WTA vs ATP FH: pull vs whip

[dominikk1985]

serenas problem on serve?

are you kidding me? she is 33 years old, 5"9 and can serve 125 mph. serenas serve is technically the best in womans tennis history, every bit as good as federers or sampras serve. she can blast it, kick it and slice it with great accuracy.

she might not look elegant but her serve is technically perfect and one of the best in history in all of tennis.

also strength is very important. the kinetic chain does not "effortlessly" transfer energy. there is no passive arm pull, every stage of the chain is an active muscle contraction. they are pre stretched by the prior links but they are are actively contracted.

no serious sport scientist would doubt the role of maximum strength.

the interrelation of maximum strength and explosiveness is well researched http://elitetrack.com/article_files/stone_hartman.pdf and it is well established that strength is the main factor in performance differences between men and women.

still technique is of tremendous importance and good technique beats strength plus bad technique every time but at the top level power output does matter.

 

[GuyClinch]

Venus is the one with the dodgy serve. Anyway if maximum strength mattered then John Cena would hit the hardest tennis shots in the world.

The reason why strength is not that important is because the racquet is very light. Because the racquet and ball are very light the key to gaining more power in your shots is increasing racquet head speed - not being very strong.

Some of the players with the fastest racquet speed aren't particularly strong. If you compare this to baseball - where the bat and ball are heavier (and the players are stronger) you will see that strength is not a huge issue for tennis players..

Ping Pong is a good example of the opposite. Because the ball and racquet are even lighter - strength is even less of a factor.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Ping Pong is a good example of the opposite. Because the ball and racquet are even lighter - strength is even less of a factor.

Does this mean females can smash the ball as hard as the men? I am guessing they can't. There are other factors that go into racquet (or paddle) head speed other than brute strength.

 

[rkelley]

Good technique will create the most efficient motions and optimize the rhs that a person can achieve.

I also agree that at some point more strength yields diminishing returns. Regardless of how strong you are a human can only move their limbs so fast. A buffed out body builder and an average guy can probably swing a badminton racquet about the same speed.

But for tennis I don't think it's realistic to say that the strength difference between men and women doesn't make a difference. The racquets are heavy enough where the extra muscle a guy generally has is going to enable him to swing the racquet faster, creating more pace and more spin.

 

[GuyClinch]

I also agree that at some point more strength yields diminishing returns. Regardless of how strong you are a human can only move their limbs so fast. A buffed out body builder and an average guy can probably swing a badminton racquet about the same speed.

This. With light balls and light racquets strength isn't a huge factor. That's what makes tennis so nice to be honest. I can play some little guy/girl and he/she can beat me despite being much weaker and shorter.

It doesn't really effect me but I can't see how letting your racquet lag means that you need to be really strong. That just doesn't compute...

 

[movdqa]

> With light balls and light racquets strength isn't a huge factor.

So Hantuchova can hit the ball as hard as Berdych, Tsonga, Soderling, Isner, and Del Potro? The swingweights on the ATP racquets are some 10-20 percent higher than the WTA players from what I've seen; clearly the ATP players can take advantage of it.

 

[TCF]

> With light balls and light racquets strength isn't a huge factor.

So Hantuchova can hit the ball as hard as Berdych, Tsonga, Soderling, Isner, and Del Potro? The swingweights on the ATP racquets are some 10-20 percent higher than the WTA players from what I've seen; clearly the ATP players can take advantage of it.

Of course strength is a big factor. Sure a little kid might hit as hard as SOME grown men. Thats irrelevant and mainly due to great timing that some people have from an early age.

But at the highest levels, levels we can only dream of, everyone has great timing, etc. So the average ATP man can generate much more spin than the average WTA women....a good deal of it because they are stronger.

This entire thread is comical at times because the real world is the real world. Anyone can go to 100 junior tournaments and watch the girls forehands with compact ATP style sitting up and getting crushed back to them. The fact that some are successful using the style does not mean all females should start trying to succeed with it.

 

[Lukhas]

Sometimes when I read this thread, I feel like it's impossible to hit flat with a so-called "ATP style FH". Like somehow, an unknown force ensures that the ball with leave with TS. Sure the "ATP FH" allows hitting with more spin. But I think it deviates a bit from the point; you can alter your swingpath so you can hit flat or with TS with either FH. There are plenty of flat, hard hitters on both tours to demonstrate that you can hit very flat with little TS with either FH.

What is really important to discuss is whether women can hit a faster ball with an "ATP FH" compared to a "WTA FH" or not. And only women, no male vs. women comparison, no "women can/can't hit as hard as men" stuff like this. If we have the answer to this question or at least make sensible speculations about whether it is possible or not, the discussion will IMO advance further. Because it's perfectly possible to hit flat with either, so wondering if it will sit up is not really relevant IMO: they're not forced to hit TS moonballs. Let's not transform the "can hit with more TS" into "must hit with more TS".

EDIT: What is also worth mentioning is that WTA tennis tends to be much less centred around FHs or "that one big shot" than ATP tennis is. The consistency and strength of groundstrokes off both wings tends to be much more balanced for women than it is for men, who tend to have one clearly identified big stroke they want to hit whenever they can. It's a bit quick, but ATP tennis often revolves around the infamous BH to BH CC rally and who will be able to hit big FHs to the BH or/and who can counter FHs to the BH. While on the other end, WTA is more about consistency on groundstrokes and pounding the short ball with either wing. Not extremely tied with the subject of the thread, but food for thought.

 

[Topspin Shot]

Sometimes when I read this thread, I feel like it's impossible to hit flat with a so-called "ATP style FH". Like somehow, an unknown force ensures that the ball with leave with TS. Sure the "ATP FH" allows hitting with more spin. But I think it deviates a bit from the point; you can alter your swingpath so you can hit flat or with TS with either FH. There are plenty of flat, hard hitters on both tours to demonstrate that you can hit very flat with little TS with either FH.

What is really important to discuss is whether women can hit a faster ball with an "ATP FH" compared to a "WTA FH" or not. And only women, no male vs. women comparison, no "women can/can't hit as hard as men" stuff like this. If we have the answer to this question or at least make sensible speculations about whether it is possible or not, the discussion will IMO advance further. Because it's perfectly possible to hit flat with either, so wondering if it will sit up is not really relevant IMO: they're not forced to hit TS moonballs. Let's not transform the "can hit with more TS" into "must hit with more TS".

Because the racket stays on the same side of the body with an ATP forehand, there will automatically be a greater upward component built into the swing. If the racket is allowed to cross behind the body as in the WTA forehand, the swing plane will automatically flatten itself out in the contact window. So even though a girl may get greater racket speed with an ATP forehand, she will lose ball speed because too much of the swing energy will go into producing spin.

Think of it this way: a 75 mph forehand with 1000 RPMs is better than a 60 mph forehand with 2000 RPMs. This is the situation girls face, and here the slower ball will sit up too much. But a 75 mph forehand with 2000 RPMs is better than a 90 mph forehand with 1000 RPMs. This is the situation guys face, and here the faster ball will not stay in the court.

 

[Lukhas]

Because the racket stays on the same side of the body with an ATP forehand, there will automatically be a greater upward component built into the swing. If the racket is allowed to cross behind the body as in the WTA forehand, the swing plane will automatically flatten itself out in the contact window. So even though a girl may get greater racket speed with an ATP forehand, she will lose ball speed because too much of the swing energy will go into producing spin.

I know it's easier to hit with spin with a "ATP FH". I already wrote so; it's the first paragraph of my previous post. What I'm saying is that you can very well alter your swingpath to hit flat(er). So even if it's easier to hit with spin, you're not forced to do so and can hit very flat with an "ATP FH".

 

[Cheetah]

Think of it this way: a 75 mph forehand with 1000 RPMs is better than a 60 mph forehand with 2000 RPMs. This is the situation girls face, and here the slower ball will sit up too much. But a 75 mph forehand with 2000 RPMs is better than a 90 mph forehand with 1000 RPMs. This is the situation guys face, and here the faster ball will not stay in the court.

umm.. Huh?

 

[movdqa]

> umm.. Huh?

The 75/1K results in good depth while the 60/2K sits up. The 75/2K is good depth and kick while the 90/1K goes out.

 

[Topspin Shot]

I know it's easier to hit with spin with a "ATP FH". I already wrote so; it's the first paragraph of my previous post. What I'm saying is that you can very well alter your swingpath to hit flat(er). So even if it's easier to hit with spin, you're not forced to do so and can hit very flat with an "ATP FH".

It's not so easy to flatten out an ATP style forehand. Players do it of course, but a large part of flattening out a shot is forward momentum, like you have when you get a short ball. Girls need a flatter rally ball, which ATP technique can't provide as well as WTA technique.

umm.. Huh?

See movdqa's post for a concise summary of my point.

 

[Cheetah]

> umm.. Huh?

The 75/1K results in good depth while the 60/2K sits up. The 75/2K is good depth and kick while the 90/1K goes out.

Who says? Sounds like Toly speak to me. Where's the data?
Speed and spin is not the only factor in determining a ball that will sit up. What about trajectory?
Why did you say 90/1k goes out? Are you implying it's against the laws of physics to do this? Are you saying balls hit 75/1k don't go out?
Is it not possible to hit a 60/2k w/ good depth?

 

[Topspin Shot]

Who says? Sounds like Toly speak to me. Where's the data?
Speed and spin is not the only factor in determining a ball that will sit up. What about trajectory?
Why did you say 90/1k goes out? Are you implying it's against the laws of physics to do this? Are you saying balls hit 75/1k don't go out?
Is it not possible to hit a 60/2k w/ good depth?

It's a hypothetical example, not a toly data mess. The numbers are made up to make a point since people weren't understanding why girls tend to hit flatter than guys. Does this make more sense? The slow spinny shot gets attacked. The medium paced flat shot is decent. The medium paced spinny shot is very good, but girls can't get the racket speed to hit it. The fast flat shot is too inconsistent. Therefore, girls tend to hit medium paced flat rally balls, and guys tend to hit medium paced spinny rally balls.

 

[Lukhas]

It's not so easy to flatten out an ATP style forehand. Players do it of course, but a large part of flattening out a shot is forward momentum, like you have when you get a short ball. Girls need a flatter rally ball, which ATP technique can't provide as well as WTA technique.

Then I'll ask the likes of Berdych, Tsonga, Almagro and other random ball bashers how the hell they manage to hit so flat. Must be their male upper body. Then I'll also ask Stosur how she does it; if anything it must be her strong trunk. Then I'll also ask Williams why the hell the started hitting big TS in the 3rd set of the USO this year; and why it worked so well with her "WTA FH".
To be perfectly honest, I only know Nadal who swings hard enough to repulse you several feet behind the baseline with balls that land not much further than the service line. Dude is built like a truck; which isn't the case of most of the ATP tour.

You may have understood up to this point that I won't buy it that simply. Saying that the ball "will sit up" implies that the ball will at least be left short and full of spin at the same time. It's not hard to hit deeper, more through the ball to avoid that; otherwise neither Hewitt nor Simon would be pro players. I'll side with Cheetah on this point. I do not believe the WTA FH is preferable because of the flatter swingpath (maybe for other stuff, but not that); nor I'll believe players are idiotic enough to leave short balls whatever the technique they use.

What I want to know is if yes or no, the so-called "ATP FH" is able to give a more powerful stroke compared to its more classic equivalent. If not, then okay. Keep the "WTA FH". Too easy to dismiss the "ATP FH" because it's supposed to magically "sit up" for some reason. I do not pretend that the "ATP FH" is preferable. I don't believe that it will somehow "sit up" without the player, male or female, being able to adjust. Like if the extreme "low to high" swingpath was enforced on everyone who had the miserable idea to hit an "ATP FH".

 

[Topspin Shot]

Then I'll ask the likes of Berdych, Tsonga, Almagro and other random ball bashers how the hell they manage to hit so flat. Must be their male upper body. Then I'll also ask Stosur how she does it; if anything it must be her strong trunk. Then I'll also ask Williams why the hell the started hitting big TS in the 3rd set of the USO this year; and why it worked so well with her "WTA FH".
To be perfectly honest, I only know Nadal who swings hard enough to repulse you several feet behind the baseline with balls that land not much further than the service line. Dude is built like a truck; which isn't the case of most of the ATP tour.

You may have understood up to this point that I won't buy it that simply. Saying that the ball "will sit up" implies that the ball will at least be left short and full of spin at the same time. It's not hard to hit deeper, more through the ball to avoid that; otherwise neither Hewitt nor Simon would be pro players. I'll side with Cheetah on this point. I do not believe the WTA FH is preferable because of the flatter swingpath (maybe for other stuff, but not that); nor I'll believe players are idiotic enough to leave short balls whatever the technique they use.

What I want to know is if yes or no, the so-called "ATP FH" is able to give a more powerful stroke compared to its more classic equivalent. If not, then okay. Keep the "WTA FH". Too easy to dismiss the "ATP FH" because it's supposed to magically "sit up" for some reason. I do not pretend that the "ATP FH" is preferable. I don't believe that it will somehow "sit up" without the player, male or female, being able to adjust. Like if the extreme "low to high" swingpath was enforced on everyone who had the miserable idea to hit an "ATP FH".

I would like to believe girls can make the ATP forehand work as much as you do, but unfortunately, the girls with ATP style forehands are not able to hit through the ball enough. Macci and company give very compelling arguments to the contrary, but these arguments don't hold up as well in practice as they do in theory.

 

[Cheetah]

It's a hypothetical example, not a toly data mess. The numbers are made up to make a point since people weren't understanding why girls tend to hit flatter than guys. Does this make more sense? The slow spinny shot gets attacked. The medium paced flat shot is decent. The medium paced spinny shot is very good, but girls can't get the racket speed to hit it. The fast flat shot is too inconsistent. Therefore, girls tend to hit medium paced flat rally balls, and guys tend to hit medium paced spinny rally balls.

ok. i see. i often misunderstand your posts it seems.
Didn't mean to tolyfy you.

 

[dominikk1985]

I have seen a stosur FH clocked at 95 mph. the ATP FH does have a naturally steeper swing path (if you use the correct "inside out" swing path and not just tag on a WW finish to a flat swing) but you can flatten it out.

I think what is important is that you have some elasticity and "stiffness" not in a sense of being tight but being like a spring) in the forearm because the ATP takeback shortens the acceleration path. you need to be able to store elastic energy in the forearm and release it over a very shoort distance. the ATP FH is not a smooth acceleration but a "rip" once you hit the "Slot Position".

for Players who use "swing" (centrifugal force) and want a smooth rotational pull the WTA FH is better because it allows more time to accelerate smoothly. with the ATF FH you cannot really have a passive forearm (it is not really active but REACTIVE), not everyone has that spring like Quality in the forearm.

 

[Lukhas]

I would like to believe girls can make the ATP forehand work as much as you do, but unfortunately, the girls with ATP style forehands are not able to hit through the ball enough. Macci and company give very compelling arguments to the contrary, but these arguments don't hold up as well in practice as they do in theory.

Now we need the reason why they can't, which is what I asked for. Can or can't they, and why? Someone should be able to explain it. I personally couldn't care less about whichever FH they use; I want to know why they can't use the "ATP" one. Why they cannot hit through the ball as much.
I will not accept answers like "because It'll sit up" and "because they're women". Not at least without further explanation; if there is a good explanation I'll buy it no problem. I know there's the swingpath which is already a good clue; but it's not enough to totally convince me.

 

[Chas Tennis]

Research on Girl's Throwing

http://news.ie.msn.com/the-best-of-msnnow-13-september-2080?page=11#image=11

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-10/national/35494346_1_janet-hyde-boys-gender-gap

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/fyi-do-men-and-women-throw-ball-differently

 

[Lukhas]

Thanks a lot Chas. At last, we're getting somewhere right now. Very interesting.
EDIT: It also reminds me the differences in the serve between ATP and WTA. There is a very little number of servers making the most of their bodies. I repost this video for reference (even if it ends into a commercial).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8q2cBx19ec

 

[dominikk1985]

Now we need the reason why they can't, which is what I asked for. Can or can't they, and why? Someone should be able to explain it. I personally couldn't care less about whichever FH they use; I want to know why they can't use the "ATP" one. Why they cannot hit through the ball as much.
I will not accept answers like "because It'll sit up" and "because they're women". Not at least without further explanation; if there is a good explanation I'll buy it no problem. I know there's the swingpath which is already a good clue; but it's not enough to totally convince me.

Women tend to hit flatter on average. you only have so much RHS and the more you put into spin the slower the ball will be. men and some women have enough RHS to hit through the court nontheless but many women do not.

however henin, kuzzy, stosur and the italian Girls have proven that it is possible to hit plenty hard with an ATP FH so it nonsense to say an ATP FH hit by a Girl will sit up.

but the other side who says all the time "henin is so small and hits so hard because of superior technique" is wrong too. henin hits hard because she had a lot of natural explosiveness not because of her technique. power Output is not about size but about natural explosiveness (some call it fast twitch muscles or whatever). because of natural explosiveness small pitchers like lincecum can throw hard or some thin Boxers like arguello hit like crazy. explosiveness can be trained but is mostly genetic, not everyone can run as fast as usain bolt no matter how hard he Trains.

natural explosiveness you either posses or you don't. if you don't a longer backswing with a smooth centrifugal swing will generate more power than a short whippy stroke. but if you are very explosive and fast the shorter whippy swing might be better.

there is no Cookie cutter Approach based on the sex of the athlete.

 

[Lukhas]

That's already better of an explanation. Although it's perfectly possible to have a short or a long swing with either stroke, so I believe we can get even further. Like there's no cookie cutter approach to either stroke.

 

[Topspin Shot]

If you want some thoughts on why girls who hit ATP style forehands tend to have their shots sit up (disclaimer: these are theories that have not been proven):

1. Girls have narrower shoulders and wider hips, so it is harder for them to keep their rackets on the same side of their bodies.
2. Many girls lack the forearm musculature to make the swing explosive.
3. The ATP style swing naturally has a stronger vertical component. Even guys who hit flat like Berdych would not be considered flat hitters relative to the WTA. And Berdych is very tall, so his contact point is pretty low relative to his body, which automatically makes his strokes flatter. Guys like Hewitt and Simon who are shorter and hit flat don't really have textbook ATP style forehands.
4. Also, note that many of the women on tour who are successful with ATP style forehands have rather masculine body shapes (think Henin, Stosur, and Schiavone).
5. From a scientific method standpoint, it's happening, plain and simple. Maybe there are reasons I'm not thinking of, but the fact is that we draw conclusions based on observations, and observations are indicating that most girls work better with WTA style forehands.

 

[rkelley]

Submitted for your consideration:

This is a video mostly of Sam Stosur warming up and hitting, but check it out around the 2:30 mark where there's a brief segment of Agnieszka Radwanska, Stosur's hitting partner. I realize that they're both just warming up, but when I just watch them Stosur just looks so much more . . . athletic . . . efficient . . . like a pro athlete.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6eUtuzUurs

 

[Lukhas]

@Topspin Shot: That not against you, but I don't want theories, I want the underlying facts. Check Chas' post if you haven't already done so; there's more than just "body differences" behind this. And that's why it's interesting. Because we're actually digging something, not just witnessing the obvious ("it sits up"). There's so much more to this, and it'd be sad if we were only stopping here.

 

[Rafaboy]

This is a very valuable thread. thanks to the OP for bringing up this subject.

 

[GuyClinch]

natural explosiveness you either posses or you don't. if you don't a longer backswing with a smooth centrifugal swing will generate more power than a short whippy stroke. but if you are very explosive and fast the shorter whippy swing might be better.

That's just a theory. My theory is like with the serve or overhand throw there are biomechanically poor techniques and there are biomechanically superior ones.

The men use the superior technique and get superior results. I don't for a minute believe that Sam Stosur is genetically superior to Serena and more explosive. I do think her forehand is better.

 

[86golf]

What style/type of forehand is this http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dNHl1EF7g9s

 

[TCF]

The men use the superior technique and get superior results.

Superior for men in the ATP game but they are two different games. It has not been proven that the ATP style is superior for most women to master in the WTA style game. In fact, so far, the majority who succeed do not use it.

In juniors, where girls and parents want fast and prolonged results through the 10s-18s, it is inferior for most of them. They simply do not have the strength yet nor the long term developmental patience to deal with balls crushed back to them.

It would be foolish, in my opinion, to force a girl with great timing to hit exactly like a boy. There is zero evidence to support that this would be the road with the highest chance of long term success.

 

[ga tennis]

Superior for men in the ATP game but they are two different games. It has not been proven that the ATP style is superior for most women to master in the WTA style game. In fact, so far, the majority who succeed do not use it.

In juniors, where girls and parents want fast and prolonged results through the 10s-18s, it is inferior for most of them. They simply do not have the strength yet nor the long term developmental patience to deal with balls crushed back to them.

It would be foolish, in my opinion, to force a girl with great timing to hit exactly like a boy. There is zero evidence to support that this would be the road with the highest chance of long term success.

TCF it has nothing to do with strength. It has everything to do with technique.

 

[TCF]

TCF it has nothing to do with strength. It has everything to do with technique.

We will have to disagree on this one GA. Sure, technique is a big part of it.

But common sense says that if you trained Rafa and a girl from age 7 side by side, using the compact ATP style, that eventually Rafa would have a more punishing forehand than the girl.

So if strength has zero, nada, nothing to do with it at all....why can't a 80 lb. girl hit the same exact punishing forehand as a 220 lb. man? If strength is meaningless, every skilled player on earth would end up with the same exact forehand effectiveness, as long as they used the same technique....we all know that is not even close to reality.

 

[RetroSpin]

...
In juniors, where girls and parents want fast and prolonged results through the 10s-18s, it is inferior for most of them. They simply do not have the strength yet nor the long term developmental patience to deal with balls crushed back to them.

...

Do you think this emphasis on immediate results is detrimental to longer term development? Do we see the same thing from european academies?

I am curious about this because of the other thread on Pat Daugherty's student serving. I'm pretty sure a senior instructor at IMG knows the mechanics of the serve, yet he is teaching young girls an obviously flawed approach. Is it because they lack the strength to execute a proper serve or is it because they are worried about injury?

 

[Lukhas]

@TCF: It has nothing to do with training a girl and a boy side by side. Especially not Nadal. It has to do with technique here because we're comparing women with women, or technique with techniques.
The question -once again- is can a girl with an ATP style FH hit harder than a girl with a WTA style FH consistently, yes or no? No "sitting up" please, we're beyond that. EDIT: And if it isn't too much asked, an answer to "Why?" would also be nice. A biomechanically relevant answer that is.

 

[TCF]

@TCF: It has nothing to do with training a girl and a boy side by side. Especially not Nadal. It has to do with technique here because we're comparing women with women, or technique with techniques.
The question -once again- is can a girl with an ATP style FH hit harder than a girl with a WTA style FH consistently, yes or no? No "sitting up" please, we're beyond that.

My answer is no. A girl with amazing timing using the WTA style hits flatter. So the ball gets from point A to point B faster than a girl who hits compact style with more topspin.

 

[ga tennis]

@TCF: It has nothing to do with training a girl and a boy side by side. Especially not Nadal. It has to do with technique here because we're comparing women with women, or technique with techniques.
The question -once again- is can a girl with an ATP style FH hit harder than a girl with a WTA style FH consistently, yes or no? No "sitting up" please, we're beyond that.

Just look at Henin.. The WTA forehands are UGLY!!!! It doesnt matter if its a boy or girl. ATP style is a better shot for the future of womens tennis. The game is gonna get faster and those big backswings are gonna cause many problems. I know Serena doesnt have a ATP style forehand but its much closer than say a Sharapova. Just watch how bad Sharapova breaks down at the pace of Serenas shots and alot of that is due to that big backswing.

 

[TCF]

Just look at Henin.. The WTA forehands are UGLY!!!! It doesnt matter if its a boy or girl. ATP style is a better shot for the future of womens tennis. The game is gonna get faster and those big backswings are gonna cause many problems. I know Serena doesnt have a ATP style forehand but its much closer than say a Sharapova. Just watch how bad Sharapova breaks down at the pace of Serenas shots and alot of that is due to that big backswing.

We shall see. You and others are obviously banking on that.

I am banking on the opposite. My girl was taught the fundamentals and developed her own natural forehand style, moderate take back, more WTA than ATP. Hits flat and hard as he@@!

 

[ga tennis]

We shall see. You and others are obviously banking on that.

I am banking on the opposite. My girl was taught the fundamentals and developed her own natural forehand style, moderate take back, more WTA than ATP. Hits flat and hard as he@@!

Both work!!!! My daughter hits heavy as he@@ with tons of spin. TCF no one likes hitting balls above their shoulders.

 

[Lukhas]

My answer is no. A girl with amazing timing using the WTA style hits flatter. So the ball gets from point A to point B faster than a girl who hits compact style with more topspin.

Good. Now the next question( since you didn't see my edition -my fault) is why? Bio-mechanically speaking. Why the sources of power in the WTA FH are better than they are in the ATP FH? Not talking about spin/not spin, just pure bio-mechanics. I don't care about "amazing timing", "more topspin". I care about what works the best bio-mechanically speaking, because spin production and hitting zones are both things that can be altered on court.

 

[ga tennis]

Good. Now the next question( since you didn't see my edition -my fault) is why? Bio-mechanically speaking. Why the sources of power in the WTA FH are better than they are in the ATP FH? Not talking about spin/not spin, just pure bio-mechanics. I don't care about "amazing timing", "more topspin". I care about what works the best bio-mechanically speaking, because spin production and hitting zones are both things that can be altered on court.

BIO-MECHANICALLY THE ATP FOREHAND IS BETTER!!!!!

 

[Ash_Smith]

Do you think this emphasis on immediate results is detrimental to longer term development?

Without a shadow of doubt

 

[Ash_Smith]

Biomechanically speaking all styles can generate power and can be equally efficient when harness the right way.

For example, if a player is hitting off the front foot then they need to use weight transfer (linear momentum) to generate racquet speed. If they are hitting off the outside foot they need to use rotation (angular momentum) and if they are hitting off the back foot they need to push up (vertical momentum).

Players become inefficient (i.e. make errors, lose power for the amount of physical effort etc) when they try to generate racquet speed through the wrong system for the position they are in.

Mechanically speaking there shouldn't be a great deal of difference in racquet speed based purely on technique if either sex is generating racquet speed using the "correct" system for the position they are in. Therefore it comes down to ability to recruit muscle fibre along the way?

 

[TCF]

Both work!!!! My daughter hits heavy as he@@ with tons of spin. TCF no one likes hitting balls above their shoulders.

GA....it is what it is, we totally disagree on this one. Those balls above the shoulders are easily handled by the top 16s-18s, taken on the rise, or they simply back up and give you back balls almost impossible to drop shot to take advantage of their deep position.

Does Heath have a bunch of current top 20 ranked 18s using that style or are they all still in the lower age groups? He has been at this a long time so he should have quite a few older girls through his system already.....who in the 18s USTA or ITF has he taught, using his style forehand?

I would like to see those high bouncing balls working at the top 18s level before I am a believer.

 

[Lukhas]

There's something going on here and I don't like it. It's those easy associations like these:
-WTA FH -> flatter stroke -> faster because lower RPM -> deeper-> more efficient;
-ATP FH -> more spin -> higher bouncing -> less fast -> shorter -> less efficient.

Like it isn't possible to hit fast/deep/short/on the rise/with spin/flat/puff balls with either FH. That's why I don't want this approach. Like if it's only black or white. That's why I want better proof than "it sits up" or "it's ugly".

TCF says WTA is more efficient, Ga says ATP is more efficient, Ash is in the middle, and I still don't have any real proof. Bio-mechanically relevant proof is all I ask for; no one seems to be able to deliver. The closest I had was Chas, and I thank him again for it. guess I am going to go help myself somewhere else.

 

[TCF]

There's something going on here and I don't like it. It's those easy associations like these:
-WTA FH -> flatter stroke -> faster because lower RPM -> deeper-> more efficient;
-ATP FH -> more spin -> higher bouncing -> less fast -> shorter -> less efficient.

Like it isn't possible to hit fast/deep/short/on the rise/with spin/flat/puff balls with either FH. That's why I don't want this approach. Like if it's only black or white. That's why I want better proof than "it sits up" or "it's ugly".

TCF says WTA is more efficient, Ga says ATP is more efficient, Ash is in the middle, and I still don't have any real proof. Bio-mechanically relevant proof is all I ask for; no one seems to be able to deliver. The closest I had was Chas, and I thank him again for it. guess I am going to go help myself somewhere else.

I do not know anything about which is more efficient. Thats not my thing. I just said in my opinion a girl hitting flatter gets a ball from point A to B faster than one who spins.

Like I said, I am all about real world results. I can teach a girl to throw a ball farther than many boys. But when I teach a girl to hit a forehand like a boy, almost always they eventually get killed.

I will leave the science to smarter folks than me!

 

[Ash_Smith]

Lukhas - if you define "efficient" as "achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense" then both ATP and WTA styles meet the criteria if the racquet speed is produced using the relevant energy system for the position.

Productivity could be defined as effectiveness for the situation (for which the evidence would suggest that WTA style works on WTA tour as it hasn't been bettered (yet)).

Wasted effort or expense comes down to using the right energy system for the position.

So both methods are "efficient" in their own environments

 

[ga tennis]

GA....it is what it is, we totally disagree on this one. Those balls above the shoulders are easily handled by the top 16s-18s, taken on the rise, or they simply back up and give you back balls almost impossible to drop shot to take advantage of their deep position.

Does Heath have a bunch of current top 20 ranked 18s using that style or are they all still in the lower age groups? He has been at this a long time so he should have quite a few older girls through his system already.....who in the 18s USTA or ITF has he taught, using his style forehand?

I would like to see those high bouncing balls working at the top 18s level before I am a believer.

The reason Nadals forehand is the best ever is because of one thing SPIN!!!!! All our girls are under13. Dont see ANY top 16s or 18s that wanna deal with the balls Nadal hits. I want my daughters ball bouncing like Nadals.

 

[GuyClinch]

BIO-MECHANICALLY THE ATP FOREHAND IS BETTER!!!!!

This. I am not going to lie - I buy into the Rick Macci theoy. It's not just different its better. Here is why he says so..

If we look at the serve the racquet "lag" comes when the player begins is UPWARD movement. This is analogous to the forehand where the lag starts when the player begins to turn his shoulders and straighten his legs. The racquet comes through last.. What this does is it enables the player who uses this technique to generate more power using a slighty shorter backswing. Not just more spin - but MORE POWER AND SPIN. But only if you can do it. The idea that you should teach women a WTA style technique because they can't get it is like telling your 3.0 mixed doubles partner to dink in her serve because you can't be bothered to teach her a continental grip serve.

I get it. Its absolutely more effective in the short term. But personally I think Macci and the rest are right. If the women can get the hang of the proper forehand they can gain an advantage with that shot. Henin did - and Stosur did. Both were not particularly gifted athletes all-around especially compared to the Serena sister who likely could have competed in other Olympic sports (like the 200meters or triple jump) with some practice.

TCF think this is wrong and because of some unknown and unsubstantiated failings of the female sex they mostly can't get it. That's fine. But let's face it this thread is going nowhere. We are going to wait ten to twenty years and see who is right. The cool thing is once you know you can spot the differences between the forehands fairly easy. So its something to watch.

 

[ga tennis]

This. I am not going to lie - I buy into the Rick Macci theoy. It's not just different its better. Here is why he says so..

If we look at the serve the racquet "lag" comes when the player begins is UPWARD movement. This is analogous to the forehand where the lag starts when the player begins to turn his shoulders and straighten his legs. The racquet comes through last.. What this does is it enables the player who uses this technique to generate more power using a slighty shorter backswing. Not just more spin - but MORE POWER AND SPIN. But only if you can do it. The idea that you should teach women a WTA style technique because they can't get it is like telling your 3.0 mixed doubles partner to dink in her serve because you can't be bothered to teach her a continental grip serve.

I get it. Its absolutely more effective in the short term. But personally I think Macci and the rest are right. If the women can get the hang of the proper forehand they can gain an advantage with that shot. Henin did - and Stosur did. Both were not particularly gifted athletes all-around especially compared to the Serena sister who likely could have competed in other Olympic sports (like the 200meters or triple jump) with some practice.

TCF think this is wrong and because of some unknown and unsubstantiated failings of the female sex they mostly can't get it. That's fine. But let's face it this thread is going nowhere. We are going to wait ten to twenty years and see who is right. The cool thing is once you know you can spot the differences between the forehands fairly easy. So its something to watch.

I AGREE!!!