Federer's Shoulders Parallel at Contact?

[GMann]

Dear John, thank you for your excellent and in-depth article regarding Federer's forehand. I just want to make sure that you're correct on the point about your observation that Federer's shoulders are parallel to the baseline at contact on virtually every forehand he hits. You indicate that his shoulders are parallel to the baseline at contact, but the videos you attach to the article don't really give us a good view of this. Also, I very much want to make sure that you are right about this because you may realize that this directly contradicts my previous understanding as well as the understanding of several other leading tennis authorities including Jack Broudy, the 8-Board inventor at Grail Sports that seems to base his entire tennis stroke (if not life) philosophy on the understanding that all of the best shots are hit at the 45 degree angle where the shoulders are at 45 degrees at contact. His point is that this is the best and most efficient position to be in for control and power because it is the mid-point between both the vertical and horizonal planes/forces of energy. In fact, I recall that he has used Federer's forehand as a model for his theory about the 45 degrees which obviously is a contradiction to your observation of federer.

Let the debate begin!!

[johnyandell]

GMann

I think if you look closely frame by frame at the click thru movies--especially the ones on page 2 of the second part, you'll see what I mean. It's also pretty darn clear (at least to me) in all the animations. No, you won't find perfectly parallel lines on every ball, but on the vast majority his shoulders look parallel, and as I said in the article, on some balls look actually beyond parallel. When (and if) we ever measure the strokes and ball paths in 3D we'll probably come to some other way of looking at it in relation to the shot line.

But Federer is no where near 45 degrees and it's silly to try to argue that.

You might as background enjoy reading the articles in the Advanced Tennis section on the differences across the grip styles. You'll see there a whole article dedicated to shoulder rotation. Basically, thru analysis of high speed footage, it shows that rotation relates to grip.

The footage shows that Sampras is around 45 degrees or a little less on most balls. So I think there is some real justification for the 45 thing with classic grips and conventional swings. In fact that is what I actually teach on the court to the vast majority of players if I can get them to an eastern grip.

But the 45 degree theory just isn't universal. It just won't hold for the extreme grip players. It's not even correct for Agassi, who is usually touted as the prime example.

I've been on the 8 board and think it's a good tool, but my own opinion is that Jack Brody is a little dogmatic about the theory. I saw an article on Tennisone where he actually had to freeze Hewitt a few frames before the hit to get the magic 45 degree angle. He also stated with great confidence that the problems in Venus' forehand was she was too open at contact. There are some things wrong with her forehand for sure, but that isn't one of them. Bottom line, I think it's a mistake to try to force theory on the data. What should happen is that theory evolves to fit new data--and we have an ever growing wealth of it in our new video work.

Basically after looking closely at dozens of forehands in high speed, I found that the pattern and amount of rotation is pretty much a direct function of grip style. the more extreme the grip, the more rotation. The contact is in the middle of the rotation pattern on most balls, and this means the extreme grip players are much more open.

That was of course til Federer. And that is certainly one of the issues that we could still understand better in this phenomenal shot. How that fairly constant "open" shoulder position works in conjunction with all the other variables. And I think we probably will. In fact, probably someone out there right now already does, and maybe they'll post the solution here.

As I tried to make clear at the end, I'm not saying that Federer is now the universal model we should all emulate--in fact the opposite. Beyond the preparation, which is a commonality with other players, what he does probably could only grow out of more convserative fundamentals and will be successfully implemented mainly by other accomplished competitive players. I know that won't (and shouldn't) stop anyone from trying. That's the fun of it.
But I could even be wrong about that too, and we'll eventually see 60 year old 3.5 women with 180 degrees of arm rotation. In fact my friend Brett Hobden believes that what we all should do. More on all that later.

John Yandell

[GMann]

Thanks for the quick and prompt reply, John. After I sent my message and even before I received yours, I did go to the stroke archives to view Federer's forehand for myself and I have to agree with you that not only was were his shoulders almost always at least parallel to the baseline, but he was often actually BEYOND parallel! It's amazing what we can learn from the high speed technology. I never would have believed it had I not seen it for myself. I really don't understand how this positioning helps him instead of hurts him, but now I have to keep my mind open on this subject.

I look forward to your ongoing analysis of this subject on tennisplayer.net.

GMann

[kamyar100]

John,

I enjoy your site. Jack is NOT saying that the shoulders are necessarily at 45 degrees on for the forehand (or any other stroke). If that is what you think, you MISSED the WHOLE boat. Please take time to fully digest what .he is advocating before you pass judgement on his theory. If you need help, I can walk you through it. Additionally, this is your site and you can do whatever you want...where I come from, "silly" is a term usually used in academia and snobby elite social circles as a euphemism for "stupid". Please don't do that until AFTER you know what you are talking. Because you must be busy, I'll make it easier for you to understand (see link).
Respectfully,
-K

[arturohernandez]

I watched the video and my sense is that it all depends on maintaining your belly button in a certain direction. The hips coil and then release which then leads to an increased rotation in the upper body which is much more visible. The only question I have is that all these balls are hit inside out. What about crosscourt or inside in. It would seem to me that each of those would be slightly different.

I am not contesting that the 45 degree angle or the convex or concave are not true.

The real problem is that it is very difficult for us to use this mathematical thinking when playing.

It is a lot easier to think of pushing a ball forward with our entire body at contact and using rotation to do that.

This would make us naturally stop rotation just a bit at contact and let the body stay at contact and then once the ball is gone release the rotation.

We could even push our chest into the ball or think of kicking the ball with our back foot but holding the kick.

All of these things I can visualize and imagine on a tennis court.

I have a hard time imagining a 45 degree angle because it is static in a game when I am moving all the time.

And I did two year of college level math and am the appointed math tutor in my house for my three kids.

Math is great on paper. Not so great in real life when we have to hit a small ball hit by an opponent who would like us to miss.

[johnyandell]

K,
Thanks for the good words about Tennisplayer and thanks for writing. I watched this again--painfully--He says it clearly about the 45 though that is not what Fed does. He said something similar about Agassi as I recall. I can't even remember where or when I disputed this. Although I know he has attacked me on his site. There is no need to walk me through anything. We can agree to disagree.I just don't buy his concepts. Jack is very aggressive and he and I have butted heads, not only over his theories but also over some of his illegal behavior regarding Tennisone. He's lucky I haven't made him pull those clips because he does not have the rights to them.

[kamyar100]

Dearest John,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I am not sure to which clips you are referring, but see no need to fuel this fire by inquiring for details. I am certainly sad and disappointed, however, to hear that differences over philosophy in a game can lead to personal attacks, theft and defamation of character. We are all entitled to our interpretations and nuances of the game, and how it is best played and mastered. Meanwhile, your readers are dying to know...iare you and Jack going to be doubles partners anytime soon? I can bring a protractor and a compass. Please keep the excellent content pouring into Tennisplayer and its sister sites.

Sincerest regards,

Kamyar Cotam-Shohet, M.D, Ph.D, FACCC.

[johnyandell]

Kam,
Ha! I will keep at it!

[johnyandell]

Gman,
I am pretty darn sure. Check it out in the stroke archive. Jack Brody in my opinion is incorrect--on many things. Although he is very aggressive about his opinions... The contact point is basically halfway through the shoulder rotation. Since Fed's back shoulder comes around facing the opponent, that puts the shoulders roughly parallel at contact. That rigid, arbitrary geometry of the 45 degree angle makes no sense.

[arturohernandez]

Hi John,

I realize that you don't like the 45 degree angle idea. But there is something that is nagging me here. On the forehand one could simply stay forward at contact and face the net with the shoulders. I have had to make this modification consciously after growing up with the old mindset of stay sideway training.

On the other hand some teaching pros say that we should try and move our weight toward the contact point. It's almost like a shot hit on the run. Our body can generate a lot of power by moving sideways as we do when we are running for a ball wide and then accidentally blast it to the back fence.

If we try to kind of jump into the contact point (sorry having a hard time describing it) but then keeping our shoulders parallel to the net, then we get a kind of acceleration and deceleration.

That is where the 45 degree idea (not the technicality which I find very confusing) made some weird sense to me.

Do you have anything on tennsiplayer that points out how the movement of the body toward contact on the forehand and facing forward with the shoulders are combined?

I am kind of thinking that what we need is more of a first person centered view.

Almost as if we could be in Federer's body and see how it feels to him.

Or a huge body prosthetic could be attached to us and then guide us into hitting the ball with maximum power using natural movements in some combination we are not used to using.

I realize this is sci-fi kind of stuff.

So the basic question:

1) jumping or pushing our weight toward the contact point creates power (from the players perspective of what it feels like).

2) Shoulders facing net at contact keeps the ball in front of us in a way so that we don't hit it off to another court or into some kind of foul ball territory.

Is there any information on these two competing forces on the forehand?

Any info is greatly appreciated!

Arturo

[johnyandell]

I think these are independent issues. I would never advise jumping into contact--that is a consequence, not a force in my opinion and the jump is usually upward for a high ball--not really a jump, an uncoiling. As for the shoulders the idea isn't to make the shoulders parallel at contact. The idea is to make contact in the middle of the torso rotational pattern. So a classic, neutral stance eastern forehand the shoulders might be closer to 45 degrees. As I wrote above to the extent your shoulders continue rotating after contact, the more they are around at contact. Jack Brody I don't think knows what he is talking about--he had a history at Tennisone and besides poor information has done several things that are actually illegal. So if I never hear his name again that would be ideal.