Straight arm, no double-bend, but going big

[ochi]

A friend from Pennsylvania came by for doubles this evening and was smoothly nailing forehands with another 4.0 heavy hitter in long exchanges in warmup when I arrived. There was something odd about his swing. I asked if he had been influenced by Robin Soderling. No, he said, he had been searching for something simpler and remembered Chris Evert's forehand. Arm way out straight, no double-bend, set up farther away from the ball.

He uses an old, inexpensive, ultra-light Head Ti-S5, and has had no elbow, arm or wrist problems. Another 4.0 friend, a player who strongly believes in double-bend, uses the similar T-6, but does not have such a strong forehand.

What goes? I do not understand it.

Maybe this will divert Bottle from his ever-unfolding thoughts about the serve. I doubt that even Tolstoy could have written so much about about the mechanics of that complex stroke. Bottle's mind needs a rest, I think. Let him ponder this!

[crass_lawner]

Well Federer,

http://z.about.com/d/tennis/1/5/h/C/federer-forehand-inside-out.jpg

Nadal,

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/06/11/nadal_forehand_wideweb__470x290,0.jpg

and Verdasco

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0gdb0QX3YA0hr/610x.jpg

all have fairly large forehands and none of them use the double bend (when they have optimal positioning and spacing), whereas Fernando "Mano de Piedra" Gonzales

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/01/25/fernandogonzalez_wideweb__470x325,0.jpg

does, so I guess the simple answer to your question is that you can hit a huge forehand with or without the double bend. But you can be sure that all their rackets weigh considerably more than your friend's (with Nadal's being the closest of course).

[airforce1]

He uses an old, inexpensive, ultra-light Head Ti-S5,

Just curious, why would you consider that an inexpensive racket? I suppose now if you find one on clearance or something they are cheap, as they are from over 10 yrs ago, but back in the Day, they retailed for $229 or more.

[ochi]

I see what you mean, but my friend got his for $70 about five years ago. Don't know if its a Comfort Zone, but think so. Here's what it goes for now at Tennis Warehouse...

Head Titanium Ti.S5 Comfort Zone Racquets
Twin brother to the original Titanium Ti S5 but with Comfort Zone Technology, (designed to increase sweetspot size). A racquet option with wide appeal. 107square inch head size. Extended length.
Price: $59.95, Customer Feedback, Product Q&A

[crass_lawner]

Yeah those big light rackets for old guys are usually quite expensive when they come out and then drop in price pretty quickly. I'm sure racket companies realize that many old guys have more money and less knowledge about tennis rackets.

[ochi]

My friend has excellent anticipation and footwork, and is fast, but he said, "Some of the guys I hit with here in PA are BIG hitters and sometimes I was late on a ground stroke. By laying the racquet back immediately I am no longer late. It is also a very simple stroke so there is less to go wrong."

But some major coaches are against a big, wide, long takeback. For example, Oscar Wegner urges a short one, like a second baseman preparing to catch a line drive. Isn't that sort of what Agassi did?

That's what I attempt to do, and I like it, but will try the Evert/Bruguera method. Surely, it's best to be able to do both, at the right times.

[bottle]

Sure, I'm Happy to Think about This

For, not only does my serve need a rest, but my arm does, too.

And I'm only hitting backhands these days-- a good time to think about forehands.

It should be said that I went for many decades without injuring my elbow.

And as far as the amount I've written on serves: It would probably be nothing if my serves ever lived up to my expectation! I search through writing-- a very strange phenomenon that would be thoroughly impossible with any of the real editors I've had.

But I digress (another advantage of not laboring for a professional editor).
I'm about to get to the point, one as condensed and compressed as I can make it, but first I want to say, this ongoing discussion about straight vs. double-bend is a complete sham! Arms that are bent then scissor to a double-bend or more. Double-bends extend into straightness (if not injury).
Double-bends contract or extend a little per way of adjustment per Peter Burwash. All of this stuff is mixed up and I'm sick of it!

However, Roger Federer hits some straight (reputedly very difficult for a normal human being because the separation must be as precise as his-- I don't even try). The 60 or 40 per cent of his shots that scissor before contact are more to my liking and seem to have a larger margin for error and are easier to do.

As usual, Oscar Wegner's English is better than those who use it as a first
language (a professional editor's dream, I would think): He wrote in a recent newsletter:

Try this drill before you step on the court. (explained for right-handers)

Stand in front of a wall or fence, facing it (open stance), at a distance where you can touch it comfortably with both hands (about one and a half ft. away, 50 centimeters). Hold your racquet with your normal forehand grip and put it to your right, with your hand slightly below waist level and the racquet head lower, about knee level. The racquet face (strings) will be facing the wall.

Now bring the racquet forward and slightly upwards, as if you were trying to find the ball from below. When you are close to the wall, bring it up and across in a windshield-wiper arc, vertically, without touching the wall, then pull it backwards, ending with the right hand over your left shoulder and the butt of the racquet facing the fence. The racquet face should be vertical, with the palm of your hand facing outwards, not towards your face.

Notice your elbow coming up, finishing almost in front of your chin. Repeat over and over, until your arm gets used to this upward pull. Remember to approach the wall slowly, and only then accelerate up and across, WITHOUT TOUCHING THE WALL OR FENCE.

Because the tendency of the player is to go forward, this trains the muscles to go upwards and across. Later on, when you are in the court, the combination of these forces make for a great forehand swing.

Do I adulate Oscar? Nah. I realize that subject and verb don't agree in his last sentence. But do I care? Nah. I'm looking for practical stuff, and this is it-- the anti-golf and anti-baseball stuff-- especially when I'm renewing my Don Budge backhand ideas, which are all baseball. Hey, I could have baseball on one side and ping-pong on the other-- wonderful!-- and I'm going to finish my forehand around my upper arm just as I do already. Aside: Many people seem to hate Oscar, others love him. Me, I like him a whole lot, and I'm sure I'd agree with all the knowledgeable people who think that Milton Katselas, another scientologist, is the greatest acting coach in California. When the subject is acting or tennis, I'm not sure the standard objections to scientology even apply. Also, Tom Cruise doesn't do much for me, but I thought L. Ron Hubbard was pretty cool.

Okay, here it is, my latest thought on a straight to short arm forehand, which I was going to put some place else till I saw Ochi's remarks. (Drum roll.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FEDERFORE

55463 (and ten frames to finish)

wok wok wuk feeeel SLAaaaaaaaaam

feel slaam

feeeel SLAaaaaaaaaam

[bottle]

Straight Arm Takebacks

Yechh. Why would anyone want to do this? The ready position has arm bent so why not leave it that way for a while-- especially when all good editors admire compactness? The time to extend the arm is when you're feeling for the ball.

Double-bend behind the shoulders line also seems pretty stinky to me although Stan Smith did it very well. I hated watching Soderling from a technical standpoint-- much too much fast swing before contact or at the very least a tendency toward that. Though what he did at the French Open was thoroughly admirable. A high maintenance forehand?

Even bigger than the straight arm, double-bend distinction, it seems to me, are forehands that get fast before contact vs. those that just get fast at contact
(though I realize the speed is always going to come on a little before contact even when you adhere to the power delay conviction).

Since I can't hit ANY KIND of forehand right now, the discussion is abstract,
but I got fascinated by the new videos of Federer where his racket accelerated down low so much that it turned into a blur and even created an optical illusion where it seemed to break in half. In trying to figure out that
blur and reproduce it I came up with some elaborate ideas that led me straight to an injury.

Maybe the unmistakable blur is the result of a simple, abrupt, 90-degree change of direction. I'm hoping to figure it out when the healing has occurred, but in the meantime if somebody had an idea that would be good, too.

I've learned never to expect a good idea from anybody. They come, but always as surprise.

[bottle]

Eight Forehands with Maybe Two Really Good

I'm up from no forehands per day to eight. And I'd like to think that maybe with all the repetition in tennis, people "practice" so much that they drive their senses into a torpor. All I'm saying is I felt more creative with eight forehands hit with a gimpy arm than with eighty hit with a healthy arm.

About the above passage, italicized, where I quoted some recent material from Oscar Wegner, I have a question that is related to nothing but curiosity-- and which just led to my experiment out on the court.

For a long time, most notably in his McGraw-Hill book that came out in 2005, Oscar has used the analogy of running the palm along a fence
to explain what should happen at the 90-degree change of direction in a good topspin forehand. Along the same lines, John Carpenter, teaching pro of St. Louis, has his students picture a sliding glass door. You could get this moving pane perpendicular to your opponent's backhand corner for an inside out forehand, for instance.

I fully subscribe to these ideas. They seem truly basic to me for those who want to narrow their focus-- and in this case put it on racket head speed.


Perhaps because I admire Oscar's verbal skills so much, I'll simply say that I always follow him in websites, magazines, newsletters, etc.-- ESPECIALLY when he makes a familiar point. Everybody knows he believes in simplicity but that doesn't mean he isn't careful. I look for any subtle variation in what he's saying because I know it's always deliberate. Notably, it's the racket that's going sideways in this italicized description.

Also, Oscar speaks of rough position for hand and racket and then feeling slightly up for the ball. And then the fence or glass door thing.
And then a return of the racket to the body.

Here's the question: How long is the racket-along-fence motion? How broad the racket-along-glass motion? I was watching some of the recent videos of Federer here at TennisPlayer and noticed the strings rolling up on the forearm from one width below ball to one and three-quarters width directly above it (truth or camera angle?) with hand seeming to move only a couple of inches to the left during that specific time.

Maybe this is nothing but MAYBE IT IS SOMETHING. In any case I'm having fun experimenting with it.

[ochi]

The endless new discussions about straight arm and double-bend forehands and dog-pats are very, very interesting, but make my mind spin after a few minutes. When that happens, I flee to Kerry Mitchell's columns, for clarity.

A while ago, I told about a visiting friend from Pennsylvania who had switched to a retro straight-arm forehand, the better to cope with some heavy hitters in the Lebanon area. I was amazed at how big he was hitting, compared with before. As if there was nothing to it! Last Sunday, I partnered with another straight-arm hitter, in his 50s. I watched closely, over my shoulder, several times. His technique seemed stiff and almost awkward, rather Connorslike. Nevertheless, his shots were fast and seldom went long or wide.

He called it classical, not retro. Man, it was simple. Looking through pictures in some old, used books I've bought ("Tennis the Australian Way" is one), it appears that some, if not all, of those great icons did the same thing. I saw Frank Sedgman and others play at Orange and Seabright when I was a little kid, and was in awe at how hard they could hit balls with their wood racquets. Still am.

I'm an old hacker who has a few very good days, plenty of mediocre ones, and an occasional lousy one. Changing doesn't come easy, but I intend to work on this stroke -- get farther from the ball and line up a little differently, the way Mitchell says to do.

Kent Carrera has headed me into an area of confusion. At first, I thought he was talking about a new approach to simplicity. But then he said there are 10 steps, and if you get any one of them wrong, it won't work. He has said far more than I could store and sort out, so I'll keep in mind what some of the instructors I've met over the years have said in common -- "Just keep it simple."

Also, I wonder why Carrera is attempting to spread the secrets of his mentor. If they are really onto something, why not keep it to themselves and produce terrific players to the tour, get rich and famous? Seems crazy to divulge it.

Putting down Agassi's technique (if I got that right) seems way wrong. I loved how he could run top players back and forth like dogs. An instructor who heads a nearby academy is an Agassi disciple. His forehands are lasers and sound like clean pistol shots. I bet that the straight-arm would not work for him. (Why isn't he on tour, then? He almost was, playing the Roddick brothers, Safin and others, in Florida, but developed asthma.)

[carrerakent]

Kent Carrera has headed me into an area of confusion. At first, I thought he was talking about a new approach to simplicity. But then he said there are 10 steps, and if you get any one of them wrong, it won't work. He has said far more than I could store and sort out, so I'll keep in mind what some of the instructors I've met over the years have said in common -- "Just keep it simple."

Also, I wonder why Carrera is attempting to spread the secrets of his mentor. If they are really onto something, why not keep it to themselves and produce terrific players to the tour, get rich and famous? Seems crazy to divulge it.

I'm glad that you brought this up. I should have explained myself better. What I was referring to was a coach isn't able to teach the system only knowing pieces, but instead has to know all of the steps/facets and much of that is to know what to look for and why things are doing what they are doing. Coaches can give instruction, but when something goes as "unplanned" then it is necessary to know what lead it there so that the cause can be fixed and not the typical band-aid approach that I experienced as a young player.

As for a player picking up the stroke production, whether forehand or backhand, it is much much more simple. So again, I was referring to a coaches role, not the player's.

That leads to your next question...I shared info because I want to share and help, but mostly wanted to discuss and see what kind of input, etc I would get from a wide variety of people on this forum. Believe me, Jason or I are not worried about someone stealing his ideas. It would be impossible from what has been divulged on here. Instead, take everything said and be a better player or coach, but as a coach or player, this text will not get you to where the on court instruction from a qualified teacher will get you.

I'm glad you are concerned about our financial well-being and fame. (That will be $200 please for this question/answering session.)

[carrerakent]

Putting down Agassi's technique (if I got that right) seems way wrong. I loved how he could run top players back and forth like dogs. An instructor who heads a nearby academy is an Agassi disciple. His forehands are lasers and sound like clean pistol shots. I bet that the straight-arm would not work for him. (Why isn't he on tour, then? He almost was, playing the Roddick brothers, Safin and others, in Florida, but developed asthma.)

Please understand that I used Agassi as an example of someone setting up at varying distances from his contact point, often "too close" to fully utilize the kinetic chain as we've discussed on here. Many tennis people think that just because someone has trophies or a high world ranking they understand things along the lines of what we have been talking...or the assumption that the world class player can teach someone how to do something.

Along with that goes the assumptions that just because Agassi could do what he did, it does not mean that he could not have been a better player by utilizing his own physical abilities more efficiently. As a final note, my comments about other players comes from the realization that so many people try to copy someone just because they have success.

I mean, who was trying to copy Soderling before this summer? NOONE. He's no where near the best example of what people THINK he is doing.

Agassi is a very intelligent guy. I respect him more than anyone in tennis for his understanding of tennis. Give him a choice to hit like Federer and he probably wouldn't...with good reason i'm sure, but my whole argument is based upon a choice...teach someone to hit like Agassi/Roddick or Federer. I don't think any human would get that question wrong.

Again, I apologize for not being clear.

[bottle]

Crazy, yes.

It is crazy to divulge the secret of the Federfore. Especially since it's so simple. We ought to keep it close to the chest (no, out to the side). But really, the secret is so simple that any hacker dropping balls and hitting them at dawn (when he's fresh) could probably figure it out all by himself in one year.

The first thing to realize, I think, is that Federer is hitting about half of his
forehands with a straight arm and the other half with a scissoring arm. Of
these two methods, the scissoring arm is far easier. You might have to be a genius like him and maybe pretty young to set up perfectly every time for the straight arm version, which is with contact THREE MILES OUT THERE.

This idea, incidentally, doesn't come from me but from Oscar Wegner by way of his assistant John Carpenter, who always knows what Oscar just said. John wants me to critique his new book, which is at least partially a history of all bad tennis instruction in the United States, but I haven't done it yet. I've found myself reluctant to do so because I think he's too rough on some people
I like. Vic Braden, for instance, is a totally off the wall genius and gyro and psychologist and COMPLETE HOOT (and has a great backhand). And he wrote a book called TENNIS FOR THE FUTURE, in which he did not claim to be Nostradamus. No, the title was perfect. It's a milestone, something to both steal and depart from. In any case the greatest tennis writer is not Bill Tilden but John O. Barnaby.

But I promised simplicity and want to deliver. Technique for scissoring arm version is practically the same as for straight arm version. First you watch films of Federer to get the timing and structure of his lift and belated but throughly complete turn of the shoulders and slight straightening of the arm (shoulders are still) before the shoulders start revolving the other way. What you end up with is a gently orbiting arm which is way the hell back behind you and a very solid stroke in which arm and body don't even know the difference between themselves. Try this. Hit a few balls that way. Did you do it? Is the feel anything like the vintage straight-arm forehands you see and admire? Are those guys hitting through the ball to make it go so fast? I'll bet they are. But Federer wouldn't do something as silly as that, unless you want to play lawyer with me and say, "Nobody hits through the ball like the Big Fed." Okay, okay, his whirling body takes the racket head through big time. But body is easy. Just make like Nureyev, Nijinsky and Baryshnikov. The arm is what's difficult to figure out because IT DOESN'T HIT THROUGH THE BALL. Okay, who's sounding like a lawyer now? I am. So I'll turn into an evil shrink. MAKE YOURSELF SCHITZOPHRENIC ABOUT YOUR BODY AND YOUR ARM.

Okay, both teacher and student are undergoing transformations now like Merlin and the young King Arthur, and the student has gone from a retired editor to a dancer. And the people who talk about chains and segments slowing down are complete dolts (hope I don't get banned for that). Did Nijinsky retard things in mid-air? Well, maybe he and Michael Jordan do, a little. My main impression (and I'll stick with it, thank you) is fluid motion through the air, and if on the ground, fluid and long as possible just the same. Okay, we've learned to hit the ball this way. We're solid. Now it's time to add a little bowl. Not an amphora or cobalt-fired pudding dish but a bowl as at a bowling alley. But small! The arm goes down and up with force. You've got muscles in the shoulder, right? The racket rejoins the body swing, both in direction and speed. The wrist laid back an extra amount in the middle of the BOWL. And is in good position to ROLL (sorry-- not-- for the rhyme). Some think wrist lets go a bit, others not. Keep a loose grip and you can't go wrong. Some things go right to left; and some left to right, i.e., the unfurling, passive racket head. It's a contest! Right to left wins since there will be sidespin mixed in with the topspin, but the topspin is a magic brand, affording all kinds of new control, and is what provides the modern in Federer's own description of his forehand as "modern retro."

Not simple enough? Well, I tried. Oh, scissoring arm. When does that happen? During the finish of the stroke, as the arm comes back to your old guy vaccination mark. But it CAN start right in the middle of the short bowl
while wrist is taking its extra lay-back (and roll-down). With something close to an eastern grip this isn't tragic at all. My scissoring takes the racket head
almost straight up. Nothing wrong with that. And the ball only has to be one and one-half rather than three miles away when I hit it.

[bottle]

Sling Blade

Sling the racket to the outside.

[airforce1]

Sling the racket to the outside.

Can you provide a link to the scissor FH?
thanks,