What Is The ATP Forehand?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
I don't know why you keep saying that I'm nothing special. I've don't claim to be anything special. And if I was something special I wouldn't brag about it on an Internet forum. Which makes me wonder why you're even here. Because there's nothing for you here, just a bunch of amateurs who enjoy tennis. If you care about being special, contact the best tennis players and coaches directly and see how well you do with them. Maybe try Brian Gordon, he's an expert on biomechanics.
 

jch

Rookie
That's a good point, TenFanLA.

Good luck with your ATP forehands, guys, don't forget to share your results, please.
 

a12345

Professional
"A stroke is inertial if it uses inertia to optimize the work of conservation laws in the kinematic chain."

What does that even mean to "use inertia"? Thats a strange word to use. Do you mean momentum?
How do you define optimise? Maximum power or the most efficient input of effort vs output of power? If its effort to power ratio you are likely to get diminishing returns the more effort you put into the stroke. A weak stroke is most efficient.
Which conservation laws are you referring to - there are many.

Your scientific definition is rather subjective and vague.
 

RajS

Semi-Pro
Hmm... just making a guess here on what @jch's definition of an inertial stroke means: using the inertia of the racket (in the loading phase) to achieve an alignment or coupling of the links in the kinetic chain so as to minimize energy loss in the forward swing and collision phases?

I am probably wrong, but this sounds to me like a straight arm that is externally rotated with an extended wrist (all joints (links) rigidly coupled in the forward direction). I like these puzzles!
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
Hmm... just making a guess here on what @jch's definition of an inertial stroke means: using the inertia of the racket (in the loading phase) to achieve an alignment or coupling of the links in the kinetic chain so as to minimize energy loss in the forward swing and collision phases?

I am probably wrong, but this sounds to me like a straight arm that is externally rotated with an extended wrist (all joints (links) rigidly coupled in the forward direction). I like these puzzles!

Is this it? The "Inertial Tennis" channel? :confused:

He needs to explain the concept clearly. Sounds much more vague and confusing than "ATP forehand".

 
Last edited:

Digital Atheist

Hall of Fame
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
In that case feel free to back up such a bold assertion with actual evidence.

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.
I hear ya, but he clearly didn't.

Show me his strokes, we will see the real value of his words
IMO you completely missed his point.

I am not too religious
It could be said that I fit that description also, and I'm very much a fan of the scientific method. But it seems to me your behaviour here is more like that of an egotistical narcissistic God. I don't believe it is your intention, but that's how it comes across.

Consider this for a moment; not everybody is interested in exploring this world using only physics and biomechanics, but more to the point not everyone here is a physicist, so for you to attempt to dictate what and how certain topics are discussed with respect to your interests or expertise (on a tennis forum in a thread you never started no less) might qualify as ignorant. If you want to have that conversation then the proper course of action is to take it up with actual physicists; maybe even start your own thread on here and outline what you hope to achieve and invite said physicists/biomechanists or persons with such knowledge to contribute. Hash it out with your fellow scientists in an approved manner (@oserver might be able to help you out) and then present it to the masses using a layman's approach and let the conversation develop from there. Since it's not going so well for you in this thread at the moment, at least consider my suggestion as a possible way of moving forward before it gets ugly.

EDIT: An interesting blog from a biomechanics researcher that delves deeply into the various "types" of forehands and explains the characteristics and differences can be found below:

https://tennisspeedresearch.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/roadmap-to-hall-of-fame-forehand-part-5.html
https://tennisspeedresearch.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/roadmap-to-hall-of-fame-forehand-part-6.html
https://tennisspeedresearch.blogspot.co.nz/2012/10/roadmap-to-hall-of-fame-forehand-part-7.html

At the very least it makes for interesting reading and I think you will enjoy it (apart from the horrific navigation).
 
Last edited:

a12345

Professional
Hmm... just making a guess here on what @jch's definition of an inertial stroke means: using the inertia of the racket (in the loading phase) to achieve an alignment or coupling of the links in the kinetic chain so as to minimize energy loss in the forward swing and collision phases?

I am probably wrong, but this sounds to me like a straight arm that is externally rotated with an extended wrist (all joints (links) rigidly coupled in the forward direction). I like these puzzles!

The reality is that looking at JCH's videos he uses an ATP forehand.

But what it looks like is that years ago, he started with a stiff wrist and was hitting with a fixed wrist, but has now changed to a looser wrist and has found the use of racket lag.
 
Last edited:

oserver

Professional
I here the term "ATP forehand" being tossed all around the internet and commonly associated with a compact backswing and racket flip. But many of these characteristics I see juniors and collegiate players doing, who are not on the ATP tour.

So having a compact backswing and racket flip can't possibly be an accurate definition of what makes an "ATP forehand" (i.e. common standard of a men's pro level forehand).

In this thread, can we clarify what the universal characteristics of a forehand on the ATP tour are? Like commonalities in ball speed, ball RPM, and of course, biomechanics of their stroke.

To me, APT forehand can have a very short name as 3O forehand, open stance (or semi-open), open grips (semi-western grip, plus or minus), open wrist (wrist at extension state at ball contact point) and a passive arm. Stance and grip are about sport forms, and how to use the wrist and arm is about techniques.

Of course, not every ATP players hit every forehand using 3O style. Above are just for a typical forehand shot or for majority of forehand shots by ATP players.
 

Dragy

Legend
To me, APT forehand can have a very short name as 3O forehand, open stance (or semi-open), open grips (semi-western grip, plus or minus), open wrist (wrist at extension state at ball contact point) and a passive arm. Stance and grip are about sport forms, and how to use the wrist and arm is about techniques.

Of course, not every ATP players hit every forehand using 3O style. Above are just for a typical forehand shot or for majority of forehand shots by ATP players.
Do you know westernish grips are commonly referred to as closed grips?
 

BlueB

Legend
Do you know westernish grips are commonly referred to as closed grips?
Not only refered to, but actually IS closed. I just tried to explain it to him in his abomination of serving thread.

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
 

GuyClinch

Legend
Wow had did this thread get derailed..

FWIW I think Rick Macci covers about 90% of what anyone needs to hit a modern forehand in his seminar. You likely want a coach for the other 10%. I have a new coach in Texas and he is a young guy - and that is the forehand he teaches. This is not unusual - most male young pro will teach this style of forehand - because they know it the best and there is no reason why not..

The issue with the forehand IMHO (on this forum) is that at low levels you can hit it multiple ways and still win matches and be effective. And there are some variations that even work well at the 6.0+ level..

We don't have this problem with the serve..

With the serve we have really converged on one way to hit it. Sure there are some difference in take back and stance - but its pretty much one style for hitting serves for a extremely long time now.. So you can use "pro" style to hit your serve. You won't hit serves as hard - have the same racquet drop - but its something every amateur can strive for.

Likewise, I think that ANY man can use Macci style outside prep with (aka pat the dog) with hip drive and out in front contact and have success at his level. This isn't going to automatically make you so much better then your opponents though - even if they just arm it.

As Macci even says you can get pretty good at doing something - if you practice a lot - even if its not the best way. I think you could find someone who uses just his small shoulder muscles (and maybe some gravity) who beats guys at the 4.0 level - if you do a little research. And there are literally tons of guys using a Connors like forehand who win at even the top levels of league tennis.. Tons of guys winning with what Macci calls 'inside prep" and a slightly more angular swing path (aka around the body).. AKA a WTA style forehand..

Now guys on this forum would claim all those techniques are easier - and that you shouldn't bother to try to hit like Fed/Novak as its like magic or something. But its just a style. If you were a baseball pitcher you could learn to pitch sidearm or overhead. Different styles - both can be effective. One is massively more effective and popular though.. You can really suck with both styles too though. And going from one style to the other won't fix suckitude.

Macci gives you a really nice blueprint to get started on a modern forehand - and you can add to that if you can get a coach that hits with a modern forehand.. But you don't have to wait till you are 5.5 and then 'convert'. You can start out kids this way..no problem.
 
Last edited:

oserver

Professional
Do you know westernish grips are commonly referred to as closed grips?
It all depends on the reference point or points.
It make sense to define the openness of grips in accordance of the stances and shot types. From most closed grips to more open grips -

If one like to emphasize the stance types of the shot
Western forehand grip (#5) or #1 (eastern backhand grip)
Continental grip (#2)
eastern forehand grip (#3)
semi-western grip (#4)
This order is from a closed stance friendly grip to open stance friendly grip for serve.

If one like to emphasize the spin types of the shot
Continental grip (#2)
eastern forehand grip (#3)
semi-western grip (#4)
Western forehand grip (#5) or #1 (eastern backhand grip)
This order is from a slice friendly grip to topspin friendly grip for forehand.

So the Continental grip (#2) is in closed grip for both cases.
 

sredna42

Hall of Fame
I don't know why you keep saying that I'm nothing special. I've don't claim to be anything special. And if I was something special I wouldn't brag about it on an Internet forum. Which makes me wonder why you're even here. Because there's nothing for you here, just a bunch of amateurs who enjoy tennis. If you care about being special, contact the best tennis players and coaches directly and see how well you do with them. Maybe try Brian Gordon, he's an expert on biomechanics.

Jesus, you people aren't trying to engage in a sane dialog with that wanker are you?

It's probably too late now, you all could have had pages of entertainment if you'd goaded him just right.

oserver got involved, that's one positive I guess, but you could have had POMO here, and maybe peoplespeace too if you'd played your cards right. Maybe even Bartlebot as well if you pushed the "sexism" angle of ATP vs WTA forehands. Could have had them chasing laser pointers on the freeway and everything. Oh well...
 

Dragy

Legend
It all depends on the reference point or points.
It make sense to define the openness of grips in accordance of the stances and shot types. From most closed grips to more open grips -

If one like to emphasize the stance types of the shot
Western forehand grip (#5) or #1 (eastern backhand grip)
Continental grip (#2)
eastern forehand grip (#3)
semi-western grip (#4)
This order is from a closed stance friendly grip to open stance friendly grip for serve.

If one like to emphasize the spin types of the shot
Continental grip (#2)
eastern forehand grip (#3)
semi-western grip (#4)
Western forehand grip (#5) or #1 (eastern backhand grip)
This order is from a slice friendly grip to topspin friendly grip for forehand.

So the Continental grip (#2) is in closed grip for both cases.
Eastern FH, Semi-western FH, Western FH and Hawaiian grips are FH grips. Your serve stance reference is inappropriate. Closed grips are those which make racquet face closed - more tilted forward. Easy as it is.
 

RajS

Semi-Pro
@Raul_SJ, @a12345: For sure, @jch has great strokes, and his forehand looks like Fed's. I suppose one could copy Federer's motions faithfully, and (try to) repeat them on the court. But there is no guarantee that if you do this, the activation patterns of your muscles will also be the same as Fed's, and your stroke may end up being not very effective. On the other hand, if you approach the ball with certain goals or visuals in your mind, without even knowing how Fed hits, you might achieve a similar form with similar muscle activation patterns. I am hoping @jch will give us a clue as to how he developed his strokes. I realize that at 62, I may not be capable of executing his method, but all knowledge is good, for me.
 
Last edited:

oserver

Professional
Eastern FH, Semi-western FH, Western FH and Hawaiian grips are FH grips. Your serve stance reference is inappropriate. Closed grips are those which make racquet face closed - more tilted forward. Easy as it is.

You need to have some reference points. For example, without referencing the baseline or the projected ball path, how do you define what is a open stance or closed stance. What's the point of determine the openness/closeness of a grip without referring to anything else?
 

BlueB

Legend
It all depends on the reference point or points.
It make sense to define the openness of grips in accordance of the stances and shot types. From most closed grips to more open grips -

If one like to emphasize the stance types of the shot
Western forehand grip (#5) or #1 (eastern backhand grip)
Continental grip (#2)
eastern forehand grip (#3)
semi-western grip (#4)
This order is from a closed stance friendly grip to open stance friendly grip for serve.

If one like to emphasize the spin types of the shot
Continental grip (#2)
eastern forehand grip (#3)
semi-western grip (#4)
Western forehand grip (#5) or #1 (eastern backhand grip)
This order is from a slice friendly grip to topspin friendly grip for forehand.

So the Continental grip (#2) is in closed grip for both cases.
Garbage.

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
 

BlueB

Legend
You need to have some reference points. For example, without referencing the baseline or the projected ball path, how do you define what is a open stance or closed stance. What's the point of determine the openness/closeness of a grip without referring to anything else?
And more garbage.
It's not a metaphysical discussion.
You made a mistake in your useless theories, now when exposed, you are trying to confuse the issue.

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
You need to have some reference points. For example, without referencing the baseline or the projected ball path, how do you define what is a open stance or closed stance. What's the point of determine the openness/closeness of a grip without referring to anything else?

I usually use Uranus as the reference point
 

oserver

Professional
Jesus, you people aren't trying to engage in a sane dialog with that wanker are you?

It's probably too late now, you all could have had pages of entertainment if you'd goaded him just right.

oserver got involved, that's one positive I guess, but you could have had POMO here, and maybe peoplespeace too if you'd played your cards right. Maybe even Bartlebot as well if you pushed the "sexism" angle of ATP vs WTA forehands. Could have had them chasing laser pointers on the freeway and everything. Oh well...

What a sense of humor!? Without you and me, there will be no fun!
 

oserver

Professional
I've heard many versions for the reason to using open stance (how about plus open grip). Here is my version on the Open Topspin Serve thread -

Repeat - The reason for open stances and open grips is to generate more power using angular momentum generation, using cross body swing. The older style forehand had been using more linear momentum generation, using more forward swing path.

One step vs two step is not an important factor to promote modern forehand stance or grip. Otherwise players will use open stance when get rushed, and go back to closed stance if they have more time to setup.
 

jch

Rookie
The reality is that looking at JCH's videos he uses an ATP forehand.

...and Usain Bolt uses bipedal motion. Very helpful, really.

The reality is completely opposite: no one in ATP uses inertial forehands, except Federer, and the way the player performs inertial forehands is dramatically different from the methods used by modern ATP players. That's why no one was able to reconstruct Federer forehand: every master of modern tennis thought that Federer forehand is a modified version of a typical stroke. It's not.

@Raul_SJ, @a12345: For sure, @jch has great strokes, and his forehand looks like Fed's.

Thank you. You know, what's really beautiful in these strokes? I do not feel them, and to execute them, I do not have to be powerful nor athletic, I have to be careful. Almost no effort, no stress on upper body, no injuries (but I have to use plasters on my fingers, preventively).

I am hoping @jch will give us a clue as to how he developed his strokes. I realize that at 62, I may not be capable of executing his method, but all knowledge is good, for me.

That's the goal: to share the knowledge. I was very lucky with some crazy ideas, and even more lucky to take them seriously. It would be interesting to see, what other people can do with this knowledge. Many elements of inertial tennis can be implemented in hours, by everyone. The total transformation will probably be more dramatic, in the first year I would expect that adepts will have problems to hit the ball. Then the process of learning should accelerate rapidly. The full transformation will take 3-4 years, I think.

With a bit of luck, inertial tennis will be presented comprehensively at the end of this year. I hope so, it's presentation in fragments could produce too much reactions you can see above.
 

EdbergLetUs

New User
Isn't this the essence of inertial tennis? Or do I have it wrong?

watermarklockandrolltennismonkeydrum.jpg
 

jch

Rookie
The essence of inertial tennis are conservation laws. Inertia is the way to them. Motions like these above I call half-inertial.
 

Curious

G.O.A.T.
The reality is completely opposite: no one in ATP uses inertial forehands, except Federer, and the way the player performs inertial forehands is dramatically different from the methods used by modern ATP players. That's why no one was able to reconstruct Federer foreha
I dont think there is anything magical about Federer's forehand. He does it right in front of our eyes, there's no rocket science involved. Anyone can do it the same way. I can teach it to anyone with average IQ in 10 minutes. It's just a variation of many good forehands in tennis. You're in a dream state.
 

jch

Rookie
So what is an example of a full-intertial motion in the context of the monkey drum?

Conservation laws work always and everywhere, so they are present in the physics of the monkey drum, too. There are phases of the motion of the md, where they are clearly visible, but generally, this motion is dominated by inertia that doesn't affect the work of conservation laws.

I dont think there is anything magical about Federer's forehand. He does it right in front of our eyes, there's no rocket science involved. Anyone can do it the same way. I can teach it to anyone with average IQ in 10 minutes. It's just a variation of many good forehands in tennis. You're in a dream state.

Yes, you know everything about Federer forehand:


Good luck at coaching.

FYI: You don't even know how to hold the racquet.
 

Curious

G.O.A.T.
Conservation laws work always and everywhere, so they are present in the physics of the monkey drum, too. There are phases of the motion of the md, where they are clearly visible, but generally, this motion is dominated by inertia that doesn't affect the work of conservation laws.



Yes, you know everything about Federer forehand:


Good luck at coaching.

FYI: You don't even know how to hold the racquet.
You're too predictable bro! I knew you would post a video of mine. I just experíment different stuff in tennis, that's what enjoy doing. I can copy anyone if I want to. I just dont come up with a theory just because I am obsessed with a pro and spent 10 years just to look like him.
 

Knox

Semi-Pro
You're too predictable bro! I knew you would post a video of mine. I just experíment different stuff in tennis, that's what enjoy doing. I can copy anyone if I want to. I just dont come up with a theory just because I am obsessed with a pro and spent 10 years just to look like him.

Interesting.

The levels of insecurity in this one comment are off the charts.

BTW he's right about your grip. You're holding the racquet way too far up the handle.

"I can copy anyone if I want to."

Please go copy any pro grip.
 

kramer woodie

Professional
I think anyone can see the results of the men's ATP style forehand and men's serving technique, if you watch Professional Mixed Doubles
matches. The women Can Not cut it!!! Their serves, forehands, and backhands are slower with less spin potential. Now go watch women
try to return male Pros serves, that is if women can even return Isner's, Raonic', or Federer's serves. There are many u tube vids where
women just swing at air after the ball has blown by them. Even the great Serena.

It is also a reason, Billie Jean King is full of Hot-Air, women's tennis is not on the same level as the men's game nor will it ever be!!!
Equal pay? You have to be kidding!!! Just check the viewer-ship and match attendance numbers between the women and the men. Women's
tennis can barely support itself. Just off the top of my head...women drew 4.6 million viewers last Wimbledon worldwide... the men
drew 6.8 million viewers.

There are reasons for the ATP forehand: power...spin to control the power...accuracy. However, If you don't want to learn an ATP style
forehand...then DON"T...but refrain from trying to convince others that use ATP style, that their wrong...in order to make yourself feel
better!

Aloha
 

Curious

G.O.A.T.
Interesting.

The levels of insecurity in this one comment are off the charts.

BTW he's right about your grip. You're holding the racquet way too far up the handle.

"I can copy anyone if I want to."

Please go copy any pro grip.
That was just casual hitting focusing on other things. With my usual grip my pinky is off the handle.
 

Knox

Semi-Pro
That was just casual hitting focusing on other things. With my usual grip my pinky is off the handle.

Was there a particular reason why you were gripping that way? I think I recall you having a conversation on here a while ago about holding the handle further up, is that what it's about?
 

Curious

G.O.A.T.
Was there a particular reason why you were gripping that way? I think I recall you having a conversation on here a while ago about holding the handle further up, is that what it's about?
No I was just lazy and felt comfortable holding it that way. As I said that's not how I normally hold a racket. So you both jumped at that as if you spotted something incredible!!:D
 

jch

Rookie
You're too predictable bro! I knew you would post a video of mine. I just experíment different stuff in tennis, that's what enjoy doing. I can copy anyone if I want to. I just dont come up with a theory just because I am obsessed with a pro and spent 10 years just to look like him.

Stop talking, show us how to use Federer forehand. Come on. You can!

Can you?
 

Curious

G.O.A.T.
Stop talking, show us how to use Federer forehand. Come on. You can!

Can you?
Of course I can and without spending 10 years of my life like you did. There is nothing magical or secret or quantum physics involved in Federer's forehand. I bet he would be the one that would laugh the loudest about what you think about his forehand. I'm afraid you wasted last 10 years bro! You could have done something more useful as a physicist!
 

Curious

G.O.A.T.
Slow down there bucko. I'm not the one claiming to be able to hit a Federer forehand on a whim.

Anyway I can copy Fed's fh or Nadal's or Serena's, or anyone else's. But the stupidity is that people would say 'oh your right arm doesnt quite move like it, your head is 10 degrees more deviated to the right' and so on as if it has to be identical!! Can you walk exactly the same way as another person? No. And there is no reason to do that. Again the basics of their forehands are not rocket science and no sane person would need to spend 10 years to figure this out! That's my point.
 

Knox

Semi-Pro
Anyway I can copy Fed's fh or Nadal's or Serena's, or anyone else's. But the stupidity is that people would say 'oh your right arm doesnt quite move like it, your head is 10 degrees more deviated to the right' and so on as if it has to be identical!! Can you walk exactly the same way as another person? No. And there is no reason to do that. Again the basics of their forehands are not rocket science and no sane person would need to spend 10 years to figure this out! That's my point.

So, to clarify:

1.) You claim to be able to identify and copy the basic fundamentals of any top forehand

2.) You claim to know how people will respond to a video demonstrating said forehand

3.) You will not post a video because you claim to already know how people will respond

4.) You have provided no evidence for your claims



There's a phrase for what you're doing.

It's called 'making **** up' also known as 'dishonesty'

Dishonesty is usually a byproduct of shame and insecurity, or it's a response to abuse. There's no abuse here... so it follows...


Food for thought:
Maybe if you stopped lying on the internet you wouldn't be so insecure and ashamed of yourself?
 

kramer woodie

Professional
You're right, he doesn't have to.

But, if he doesn't provide evidence for his claims, that makes him a liar.

Whaddayagonnado?

Like I said idiots. Reminds me of children, if you show me yours, I'll show me mine. Or the guy in the next urinal checking to see if he measures up.

Aloha
 

Knox

Semi-Pro
Like I said idiots. Reminds me of children, if you show me yours, I'll show me mine. Or the guy in the next urinal checking to see if he measures up.

Aloha

Yeah, I think you're conflating two different scenarios.

Providing evidence for your claims is basic intellectual integrity.


Curious claims to be able to hit a Federer forehand, but he refuses to provide evidence, therefore he lacks integrity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top