Break To Win
Semi-Pro
First of all, I'm not talking about weak forehands, but rather the ugliness of the shots
Any thoughts about that?
Any thoughts about that?
Who had the ugliest forehand?
- Thread starter Break To Win
- Start date
-
- Tags
- #formertennisplayers
CiscoPC600
Hall of Fame
This poll is awful. How is Sampras even in the discussion?
Break To Win
Semi-Pro
Sampras had an ugly forehand, but yes, is the best of the three mentioned.
Smecz
Professional
Sampras' biggest problem was that his forehand from the standing position was average!!
However, the running forehand was probably the best in history!!!
He ran a lot to the net, and he learned to make shorter swings with half-closed shots, because he wanted to end the rally quickly and gave up the ball quickly.!!(getting rid of the ball quickly)
So the less time you have to wait for the ball, the better, a quick sprint and a quick hit!!!.
In the era of serve and volley, the forehand was not so necessary, the most important thing was to quickly get to the net..
Besides, it was Borg and Lendl who probably developed the forehand stroke from deep inside the court more.
It was only when we started playing less and less at the net that the forehand had to become one of the most important shots.
If I can't get to the net , it's easy to miss a shot, I have to have another shot to end the rally...
Fast flat, not closed forehands Sampras was the domain of the 80s and 90s, the most important thing was serve return volleys smash!!!.
So it's no wonder that the gentlemen could have had an ugly forehand, since shots such as forehand, backhand and slice were supposed to allow you to quickly get to the net!!!.
Last edited:
Another point. When 3 of 4 slams were on grass, and indoor carpet was everywhere that clay and grass were not, and s/v was king (prior to the mid 70's), the forehand chip aproach, the forehand slice/ underspin were vital strokes in the repetoire, but they sure were not pretty!
80s New Wave
Semi-Pro
Sampras??
Of the 3 listed I would vote edberg.
Of the 3 listed I would vote edberg.
bigbadboaz
Semi-Pro
I would agree Sampras' forehand was ugly. Not the same as whether it was good.
For those who don't see it, it's the "flying elbow" thing. Just not aesthetic in the least.
Overall, Tiafoe's is so damn ugly it wins any poll: even in a Former Players section.
For those who don't see it, it's the "flying elbow" thing. Just not aesthetic in the least.
Overall, Tiafoe's is so damn ugly it wins any poll: even in a Former Players section.
Vincent-C
Legend
Hear, hear.
Tranqville
Professional
Exactly
Bill Lobsalot
Hall of Fame
McEnroe's was super efficient and perfect for his game style of rushing the net and taking balls early. No time for a windup.
So, not ugly at all.
So, not ugly at all.
Vincent-C
Legend
I agree about Mac's FH- not ugly, but minimalist and highly efficient.
Knife
Professional
The infamous Gulbis vulture forehand. He used it for a while but went back to his old technique if I remember. He never got the forehand reliable to work well for him, a bit like Benoit Paire...
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Ugliest forehand is easily Pam Shriver. Sometimes I watch videos of it just for the comic relief.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Nothing about Stefan Edberg's game was ugly. Nor Mac nor Pete.
Speechless.
Three of the absolute legends of the game mischaracterized to this extent?
Speechless.
Three of the absolute legends of the game mischaracterized to this extent?
bigbadboaz
Semi-Pro
One can be a legend and also have an ugly aspect to their game. Edberg's forehand, in particular, was maligned his entire career even as his overall game was described as one of history's most elegant.
Simple concept that shouldn't need to be explained.
Simple concept that shouldn't need to be explained.
There have been interviews where Edberg made fun of his own forehand. He knew it wasn’t pretty
I think we may have a winner here.
bigbadboaz
Semi-Pro
Very interesting how a stroke like that stays intact all the way to the elite level. You'd think both that coaches would try to correct it, and a talent like Edberg would have the physical ability to adapt with the coaching.
Then again, the forehand takeback looks similar to the way he cocks his arm in the kick serve preparation he eventually adopted. Maybe some incredibly unique tendency in his biomechanics?
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Helen Jacobs who played in the 20s had a horrific looking forehand, even for the time. Her competitors Helen Wills and Alice Marble, called it a lawnmower chop.
jhick
Hall of Fame
Gulbis was not ugly. Unique yes.
bigbadboaz
Semi-Pro
That was most definitely ugly.
slipgrip93
Professional
Agreed, usually it's Sampras' bh that was critiqued as being weaker form, or rather, neglected, in his later tour years when he kept depending more on s&v and cc running fh and defensive bh slice.
Everyone already knew Mac and Edberg had oldschool generation wooden-racquet type continental looking forehands.
("Sampras classic down-the-line forehands")
Last edited:
Well, for one thing, it was a different era. Back then, coaching was probably not as consistently and professionally run and you had guys develop various styles on their own. There were so many different styles before. People say the strokes were a result of the racquet tech but guys like Mac and Borg and Lendl hit totally differently. You can see them from a mile away and distinguish the players on hitting style. These days, with the internet, the professional academies and the general agreement on how to optimize your strokes, there just isn't the huge variety of different and sometimes weird strokes. By and large, many guys are pretty similar in how they want to hit a forehand with Nadal being somewhat of an exception.
Secondly, Edberg's forehand was ugly but not ineffective so possibly, there wasn't a real priority to change it. I think tennis magazine did an analysis and showed that Edberg actually hit more winners with his forehand. He generally didn't have an issue hitting passing shots with his forehand or even staying in rallies. It was just never a big putaway shot. Which brings me to the last point.
He didn't need his forehand for anything other than staying in rallies and hitting passing shots so it wasn't a priority to make it an amazing shot. He was coming to the net anyway
Last edited:
Shaolin
G.O.A.T.
No, that's ugly.
Also, the switch to that aberration destroyed his game. He was an incredible player before that.
bigbadboaz
Semi-Pro
I think his results had already fallen off, hence the attempt to "fix" the forehand.
Edberg was very good at running through his forehand on the way to the net. Conventional wisdom dictates that when you get a short ball you split-step, hit your forehand approach shot, and then move to the net. Edberg just ran through it, allowing him to reach a better position faster than anyone else. As someone said above, he didn't need to "fix" forehand. It was quite good and he barely even used it in his own service games.
By the way, Gasquet should get honorable mention. Take Edberg's forehand and give it to a baseliner and you have Gasquet. Problem is if you're a baseliner, you need a forehand to open up the court and dictate points for you. Edberg's forehand couldn't do that but he didn't need to. Gasquet did
MisterP
Hall of Fame
Last edited:
tennistiger
Professional
Berasategui
OldschoolKIaus
Hall of Fame
Courier 
Olli Jokinen
Hall of Fame
Kent Carlsson's forehand wasn't too pretty.
Similar threads
