What Is The ATP Forehand?

[a12345]

I believe that there are very well-defined types of inertial forehands.

Which is characterised by what?

 

[jch]

Which is characterised by what?

A stroke is inertial if it uses inertia to optimize the work of conservation laws in the kinematic chain.
Don't you think it's a wonderfully simple and precise definition?

 

[a12345]

A stroke is inertial if it uses inertia to optimize the work of conservation laws in the kinematic chain.
Don't you think it's a wonderfully simple and precise definition?

So if someone said I want to hit a forehand like Federers action and someone else said they want to hit it like Halep, would you say they are just inertial forehands, both the same.

The same technique is used by both players?

Or do you recognise they both use different techniques.

 

[jch]

So if someone said I want to hit a forehand like Federers action and someone else said they want to hit it like Halep, would you say they are just inertial forehands, both the same.

The same technique is used by both players?

Or do you recognise they both use different techniques.

This is Halep forehand:

Very naive on the physical level, definitely not inertial.

 

[a12345]

This is Halep forehand:

Very naive on the physical level, definitely not inertial.

And do you notice how her technique differs to yours?

Or do you believe you hit a similar style forehand to Halep?

 

[jch]

I perfectly know what I do because virtually every element of my current techniques was previously carefully designed. The question is, how many of these details do you see? Let's check.

Backhand at 01:26, backswing. In your opinion, do I use my wrist or not?

 

[a12345]

I perfectly know what I do because virtually every element of my current techniques was previously carefully designed. The question is, how many of these details do you see? Let's check.

Backhand at 01:26, backswing. In your opinion, do I use my wrist or not?

You are using an ATP forehand.

Halep has a WTA forehand.

You start on the outside, she starts on the inside.

You get racket lag (what youre describing in your own words as an inertial forehand), she gets a straight hit through the ball with no lag.

2 different techniques.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Thats a very common thing floating around this forum, you shouldn't hit with the same efficient and proficient technique as the best players do, because you are not a pro and that technique is too hard for you and a waste of time.

I think its more you shouldn't hit with the same technique as a "specific" pro because that pro's kinetics and biomechanics may be entirely different from yours. You should always try to hit with the same fundamentals as pros. Almost all pros have the same fundamentals to their strokes but no two FH's are the same. That should tell you something about what is best to copy.

 

[FiReFTW]

I think its more you shouldn't hit with the same technique as a "specific" pro because that pro's kinetics and biomechanics may be entirely different from yours. You should always try to hit with the same fundamentals as pros. Almost all pros have the same fundamentals to their strokes but no two FH's are the same. That should tell you something about what is best to copy.

Thats a good point yes.

 

[jch]

You are using an ATP forehand.

Only Federer uses inertial forehands, no one plays inertial backhands. So no, I'm not using the "ATP forehand".

You get racket lag (what youre describing in your own words as an inertial forehand)

Inertial forehands have nothing in common with that... lag. Please define it. Please use terminology typical for physics (I know what to do to make my dog happy).

Almost all pros have the same fundamentals to their strokes but no two FH's are the same.

This tells less about players, much more about modern coaching standards...

 

[a12345]

Only Federer uses inertial forehands, no one plays inertial backhands. So no, I'm not using the "ATP forehand".



Inertial forehands have nothing in common with that... lag. Please define it. Please use terminology typical for physics (I know what to do to make my dog happy).



This tells less about players, much more about modern coaching standards...

What do you mean youre not using an ATP forehand. Thats exactly what youre doing.

You start on the outside.
You move your arm into a pat the dog position.
You swing forward.
The racket butt moves forward first.
The head of the racket flips, lags behind then catches up at contact point.

This is an ATP forehand.

And all this happens because you start on the outside.

Try swinging starting from the inside with the arm and racket head behind your body and see if you can get the same racket lag/flip effect. You cant.

Thats the hallmark of the difference between the 2 techniques.

 

[coupergear]

Smart words. In reality, many amateurs have the potential to hit technically BETTER strokes than pros. Pros have to be successful on the court - their career is usually very short, at 35 it's over. The amateurs can work 10 years on technical improvements and they still have 30-50 years of the "career".

I would also say that it is possible for amateurs to hit as well as pros in terms of power, directions, and rotations. If you know what to do, as an amateur you can play the highest level of technical tennis. There are other factors that decide that pros will win against the best amateurs. The regularity of strokes, dynamics of movement, mental factors at important balls etc. will decide.

So, from my point of view, amateurs can play technically better tennis than many pros. Unfortunately, most of the amateurs prefer to talk about racquets, apparel, results of other players, costs of Bollettieri lessons, or technical details that are totally not important. My favorite argument justifying the idleness and lack of real tennis knowledge is: "...but it's Federer!".

Interesting points and I agree. I think the reason so many players can have longer careers at the top because it takes that long to continually refine and micro refine your Strokes to have max control over the ball. So you see guys like Federer who can stay on the top for a long time because their strokes are just that good or even a guy like Anderson continue to improve even as he gets older because he's dialing in his strokes better and better every year.

 

[coupergear]

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you, to quote Mike Griffin, the former administrator of NASA.

Tennis is a little different, more like: I can explain it to you, show it to you, you might understand--not really relevant--but I can't do it for you.

 

[jch]

What do you mean youre not using an ATP forehand. Thats exactly what youre doing.

No.

"You start on the outside" - it depends on the definition of "outside".
"You move your arm into a pat the dog position" - no, I do not use the "pat the dog" position (to be honest: I do not know what I use, because I do not know its PHYSICAL definition). In the eyes of a physicist, this concept is totally hilarious.
"You swing forward" - not in the way typical for ATP players.
"The racket butt moves forward first" - yes, but in my world we call it "physics", not "ATP".
"The head of the racket flips, lags behind then catches up at contact point. And all this happens because you start on the outside." - No. Just: no.

"Try swinging starting from the inside with the arm and racket head behind your body and see if you can get the same racket lag/flip effect. You cant." - You, you can't

Thats the hallmark of the difference between the 2 techniques.

Please define "outside". It's hard to discuss if I do not know YOUR definition. I do not use this term, in my opinion it is totally not important.

Tennis is a little different, more like: I can explain it to you, show it to you, you might understand--not really relevant--but I can't do it for you.

Good point

 

[a12345]

No.

"You start on the outside" - it depends on the definition of "outside".
"You move your arm into a pat the dog position" - no, I do not use the "pat the dog" position (to be honest: I do not know what I use, because I do not know its PHYSICAL definition). In the eyes of a physicist, this concept is totally hilarious.
"You swing forward" - not in the way typical for ATP players.
"The racket butt moves forward first" - yes, but in my world we call it "physics", not "ATP".
"The head of the racket flips, lags behind then catches up at contact point. And all this happens because you start on the outside." - No. Just: no.

"Try swinging starting from the inside with the arm and racket head behind your body and see if you can get the same racket lag/flip effect. You cant." - You, you can't



Please define "outside". It's hard to discuss if I do not know YOUR definition. I do not use this term, in my opinion it is totally not important.



Good point

This explains it in more detail.

 

[jch]

This explains it in more detail.

I didn't ask for a comparison between ATP and WTA techniques. I asked for the definition of the ATP forehand.

I'll save your time. In my opinion, the "ATP forehand" is a very poorly defined concept. "Pat the dog" - the same. "Outside the body" - no good definition, too. It's not surprising that in this situation every coach has his own theology and that every pupil plays his/her "natural" strokes. Btw, where is the definition of "natural strokes"? Are these the skills with which we are born? OK, so please explain, how they evolved in our genome. This is a serious question.

 

[a12345]

I didn't ask for a comparison between ATP and WTA techniques. I asked for the definition of the ATP forehand.

I'll save your time. In my opinion, the "ATP forehand" is a very poorly defined concept. "Pat the dog" - the same. "Outside the body" - no good definition, too. It's not surprising that in this situation every coach has his own theology and that every pupil plays his/her "natural" strokes. Btw, where is the definition of "natural strokes"? Are these the skills with which we are born? OK, so please explain, how they evolved in our genome. This is a serious question.

Its a technique. It doesnt need to be defined , a technique is a way of doing things.

 

[jch]

Good luck with further improvements.

 

[Raul_SJ]

I didn't ask for a comparison between ATP and WTA techniques. I asked for the definition of the ATP forehand.

I'll save your time. In my opinion, the "ATP forehand" is a very poorly defined concept. "

I will give it a bit of a try. I'm not a scientist or expert and I'm not saying I fully understand it. Just work with me on this. Give me your thoughts on the following regarding timing of shoulder rotation (ESR) in ATP and WTA.

My understanding is that one of the key differences is timing of ESR.

WTA style:ESR occurs during the back swing; before the forward swing starts.
ATP style: ESR occurs during the forward swing. Believe it is Frame #12 in Murray gif?? Agree?

Do you spot the ESR or other differences in the gifs? Give me relevant frame numbers.

​

 

[a12345]

Good luck with further improvements.

Im not sure what youre looking for.

A technique is a way of doing things. Put your arm here, put your elbow here, turn your body here, swing the racket like this. It provides instructions or methodology to help you.

 

[jch]

My understanding is that one of the key differences is timing of ESR.

WTA style:ESR occurs during the back swing; before the forward swing starts.
ATP style: ESR occurs during the forward swing. Believe it is Frame #12 in Murray gif.

Do you see that ESR in the gifs?

Yes, I see. What I do not see are patterns of muscles activation. I need to know them to judge the role of the motion I see. For example: ISR in Sampras serves is one of the main sources of power. In inertial serves it protects the elbow, that's all. For the external observer both motions look almost perfectly the same. Their real roles are totally different.

I can hit "Federer forehands" using ATP and WTA backswings and in some cases the WTA backswings seem to be... more efficient, and there is a good physical reason why.

Well, I am feeling a bit uncomfortable now. I do not know, how could we create a good definition of ATP forehands. In my opinion the whole concept of the "ATP forehands" is fundamentally wrong. It would be a good idea if only a few similar forehand techniques could be seen in men tennis. What we see in reality is a whole zoo of techniques. These techniques are so different that there is a huge risk that common elements of them do not carry any valuable information about the real nature of the strokes.

​

 

[a12345]

Yes, I see. What I do not see are patterns of muscles activation. I need to know them to judge the role of the motion I see. For example: ISR in Sampras serves is one of the main sources of power. In inertial serves it protects the elbow, that's all. For the external observer both motions look almost perfectly the same. Their real roles are totally different.

I can hit "Federer forehands" using ATP and WTA backswings and in some cases the WTA backswings seem to be... more efficient, and there is a good physical reason why.

Well, I am feeling a bit uncomfortable now. I do not know, how could we create a good definition of ATP forehands. In my opinion the whole concept of the "ATP forehands" is fundamentally wrong. It would be a good idea if only a few similar forehand techniques could be seen in men tennis. What we see in reality is a whole zoo of techniques. These techniques are so different that there is a huge risk that common elements of them do not carry any valuable information about the real nature of the strokes.

​

This is the video people often refer to regarding forehand technique and is what youre looking for.

Teachers use colloquial terms like "pat the dog" as a teaching tool, but the scientific method behind the idea exists.

 

[mad dog1]

WTF? Mabye kg

What is this WTF forehand you are referring to? Is it new and better than the ATP and WTA forehands?

 

[jch]

This is the video people often refer to regarding forehand technique and is what youre looking for.

Teachers use colloquial terms like "pat the dog" as a teaching tool, but the scientific method behind the idea exists.

I remember this video.

The classification of phenomena is just the first step of scientific method. Then you have to make assumptions. Then you have to use logic. Then you create a complex casual structure. Then you try to falsify it. Then you look at the domains of its applicability, make predictions and try to falsify them in experiments. And when the experiments confirm your predictions, you can be satisfied.

This is the scientific method. That's the way I created inertial tennis. I went through EACH step of the scientific method.

What Gordon did above is just a biomechanical classification of strokes. The phenomenology of modern tennis. Usually, these first steps are very naive - and so are his interpretations of the Federer sequence.

 

[Raul_SJ]

I can hit "Federer forehands" using ATP and WTA backswings and in some cases the WTA backswings seem to be... more efficient, and there is a good physical reason why.

​

There is no way you can hit a Fed forehand with a WTA backswing. Current Fed forehand is inextricably tied to the AT P forehand which has undergone an evolution during the last 15 years. Impossible to pat the dog and flip with huge wta backswing.

 

[Kylo Reed]

WTA style:ESR occurs during the back swing; before the forward swing starts.
ATP style: ESR occurs during the forward swing. Believe it is Frame #12 in Murray gif?? Agree?

Sorry, this might be a bit off topic but - I think for even for most ATP style forehands, the backswing tends to have (maybe less) but at least some degree of ESR. Also, I do not understand where ESR is happening during the forward swing of the ATP style forehand. I see forearm supination but not ESR (indicator being the elbow crease).

 

[Raul_SJ]

Sorry, this might be a bit off topic but - I think for even for most ATP style forehands, the backswing tends to have (maybe less) but at least some degree of ESR. Also, I do not understand where ESR is happening during the forward swing of the ATP style forehand. I see forearm supination but not ESR (indicator being the elbow crease).

It's not off topic because timing off the ESR and when it occurs is one of the distinguishing features of the ATP.
IIRC, from the youtube USPTA Macci video, it is unit turn --> elbow extension (some pronation?) to reach "Tap the Dog" position --> "Flip" --> ESR?.

Unit turn followed by elbow extension to reach "tap the dog" position.

 

[coupergear]

I didn't ask for a comparison between ATP and WTA techniques. I asked for the definition of the ATP forehand.

I'll save your time. In my opinion, the "ATP forehand" is a very poorly defined concept. "Pat the dog" - the same. "Outside the body" - no good definition, too. It's not surprising that in this situation every coach has his own theology and that every pupil plays his/her "natural" strokes. Btw, where is the definition of "natural strokes"? Are these the skills with which we are born? OK, so please explain, how they evolved in our genome. This is a serious question.

You're one of those pedantic trolls, eh?

How's your Shakespeare?

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

You see it on video, you see it happen in real time. What ounce of difference does it make what its called? Pat the dog? Crank the stank? Waft the shaft? You're quibbling over naming conventions.

How about the Fosbury flop, to borrow an analogy from another thread and sport. For years they did a scissor kick motion (another imperfect naming convention) for high jump then came Fosbury and blew them all away. So now gold standard technique is called the Fosbury flop (an even less descriptive naming convention), does it make a whit of difference what its called? No.

 

[Raul_SJ]

IIRC, from the youtube USPTA Macci video, it is unit turn --> elbow extension (some pronation?) to reach "Tap the Dog" position --> "Flip" --> ESR?.

Earlier Curiousity post describing when ESR occurs:

ESR is produced (automatically or with a brief easy rotation of the upper arm in the shoulder joint) just at the instant in which upper body rotation begins.

You provide two frames of Murray, one before and one just after his UB rotation starts. Mimic those two positions yourself, going from the first to the second with shadow swings. The rotation of your upper arm in the shoulder socket is exactly what you need to get the racquet from its position back and closed to its neutral orientation going forward.

The two-volume German Tennis Federation Tennis Handbook, available in both German and English, goes over this ground.

The lag, extension, of the wrist is a separate issue from ESR, though lag and ESR typically combine in a standard forehand. You can perform ESR with no lag. You can perform lag with almost no ESR if you use an extreme forehand grip. While contemporary players typically both let the loose wrist go into extension and let the racquet lag, ESR and ISR are separate motions which are joined to wrist extension, and to low-to-high racquet progression up and out to the ball. The fact that they are separate is why detailed tennis coaching guides describe each of these elements separately.

 

[RajS]

@jch: Very interesting! I have read (on this board) about ATP and WTA strokes, and I am beginning to believe now that the actual path of the racket may just be a side effect of what the player wants to do. The men make their final move at the latest possible moment, it seems. As the ball gets real close to the contact point, the player literally throws the racket back or down or both, based on his intended forward path. The racket's inertia loads the muscles of the arm and lower body appropriately, and this power is brutally used to reverse the racket direction. All while holding the racket as loosely as possible to maximize speed, so every joint that can flex (like the wrist) does flex. Of necessity, the racket cannot move too far back due to the time constraint and stays mostly on the hitting side. Probably the wear and tear on the body is much higher with this kind of stroke.

The women build up speed with as long a back swing as possible, in a much smoother motion, which means the racket moves back more, even to the non hitting side, and there are no abrupt direction changes or muscle loading. Acceleration is more gradual and takes more time to build up speed before making contact. The stroke is consequently flatter with less spin, compared to the men's version.

I suppose this principle (from the men's technique) could be applied to all strokes, although at present I cannot imagine how volleys, which have no back swing, can incorporate this principle.

All that said, I would trade my strokes for Serena's WTA strokes any day, lol!

 

[FiReFTW]

Well this thread really went off the rails with some extreme technical details.

Also @jch seems to be blindly convinced in every little detail of his extremely mad theories, and like any mad scientist he might be wrong or perhaps even correct.

 

[Chadillac]

And do you notice how her technique differs to yours?

Or do you believe you hit a similar style forehand to Halep?

One of the few examples of sound being > light. Indoor brings the boom.

Womens tennis's problem is placement, not power. Looks like a bad warm up partner in match play.

 

[jch]

There is no way you can hit a Fed forehand with a WTA backswing.

To continue, we have to define, precisely, what do you mean by the "WTA backswing". Please do not use words like "outside the body" without their former definition, I am not too religious.

Also, I do not understand where ESR is happening during the forward swing of the ATP style forehand. I see forearm supination but not ESR (indicator being the elbow crease).

In inertial forehands, ESR can happen in the first phase of the forward swing. CAN.

You're one of those pedantic trolls, eh?

Yeah. That's why I play like a troll, while you are a nice, smart man.

What ounce of difference does it make what its called? Pat the dog? Crank the stank? Waft the shaft? You're quibbling over naming conventions.

Names define worlds. Bad names define bad worlds.

How about the Fosbury flop.

This is a great example. Unfortunately, you do not understand how great it is...

@jch: The men make their final move at the latest possible moment, it seems. As the ball gets real close to the contact point, the player literally throws the racket back or down or both, based on his intended forward path. The racket's inertia loads the muscles of the arm and lower body appropriately, and this power is brutally used to reverse the racket direction. All while holding the racket as loosely as possible to maximize speed, so every joint that can flex (like the wrist) does flex. Of necessity, the racket cannot move too far back due to the time constraint and stays mostly on the hitting side. Probably the wear and tear on the body is much higher with this kind of stroke.

There are many, many physical and biomechanical details, but you are on a right track

I suppose this principle (from the men's technique) could be applied to all strokes, although at present I cannot imagine how volleys, which have no back swing, can incorporate this principle.

It takes some time to understand, how these ideas can be materialized. I can say that inertial volleys are so easy and so natural that in my opinion they should be used as the first step in tennis education of inertial techniques.

Well this thread really went off the rails with some extreme technical details.

I am not talking about "details" here. I am talking about the most general and the most powerful principles of this sport.

Also @jch seems to be blindly convinced in every little detail of his extremely mad theories, and like any mad scientist he might be wrong or perhaps even correct.

Exactly. I presented these ideas to a dozen or so coaches - many names would surprise you - and, well, they didn't suggest me to publish in "Science" or "Nature" (if you know what I mean ). For now, a polite interest. They're probably waiting, will you all destroy me or not...

One of the few examples of sound being > light. Indoor brings the boom.

Humans are funny.

Your reactions:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/top-tennis-training-with-fed.548405/#post-9797666

Then...

Your reactions: silence. Or "indoor brings the boom".

I should improve my marketing. Definitely.

Take a video editor, choose the similar shots from both movies, synchronize them to the moment of the first contact, and then check, frame by frame, the power of strokes (hint: you can turn off the sound). And then come back and I will explain to you, why I can hit balls with the power similar to the power of the GOAT.

 

[Chadillac]

To continue, we have to define, precisely, what do you mean by the "WTA backswing". Please do not use words like "outside the body" without their former definition, I am not too religious.



In inertial forehands, ESR can happen in the first phase of the forward swing. CAN.



Yeah. That's why I play like a troll, while you are a nice, smart man.



Names define worlds. Bad names define bad worlds.



This is a great example. Unfortunately, you do not understand how great it is...



There are many, many physical and biomechanical details, but you are on a right track



It takes some time to understand, how these ideas can be materialized. I can say that inertial volleys are so easy and so natural that in my opinion they should be used as the first step in tennis education of inertial techniques.



I am not talking about "details" here. I am talking about the most general and the most powerful principles of this sport.



Exactly. I presented these ideas to a dozen or so coaches - many names would surprise you - and, well, they didn't suggest me to publish in "Science" or "Nature" (if you know what I mean ). For now, a polite interest. They're probably waiting, will you all destroy me or not...



Humans are funny.

Your reactions:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/top-tennis-training-with-fed.548405/#post-9797666

Then...

Your reactions: silence. Or "indoor brings the boom".

I should improve my marketing. Definitely.

Take a video editor, choose the similar shots from both movies, synchronize them to the moment of the first contact, and then check, frame by frame, the power of strokes (hint: you can turn off the sound). And then come back and I will explain to you, why I can hit balls with the power similar to the power of the GOAT.

You open stance after two steps on the fh. Anchor leg swings around, great for xcourt, but never have to guard vs the line as an opponent, it curves to me.

Not saying i could beat your, had like 5 beers, but i could feed you the same meatballs your "opponent" was Everything was waist level on semi decline, you dip the head on every one, will sail deep or you gas out when balls arent in the strike zone.

You hit your feeds as hard as your groundstrokes

Great playing, your a 4.5 on these forums (like highest you can be). Thanks for posting a video

We hit our bh similar, really liked when you pulled the xcourt off the back foot. Nice plow through, kept it level

 

[a12345]

I remember this video.

The classification of phenomena is just the first step of scientific method. Then you have to make assumptions. Then you have to use logic. Then you create a complex casual structure. Then you try to falsify it. Then you look at the domains of its applicability, make predictions and try to falsify them in experiments. And when the experiments confirm your predictions, you can be satisfied.

This is the scientific method. That's the way I created inertial tennis. I went through EACH step of the scientific method.

What Gordon did above is just a biomechanical classification of strokes. The phenomenology of modern tennis. Usually, these first steps are very naive - and so are his interpretations of the Federer sequence.

You keep going on about scientific method like youre teaching us what science is and we all dont know whats involved in science.

The ATP forehand is not a scientific theory, its a technique.

There is no correlation between characterising the ATP forehand technique, and confirming if the Higgs Boson is real.

In your obsession with science, a technique its the method in which you do things.

There are 100 different ways you can hit a ball, a technique is the method you choose to use to hit that ball.

 

[FiReFTW]

Exactly. I presented these ideas to a dozen or so coaches - many names would surprise you - and, well, they didn't suggest me to publish in "Science" or "Nature" (if you know what I mean ). For now, a polite interest. They're probably waiting, will you all destroy me or not...

Im not saying ur wrong, but whats confusing to me is that your talking about inertia, when every high level forehand has inertia, so im not sure what exactly ur point is.
And also, how can someone implement or how can this information help them with their own forehand?

 

[jch]

You open stance after two steps on the fh. Anchor leg swings around, great for xcourt, but never have to guard vs the line as an opponent, it curves to me.

There are many artifacts of my amateur habits in this movie. I am not the perfect inertial player, I have not made all technical errors yet Maybe in 3-4 years...

Not saying i could beat your, had like 5 beers, but i could feed you the same meatballs your "opponent" was

My partner is currently ranked Top50 (in the national ranking of the Polish Tennis Association). His opinion about our practice, in comparison to trainings with other ranked players: "It's faster". So, technically speaking, I am not 4.5.

We hit our bh similar, really liked when you pulled the xcourt off the back foot.

Where could I watch your strokes?

A few words at the end. Here, I just want to show a simple idea: amateurs can play at the highest technical level. They can play technically better tennis than many pros - because they can practice for years. There were two main obstacles: lack of time and lack of knowledge. I solved both in inertial tennis. The structure of inertial techniques is simple, coherent, all strokes feel the same, if you find out what to do here, you know what to do there, so the longer you learn, the faster is your progress. Techniques are not based on muscles, you do not need to spend hours per day in a gym. Also, you can practice timings of strokes and/or work on your flexibility almost everywhere you want. Instead of 3-6 hours per day on the court, high-paid coaches and 2 hours in a gym, my proposal is much simpler: first the really coherent knowledge, then shadow strokes or other simple technical exercises in short reps every 30-60 minutes and/or statistically 1 hour on the court or against the wall. That's it. Or, better: that's IT

 

[jch]

You keep going on about scientific method like youre teaching us what science is and we all dont know whats involved in science.

Guys, let's be honest. I read this forum for over 10 years. It was me who initiated here the habit of supporting claims with scientific publications. No, you do not use the scientific method here. You use its elements.

The ATP forehand is not a scientific theory, its a technique.

Let's say you have a pupil and you want to teach him/her the "ATP forehand". What should I expect? Will he/she play forehands like Federer? Nadal? Del Potro? Sock? Gulbis?

The "ATP forehand" doesn't exist. If a term is not useful, it should be abandoned. This is your greatest weakness here: you can not abandon your own ideas...

There is no correlation between characterising the ATP forehand technique, and confirming if the Higgs Boson is real.

In your obsession with science, a technique its the method in which you do things.

There are 100 different ways you can hit a ball, a technique is the method you choose to use to hit that ball.

Think what you want, we live in a free world. Don't forget to show us your techniques.

Im not saying ur wrong, but whats confusing to me is that your talking about inertia, when every high level forehand has inertia, so im not sure what exactly ur point is.

In a few months things will start to brighten up a little.

And also, how can someone implement or how can this information help them with their own forehand?

Well... Now I have to present the whole structure in a form of a book. Then you and coaches and scientists will try to destroy the logical structure of inertial tennis. Then you will fail. Then you will start to think: "Hm, let's try...". Then you will find out how stupid we all were and how exceptional was Federer intuition. And then you will help to extend and improve inertial tennis.

Yes, things will look more or less like this

 

[a12345]

Guys, let's be honest. I read this forum for over 10 years. It was me who initiated here the habit of supporting claims with scientific publications. No, you do not use the scientific method here. You use its elements.



Let's say you have a pupil and you want to teach him/her the "ATP forehand". What should I expect? Will he/she play forehands like Federer? Nadal? Del Potro? Sock? Gulbis?

The "ATP forehand" doesn't exist. If a term is not useful, it should be abandoned. This is your greatest weakness here: you can not abandon your own ideas...

You do realise the term "ATP forehand" doesnt mean you will play like an ATP player dont you?

Its a name given to the technique they use to hit the ball.

An 8 year old can use an ATP forehand. Its just the technique.

You can rename it to "Style B forehand" if you want. Would you then say a Style B forehand doesnt exist?

You can create your own technique and call it "Style P". Does the Style P forehand therefore exist?

 

[jch]

You do realise the term "ATP forehand" doesnt mean you will play like an ATP player dont you?

Its a name given to the technique they use to hit the ball.

An 8 year old can use an ATP forehand. Its just the technique.

You can rename it to "Style B forehand" if you want. Would you then say a Style B forehand doesnt exist?

You can create your own technique and call it "Style P". Does the Style P forehand therefore exist?

Define that "ATP forehand" finally, please.

In my opinion, this term is as useful as a "human walk" for a runner. The runner knows that he has to use two legs, that's all. Really helpful...

 

[a12345]

Define that "ATP forehand" finally, please.

In my opinion, this term is as useful as a "human walk" for a runner. The runner knows that he has to use two legs, that's all. Really helpful...

Its the name for the technique. Is that what youre after?

Definition of the ATP forehand: The name given to a certain technique for hitting a forehand shot.

 

[WildVolley]

Define that "ATP forehand" finally, please.

In my opinion, this term is as useful as a "human walk" for a runner. The runner knows that he has to use two legs, that's all. Really helpful...

This is quite rich coming from the guy who calls his forehand an inertia forehand. All tennis strokes involve inertia. Your term is meaningless.

 

[jch]

This is quite rich coming from the guy who calls his forehand an inertia forehand. All tennis strokes involve inertia. Your term is meaningless.

No, it's not. I defined inertial strokes quite precisely, and a simplified version of the definition you can read a few posts above. Your problem is that you do not understand this definition. The best physicists in my country didn't have problems with this definition and forgive me, their opinion is worth a bit more for me than your opinion.

 

[Topspin Shot]

No, it's not. I defined inertial strokes quite precisely, and a simplified version of the definition you can read a few posts above. Your problem is that you do not understand this definition. The best physicists in my country didn't have problems with this definition and forgive me, their opinion is worth a bit more for me than your opinion.

Interesting thing about academics. I'm an economics PhD student at a prestigious university. One of the profs in my department has actually studied data from pro tennis players through the lens of game theory. He's a world famous economist, almost certainly more renowned than any physicist in your conference. I've spoken to him about the tennis players, and he stresses the importance of humility in what he can and can't claim about their strategies. He also makes no attempt to sound smart or impressive and doesn't act superior to other people. Make of it what you will.

 

[WildVolley]

No, it's not. I defined inertial strokes quite precisely, and a simplified version of the definition you can read a few posts above. Your problem is that you do not understand this definition. The best physicists in my country didn't have problems with this definition and forgive me, their opinion is worth a bit more for me than your opinion.

Nonsense. Show me the math and empirical evidence that your stroke "optimizes the work of conservation laws in the kinematic chain."

A human swinging a tennis racquet is not a simple system. Your definition remains meaningless.

 

[coupergear]

Define that "ATP forehand" finally, please.

In my opinion, this term is as useful as a "human walk" for a runner. The runner knows that he has to use two legs, that's all. Really helpful...

Again, in the end you're simply quibbling over a naming convention. Nothing more or less. Unless you're claiming that with a different name, people will somehow more easily learn the ATP forehand. In which case you're still wrong. You don't learn a technique from reading it's name.

 

[sureshs]

I have always hit an ATP forehand just by instinct.

Problem is that it is very slow and has very little spin. I am trying to cultivate a larger takeback and make it more WTA style.

 

[jch]

Interesting thing about academics. I'm an economics PhD student at a prestigious university. One of the profs in my department has actually studied data from pro tennis players through the lens of game theory. He's a world famous economist, almost certainly more renowned than any physicist in your conference. I've spoken to him about the tennis players, and he stresses the importance of humility in what he can and can't claim about their strategies. He also makes no attempt to sound smart or impressive and doesn't act superior to other people. Make of it what you will.

Show me his strokes, we will see the real value of his words.

Your value I know, Mr. Student-of-Economy-at-a-Prestigious-University.

Nonsense. Show me the math and empirical evidence that your stroke "optimizes the work of conservation laws in the kinematic chain."

A human swinging a tennis racquet is not a simple system. Your definition remains meaningless.

Well, I verified what I created:

Did you verify your claims, your works? Oh, I forgot. You created NOTHING. YOUR words are meaningless.

Again, in the end you're simply quibbling over a naming convention. Nothing more or less. Unless you're claiming that with a different name, people will somehow more easily learn the ATP forehand. In which case you're still wrong. You don't learn a technique from reading it's name.

Oh, god... I am kindly asking: tell me, what do you mean by the "ATP forehand". That's a very simple question. What's up with you, man? You do not know the meaning of the terms you are using here?

 

[coupergear]

Show me his strokes, we will see the real value of his words.

Your value I know, Mr. Student-of-Economy-at-a-Prestigious-University.



Well, I verified what I created:

Did you verify your claims, your works? Oh, I forgot. You created NOTHING. YOUR words are meaningless.



Oh, god... I am kindly asking: tell me, what do you mean by the "ATP forehand". That's a very simple question. What's up with you, man? You do not know the meaning of the terms you are using here?

Someone already did this but will do it again see if it sinks in:

The ATP forehand is a style to hit a forehand groundstoke in tennis.

The Fosbury Flop is a style used in the athletics event of high jump.

 

[Deleted member 120290]

"What Is The ATP Forehand?"

By definition, it is a forehand that NO ONE on this forum has.