, etc...

That's not something you can do if you only push the ball (hitting outright winners). Those strokes got some McEnroe's magic on them

 

[magnut]

actually, I agree with what you are saying. Although McEnroe's forehand/backhand resemble those of a pusher (because he often doesn't follow through) but clearly, he could inflict a lot of damages with them from the back court when playing with the greats like Connors, Borg, Lendl, etc...

That's not something you can do if you only push the ball. Those strokes got some McEnroe's magic on them

one thing great about johns stokes is you cant read them at all. same preparation for every shot. theres also not much that can go wrong. MAakes timing less of an issue. i have always felt john's magic has a lot to do with the technical aspects of his strokes. His ability to improvise is largely aided by things like same grip for ever shot, same preparation etc. its all very natural,and requires less maintenance tool stay dialed in as opposed to players like nadal or courier who are extreme opposites of John.

i think thats a big key with rec players....make it as natural as possible. they are not going to go out and practice five hours a day. Forget this pat the dog, windshield wiper, racquet head speed stuff. Just get the fundamentals right, hit clean, and keep it natural. there is a real natural beauty to pure ball strikers like mcenroe, conners, laver etc. etc. we dont really see it anymore. Last player i can think of is maybe edberg or volkov.

 

[Fxanimator1]

Forget this pat the dog, windshield wiper, racquet head speed stuff.

Listen to yourself?
"...forget racquet head speed stuff."

Really?!
That kind of ignorance is just dangerous.

 

[magnut]

Listen to yourself?
"...forget racquet head speed stuff."

Really?!
That kind of ignorance is just dangerous.

not at the rec level where people are just trying to learn to play the game.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

IMO the best possible forehand you can hit is right in between the straight arm and bent arm. Rafa uses it here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb9snljFkKo&list=FLY2BclNaENFiDxjh6hf6WyQ&index=63

federer here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlTZKShIOcw&list=FLY2BclNaENFiDxjh6hf6WyQ&index=96...

As I had mentioned in an earlier post, young Rafa used a double-bend FH and adopted the straight-arm technique as he got older (likely an intentional copy of Roger's technique). In this video of Rafa at 17, his double-bend appears to be mild (somewhat less than the double-bend that I had seen of him at 14 and 16). Any more recent videos of Rafa using this mild version of the double-bend?

There is a very slight bend in Roger's FH in this example. I've seen this before but I would still call it a straight-arm FH technique. There are some examples of his FH in your subsequent video that appear to be a mild double-bend (not unlike the Rafa example). RF has always exhibited a good deal of variety in his shots -- stances, elbow bend and finishes. (There are also quite a few examples of a variety of finishes in that video -- OTS, modern and reverse).

http://www.tennisplayer.net/public/avancedtennis/evolution_modern_forehand/evolution_modern_forehand_part1/roger_federer_evolution_modern_forehand_part1.html
http://www.tennisplayer.net/public/famouscoach/robert_lansdorp/lansdorp_three_forhand_finishes/lansdorp_three_forhand_finishes.html