Interactive Forum: April 2008 Chris Evert Forehand

[jeffreycounts]

The other big difference, besides the tip of the racket swinging towards the net, is the lifting upward you see in Moya. The older style forehand was more linear - out towards the net out towards the target. The wiper forehand is extension through along with a sharp lift upward and then into the wiper finish.

[jeffreycounts]

Jeff,
The tip of the racket doesn't move forward strictly because of wrist movement. There are multiple segments of the body that can contribute to this phenomenon. Also, please give me your thoughts about why the tip of Hewitt's racket moves more towards the net than almost all modern tour players?

In my double bend article, the Hewitt clip I show he doesn't do this:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/tour_strokes/jeff_counts/windshield_wiper_forehand/windshield_wiper_forehand.html

I do see some examples like the one you gave but the tip of the racket comes through long after the hit. In the example you posted, that wrist is holding back back long after the ball has gone:



Maybe the extreme grip and when he flattens out the shot the tip comes through later? In general though, Hewitt is a great example of how the entire hitting structure moves through and up the ball as the torso rotates as opposed to the linear out to the net swing of Evert.

To me it is very clear that today's players are getting so much more of the upper body into the ball than yesterday's players, and the wiper technique is what makes it possible.

I do think you are onto something with Ivanovic though. I don't understand her forehand at all and I see the tip of the racket shoot through like Evert.

[lukman41985]

Jeff, I totally agree with you with regards to the arc of the swing when comparing someone like Evert and Moya. If one were to look at the amount and component of the topspin generated by their balls, it would be quite revealing. The same could be said in comparing Moya and Hewitt, I feel. Thanks for your thoughts.

[lukman41985]

So a couple of things based on what's been said so far:

1.) John's dead on, I think, about the applicability of the more conservative grip used by Evert.
2.) I think the swing pattern that Jeff teaches is much better for generating topspin and depth.

So can those two elements be mixed. Sure--you see it on tour in Federer, Blake, and Baghdatis. I'd argue that the best model out of these would be Baghdatis. I think anyone could learn to hit a great forehand from looking at these clips:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/marcos_baghdatis/mb_fh/mb_fh_center/mb_fh_center.html?MBFHCenterNeutralStanceSide3.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/marcos_baghdatis/mb_fh/mb_fh_center/mb_fh_center.html?MBFHCenterNeutralStanceRear4.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/marcos_baghdatis/mb_fh/mb_fh_center/mb_fh_center.html?MBFHCenterNeutralStanceFront4.mov

I've talked a lot about spin and the kind of spin. John's commented on this in the past--there's almost an obsession with topspin. And like John said, I think it's more a matter of getting the ball to go where you want it to go and to "act" how you want it to act. So I think in a ball that's being hit in a neutral rally, a good forehand would be one that lands deep, past the service line, probably between the service line and baseline, with enough of spin, bounce, and speed that the opponent can't hit an offensive shot. Now what does that mean? Well, you want your forehand to have "enough on it" where your opponent can't rip a winner, can't change direction, and/or can't come in to the net off of your shot. Hitting a ball with a lot of topspin won't necessarily do that.

I think with the kind of swing pattern Evert's using, depth control can go awry. Why? Well since the racquet is being swung on a fairly flat trajectory, the ball will be hit with a fairly flat trajectory. Evert's pattern also makes it harer to control direction because of the tip swinging issue that Jeff has discussed.

I think a good forehand, aside from achieving the objectives I've outlined about, has to have the following feature: A grip that gives the player a sense of how the racquet face is oriented--that is to say how open/shut and left/right pointing the face is. Once the player gets a "feel" for how the face is oriented, he/she can then practice, even alone, getting the ball to do different things. Hitting deep, loopy balls, short/angled crosscourts, etc. And I think naturally, the player will fall into a pattern the Jeff talks about and that you see in a forehand like Baghdatis. I think the straight-arm forehands of Federer and Nadal are obviously great, but I think the straightening of the arm and the release of the wrist make it difficult for the player to control the racquet face, and thus, the ball. Interestingly, Federer has stated that he never really goes for the lines, it just kind of happens. Also, Nadal's much more comfortable hitting loopy/deep balls rather than going for winners. Someone like Verdasco who has a straight-arm with a lot of wrist release is really inconsistent.

I don't think it's an accident that most players play with a bent-arm. I think that allows the body to be more in control of how the racquet is being swung and gives better control over the racquet face, and thusly, the ball. And I don't think it's an accident that some of the best players of all time--Laver, Borg, Agassi, Sampras, and Federer use something close to an Eastern grip. It gives the player a better feel for how the racquet face is oriented. The racquet face more closely matches the hand!

Sorry for this late night rant...it's been a while since I've done that on this forum. I hope all that made sense.

Happy hitting!

[jeffreycounts]

So a couple of things based on what's been said so far:

1.) John's dead on, I think, about the applicability of the more conservative grip used by Evert.
2.) I think the swing pattern that Jeff teaches is much better for generating topspin and depth.

So can those two elements be mixed. Sure--you see it on tour in Federer, Blake, and Baghdatis. I'd argue that the best model out of these would be Baghdatis. I think anyone could learn to hit a great forehand from looking at these clips:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/marcos_baghdatis/mb_fh/mb_fh_center/mb_fh_center.html?MBFHCenterNeutralStanceSide3.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/marcos_baghdatis/mb_fh/mb_fh_center/mb_fh_center.html?MBFHCenterNeutralStanceRear4.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/marcos_baghdatis/mb_fh/mb_fh_center/mb_fh_center.html?MBFHCenterNeutralStanceFront4.mov

I've talked a lot about spin and the kind of spin. John's commented on this in the past--there's almost an obsession with topspin. And like John said, I think it's more a matter of getting the ball to go where you want it to go and to "act" how you want it to act. So I think in a ball that's being hit in a neutral rally, a good forehand would be one that lands deep, past the service line, probably between the service line and baseline, with enough of spin, bounce, and speed that the opponent can't hit an offensive shot. Now what does that mean? Well, you want your forehand to have "enough on it" where your opponent can't rip a winner, can't change direction, and/or can't come in to the net off of your shot. Hitting a ball with a lot of topspin won't necessarily do that.

I think with the kind of swing pattern Evert's using, depth control can go awry. Why? Well since the racquet is being swung on a fairly flat trajectory, the ball will be hit with a fairly flat trajectory. Evert's pattern also makes it harer to control direction because of the tip swinging issue that Jeff has discussed.

I think a good forehand, aside from achieving the objectives I've outlined about, has to have the following feature: A grip that gives the player a sense of how the racquet face is oriented--that is to say how open/shut and left/right pointing the face is. Once the player gets a "feel" for how the face is oriented, he/she can then practice, even alone, getting the ball to do different things. Hitting deep, loopy balls, short/angled crosscourts, etc. And I think naturally, the player will fall into a pattern the Jeff talks about and that you see in a forehand like Baghdatis. I think the straight-arm forehands of Federer and Nadal are obviously great, but I think the straightening of the arm and the release of the wrist make it difficult for the player to control the racquet face, and thus, the ball. Interestingly, Federer has stated that he never really goes for the lines, it just kind of happens. Also, Nadal's much more comfortable hitting loopy/deep balls rather than going for winners. Someone like Verdasco who has a straight-arm with a lot of wrist release is really inconsistent.

I don't think it's an accident that most players play with a bent-arm. I think that allows the body to be more in control of how the racquet is being swung and gives better control over the racquet face, and thusly, the ball. And I don't think it's an accident that some of the best players of all time--Laver, Borg, Agassi, Sampras, and Federer use something close to an Eastern grip. It gives the player a better feel for how the racquet face is oriented. The racquet face more closely matches the hand!

Sorry for this late night rant...it's been a while since I've done that on this forum. I hope all that made sense.

Happy hitting!

Nice post lukman. Great synthesis of the different issues - grips, hitting structure, spin, etc.

[jeffreycounts]

Could a pro keep the ball in play with today's rackets and strings with this technique?

I think this is a great question. I guess you'd have to watch Evert hitting to see because it looks like she is using a modern racket. I would guess there would be control problems.

I don't think we can overestimate how much racket technology has impacted modern technique. With the very heavy wooden rackets, small sweet spots, and older strings of the 70s, was the wiper forehand even a possibility? I seriously doubt it. Even if you look at Borg, you see a lot of topspin on his forehand, but the big wiper finish isn't there like it is today.

I don't think you can get a heavy wooden racket to move through the air the same way the light powerful rackets today can. I would love to see Nadal try to hit his forehand with a wood racket.

[lukman41985]

Respectfully, Jeff, I think this is more demonstrative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31IYa7VsZYg

[oliensis]

With the very heavy wooden rackets, small sweet spots, and older strings of the 70s, was the wiper forehand even a possibility? I seriously doubt it. ...I don't think you can get a heavy wooden racket to move through the air the same way the light powerful rackets today can.

With all due respect, I think that, depending on the player, "old-timers'" strokes were pretty darn modern. Maybe not Jack Kramer or Chris Evert...but have a look at the video @:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/golden_legends/billtilden/billtilden_sa.html?BTFHSide3.mov

Go frame by frame and you'll see that Tilden (whose racket was, if I remember right , was in excess of 17oz) has some surprisingly modern elements in his forehand. The butt-cap of the racket leading toward the ball before the hit, the shoulders square to the baseline @ the hit (just like Federer, and more modern-looking than Sampras), the left hand pulled out of the way of the body ahead of the body's rotation (again much more like Federer than, say Sampras, whose left hand tends to be more passive) and, shockingly enough, a very modern-looking windshield-wiper follow-through, with the "bottom" edge of the racket on top @ the finish (though not as big in amplitude as modern follow-throughs...but plenty big for a 17oz racket).

Now, look @ Little Bill Johnston's fore hand here:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/champions/Ed_Atkinson/Little_Bill_Stroke_Analysis/Little_Bill_Stroke_Analysis.html

Same backswing as Fernando Gonzalaz (somewhat large and high for my taste, but not unmodern), and some very modern, western elements in this one as well....and again, w/ a heavy racket...and Li'l Bill was no physical specimen, described like this on Wikipedia:

Johnston was a small, frail-appearing man who suffered ill health from his Navy service in World War I. He was renowned, however, for the power and deadliness of his forehand drive, which he hit shoulder-high with a Western grip, and which was universally considered the best forehand of all time until the advent of Pancho Segura and his two-handed forehand in the late 1940s. Johnston died of tuberculosis in 1946 at the age of 51.

[johnyandell]

Some excellent points and Tilden could wiper! At times he did, others not. And Fred Perry hit reverse finishes.

Great athletes probably always hit all the shots although that data base is lost to history except For a few remnants.

But no doubt certain elements like the extreme wiper finish have gone from an aspect of the picture to dominating it-just got back from the Easter Bowl and every kid is wipering the hell out of every ball... (and I'm only exaggerating slightly.)

[jeffreycounts]

With all due respect, I think that, depending on the player, "old-timers'" strokes were pretty darn modern. Maybe not Jack Kramer or Chris Evert...but have a look at the video @:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/golden_legends/billtilden/billtilden_sa.html?BTFHSide3.mov

Go frame by frame and you'll see that Tilden (whose racket was, if I remember right , was in excess of 17oz) has some surprisingly modern elements in his forehand. The butt-cap of the racket leading toward the ball before the hit, the shoulders square to the baseline @ the hit (just like Federer, and more modern-looking than Sampras), the left hand pulled out of the way of the body ahead of the body's rotation (again much more like Federer than, say Sampras, whose left hand tends to be more passive) and, shockingly enough, a very modern-looking windshield-wiper follow-through, with the "bottom" edge of the racket on top @ the finish (though not as big in amplitude as modern follow-throughs...but plenty big for a 17oz racket).

Now, look @ Little Bill Johnston's fore hand here:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/champions/Ed_Atkinson/Little_Bill_Stroke_Analysis/Little_Bill_Stroke_Analysis.html

Same backswing as Fernando Gonzalaz (somewhat large and high for my taste, but not unmodern), and some very modern, western elements in this one as well....and again, w/ a heavy racket...and Li'l Bill was no physical specimen, described like this on Wikipedia:

Johnston was a small, frail-appearing man who suffered ill health from his Navy service in World War I. He was renowned, however, for the power and deadliness of his forehand drive, which he hit shoulder-high with a Western grip, and which was universally considered the best forehand of all time until the advent of Pancho Segura and his two-handed forehand in the late 1940s. Johnston died of tuberculosis in 1946 at the age of 51.

That's interesting! When I think of the classic forehand I'm thinking Connors, McEnroe, Edberg, Evert, etc. These old timers are quite fascinating. I do think, however, that Bill Tilden's finish, on the whole, doesn't look particularly modern:

That second clip, though, does look really modern with the butt cap of the racket leading the stroke.

[jeffreycounts]

Respectfully, Jeff, I think this is more demonstrative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31IYa7VsZYg

That's crazy. I don't think Borg hit a lot balls like that, but wow - the resemblance is uncanny.

[lukman41985]

The old days--what do you see?

Laver vs. Borg exhibition, circa 1976: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-VeBIal8TU

[jeffreycounts]

Laver vs. Borg exhibition, circa 1976: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-VeBIal8TU

I see some funny looking shorts, that's for sure. I wish the clarity was better, but Laver was unbelievable. I've never seen Laver play before, but he looks like a natural genius on the court. Effortless like Fedrer. And it looked like Borg was using a lot of reverse finishes, but I can't be sure. I would love to see this with better quality.