Straight arm, no double-bend, but going big

[bottle]

Link to Scissoring Forehand

That would be either 60 or 40 per cent of Roger Federer's forehands. Let's say 50 per cent. So if you chose one at random you'd have about a 50-50 chance of spotting it. But I aim to oblige, so I'll try to find one for you.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/roger_federer_09/rf_forehand/rf_fh_center/rf_fh_center.html?RFFHCenterOpenStanceCourtLevelRear2.mov

Okay, thanks for this experience. All discussions of tennis technique bring out the left brain worst in people, is my theory, which perhaps could be re-phrased: "All deep discussions of tennis technique require so much analytical patience that the participants always go bananas."

The difference between Roger's straight arm version and his scissoring at contact version is EXTREMELY subtle. The arm always scissors as part of
the return to his left side. And the scissoring always starts soon, near contact, coming off the ball or just before the ball. The humbling thing is
how far he characteristically situates himself from the ball-- a sign of pure confidence in any player, Vic Braden said long ago.

But what Bottle does or can do, not Roger, interests me more. As would what Air Force 1 himself does or anybody who is making a genuine effort to
learn. I've read a lot of your posts but still have no idea of what you yourself actually do, and I could say that of so many different people in these forums.

Scissoring through a greater amount of arm bend than Roger customarily achieves at contact (half of the time) doesn't spoil outward sling of the racket tip in my still new experience. The goal for anybody, though, should be, when scissoring, to do just a little of it before contact and a lot of it afterwards, but always in one motion using the very strong biceps muscle.

[carrerakent]

I've read a lot of your posts but still have no idea of what you yourself actually do, and I could say that of so many different people in these forums.

who are you talking about? whose posts? AirForce1?

[carrerakent]

Scissoring through a greater amount of arm bend than Roger customarily achieves at contact (half of the time) doesn't spoil outward sling of the racket tip in my still new experience. The goal for anybody, though, should be, when scissoring, to do just a little of it before contact and a lot of it afterwards, but always in one motion using the very strong biceps muscle.

Bottle, do you figure Federer uses lost of bicep? Nadal yes, the epitome of forcing everything. Federer no, he forces nothing. Lots of bicep intent would be a Nadal like effort. No? Would cause so much inconsistency.

When i look at video of me hitting... i of course do some of what you are calling scissoring, but it is not an intent, it is a natural athletic adjustment...guarantee federer doesn't know how or when he does it. he just does. just like me. i don't think to do it. when i'm training i sense when i am not able to do as i intend and had to make an adjustment from my intent or change the face of the racket just before contact to maybe whip a cross court short angle, but none of those things are contentiously trained movements...does that make sense?

I'm trying to differentiate in my own mind the difference between something you teach and something you just do because innately....our computers (minds) and our machines (skeleton and muscles and such) are a miracle in action.

[bottle]

Yup,

Carrera, I meant Air Force 1. I do know what you do. Or think I do. We just were writing posts at the same time and you finished yours slightly ahead of me. So I got a vague reference in there. (The English teacher in me speaks.)

Yes, I agree that the decision to bend or not to bend before contact need never be conscious. The arm starts bending about at contact-- and truth is beauty, beauty truth. That is all ye need to know.

And if you, and even I, can generate all the power we need with arm straight at contact, we certainly don't need to add to it with a grotesque wrenching from the biceps, but maybe that strong biceps is so manly and gentle that it sometimes adds a bit of finesse. I'm sure I've wrenched a few balls off the court but I'm not proud of it and shall endeavor not to do it any more, preferring to spin them off instead.

This is kind of fun. But do you think we should give this stroke to the masses? The masses don't seem able to take it from us. The same thing
happened to me in rowing. I was a chauffeur in Germany and interviewed in Duisburg the first German Olympic championship crew, the Kiel-Ratzeburgers, who freely and enthusiastically told me all their new, just developed secrets. I tried to interest Sports Illustrated, the editors of whom thanked me profusely, but....I got in arguments even with the captain of my college crew -- a lifetime friend for sure-- and with others and couldn't convince anybody. But by the time I myself became a crew coach twenty years later every good American college and high school and prep school and club rowed wie der Kiel-Ratzeburger, and maybe that's what will happen with the Federfore.

If it doesn't happen, however, I'll just keep the information to myself (except for here at TennisPlayer as long as I don't get banned) and spend the rest of my days kicking butt.

[ochi]

What are the 10 steps?

Carrera, you ask if Federer use lots of bicep, and remark, "Nadal, yes, the epitome of forcing everything. Lots of bicep intent would be a Nadal like effort. No? Would cause so much inconsistency."

But Federer is the one who's prone to great lapses of forehand inconsistency, more than any other top player. He has had long stretches with an average of 15 forehand UEs per set. Maybe he does have the best forehand -- when he's not making UEs -- but almost no one ever speculates on what's happening when things go wrong. So, what does he do wrong when he's hitting long and wide, and even into the net? Nadal never has those lapses. Should we chalk it up to great topspin, even though he's been hitting flat more and more? When Federer is off, what's the answer? You've seen high-speed videos. What would you counsel him to change? Or does he simply lose focus?

You contend that even the greats could have been better if they had known about and used the Jason method. Let's not go too far back. How about Connors? (There's a pure, simple technique to critique.) Kuerten? Sampras? Today, Soderling, Gonzo? In general, which of the 10 steps didn't/don't they do? And what are those 10 steps?

I've seen pictures of Roy Emerson, Tony Trabert and lots of others with their racquets straight back, in line with their shoulders, preparing a straight-arm swing. Is what Jason and you teach what they did in the old days, with a missing element added? Call it retro or classical; it worked. They could hit hard, despite all the denigration of wood racquet tennis we hear from TV commentators.

I and I'm sure others are getting tired of the endless back and forth on the Jason method. You are writing more and more clearly. How about boiling it down to each of the essentials? Even if you warn that it still has to be seen to be believed. So, how about a video, too?

Thanks.

[airforce1]

That would be either 60 or 40 per cent of Roger Federer's forehands. Let's say 50 per cent. So if you chose one at random you'd have about a 50-50 chance of spotting it. But I aim to oblige, so I'll try to find one for you.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/roger_federer_09/rf_forehand/rf_fh_center/rf_fh_center.html?RFFHCenterOpenStanceCourtLevelRear2.mov

Okay, thanks for this experience. All discussions of tennis technique bring out the left brain worst in people, is my theory, which perhaps could be re-phrased: "All deep discussions of tennis technique require so much analytical patience that the participants always go bananas."

The difference between Roger's straight arm version and his scissoring at contact version is EXTREMELY subtle. The arm always scissors as part of
the return to his left side. And the scissoring always starts soon, near contact, coming off the ball or just before the ball. The humbling thing is
how far he characteristically situates himself from the ball-- a sign of pure confidence in any player, Vic Braden said long ago.

But what Bottle does or can do, not Roger, interests me more. As would what Air Force 1 himself does or anybody who is making a genuine effort to
learn. I've read a lot of your posts but still have no idea of what you yourself actually do, and I could say that of so many different people in these forums.

Scissoring through a greater amount of arm bend than Roger customarily achieves at contact (half of the time) doesn't spoil outward sling of the racket tip in my still new experience. The goal for anybody, though, should be, when scissoring, to do just a little of it before contact and a lot of it afterwards, but always in one motion using the very strong biceps muscle.

Sorry bottle. I don't explain what I do, as I have so many variations in hitting the FH and (don't take this to mean I think any of my variations is so great). I often wonder if I should streamline the FH options some, but so far, I'm satisfied with my variety. I comment on these FH posts to some extent, but not too much and mostly questioning an idea I may have had. Honestly I don't believe in naming all these FHs, as I find the variations endless, except in a very general way or grouping, but I try to follow along to get the gist of what you guys are seeing. I find most of it quite interesting. Hopefully you have noticed I'm not throwing out a bunch of ck points on the FH, but more general suggestions time to time.

And to put a nail in my own coffin, I don't see the straight arm as a sep FH at this point, but a version of the double bend with more extension. oh well...

[bottle]

Interesting.

Do you think of your significant arm rotation, i.e., during contact, as using muscles in your arm? Or sometimes yes, sometimes no? I have some friends
with arm muscle strokes who I think are really good, though I'm glad not to be one of them (any more). The big improvement for me came after I'd been fooling around with Federfore for a long time, but then strained my arm. During
the healing process I tried to do the thing that hurt the least, and now I'm sticking with it.

[airforce1]

Do you think of your significant arm rotation, i.e., during contact, as using muscles in your arm? Or sometimes yes, sometimes no? I have some friends
with arm muscle strokes who I think are really good, though I'm glad not to be one of them (any more). The big improvement for me came after I'd been fooling around with Federfore for a long time, but then strained my arm. During
the healing process I tried to do the thing that hurt the least, and now I'm sticking with it.

Sometimes yes and sometimes no, as I use quite a mix. For me it seems that balls in different places and coming from different angles, work best with various adjustments.

[carrerakent]

Carrera, you ask if Federer use lots of bicep, and remark, "Nadal, yes, the epitome of forcing everything. Lots of bicep intent would be a Nadal like effort. No? Would cause so much inconsistency."

But Federer is the one who's prone to great lapses of forehand inconsistency, more than any other top player. He has had long stretches with an average of 15 forehand UEs per set. Maybe he does have the best forehand -- when he's not making UEs -- but almost no one ever speculates on what's happening when things go wrong. So, what does he do wrong when he's hitting long and wide, and even into the net? Nadal never has those lapses. Should we chalk it up to great topspin, even though he's been hitting flat more and more? When Federer is off, what's the answer? You've seen high-speed videos. What would you counsel him to change? Or does he simply lose focus?

You contend that even the greats could have been better if they had known about and used the Jason method. Let's not go too far back. How about Connors? (There's a pure, simple technique to critique.) Kuerten? Sampras? Today, Soderling, Gonzo? In general, which of the 10 steps didn't/don't they do? And what are those 10 steps?

I've seen pictures of Roy Emerson, Tony Trabert and lots of others with their racquets straight back, in line with their shoulders, preparing a straight-arm swing. Is what Jason and you teach what they did in the old days, with a missing element added? Call it retro or classical; it worked. They could hit hard, despite all the denigration of wood racquet tennis we hear from TV commentators.

I and I'm sure others are getting tired of the endless back and forth on the Jason method. You are writing more and more clearly. How about boiling it down to each of the essentials? Even if you warn that it still has to be seen to be believed. So, how about a video, too?

Thanks.

ochi, i have had the same questions about federer in an attempt to try and break my own theories because i do not want to go down the wrong path. i really do think federer loses focus. i see his movement get kinda lazy. but, i think the real cause of the UEs is something i hear almost nothing about. the thing that makes my coach/mentor so cutting edge, his understanding and teaching of playing in the right brain.

the relationship of the left and right brains' involvement in the execution of tennis. the book, Inner Game of Tennis hit on this subject years ago, but i think it misses the boat somewhat. when i read that book 20+ years ago it was revolutionary to me. it set the ground work for taking the brain's involvement steps further.

here's my take on it and how it impacts Federer and not the other guys:

Federer is obviously the most fluid tennis player we've ever seen. Innately he utilizes the right side of his brain to play tennis more than anyone else...that is only my opinion. Federer is able to create "the zone" with full or almost full right brain activity, whereas i think Nadal on the other hand uses more left brain.

the obvious signs for those two opinions is that Federer does not use muscle and last second adjustments nearly as often as Nadal and all other players. he trusts his spacing, he should make more mishits and UEs than anyone else because he doesn't yank the racket head around like the other guys.

if federer gets out of his right brain then he's going to play poorly, just like every other humanoid, but will be more off his normal game because he isn't conditioned to change the contact point as randomly as others. Nadal uses his gifts as an athlete to muscle and manipulate the racket face. that's why we see him hit balls while he's rolling on the outside of his foot and falling back and all over the place like my 1.5 year old and still make good shots. less of an athlete wouldn't get away with it.

guys on this forum thinks it is harder to hit extended, but that is, in my opinion, because they've never done both successfully. what nadal does for example is way more complicated and harder to master than federer.

has anyone tested the racket head speed of federer compared to the other guys? my other guess is that his racket face is smaller than all of the others, his racket is traveling faster than all of the others therefore he has less margin for errror. i'd be curious to see some quantitative data to support or deny that.

ochi, i contend that everyone can be better, not just necessarily with Jason's method. for example, i look at Sampras' back hand and wonder how could he would have been had he had better mechanics, or borg if he didn't fall off balance outside of his contact point after his backhand, or connors had used topspin...everyone can be better...i do see so many pros making basic mistakes and their strokes failing them at critical times because they don't have some good principles that jason teaches and many of those principles are taught by lots of other coaches too.

someone asked about the 10 steps...not sure what thread it was...but it's not 10 steps to a stroke, but steps to a teaching method. maybe it's 11...i don't know...i'm not him and not in his head. i haven't written all the steps down and intend to do that because i am missing a couple in my own play and in my coaching. besides, i've paid a couple of thousand dollars for what jason has taught me. why should i give it to you guys for free? many of you would just use it to try to find fault based upon your track records already.

all of these threads and responses kinda evolved from just a couple of discussion points. there hasn't been any structure to what has been discussed so it is understandable that it's hard to piece it all together. i point out that you or any of the critics on here haven't bothered to email me as though they actually wanted to learn anything...IF there was something to learn. the guys that have emailed me are like me...anxious to learn new things.

[bottle]

Sensible

One thing I can't believe is that all teaching pros everywhere haven't had a shot at hitting Roger's type of forehand.

What I don't know is how it worked out. They just don't communicate enough. I would have a perfect respect for anyone who said they gave it a thorough try but then returned to double-bend as their preferred stroke.

Of course I would want to know what they didn't try that I did try and what extra they think their double-bend gives to them other than that they are used to it.

Roger is a genius, sure, but I wonder about some of the adulation he receives. I used to be accused of adulating him too much myself.

But some of his excellence, I am convinced, is not extra-terrestrial. Most simply, he has a more sensible forehand than anyone big (my personal opinion-- obviously). I am not the first player to utter the tennis cliche, "It works for me."

[uspta146749877]

Parts of brain

A conventional theory says that a LEFT part of brain controls arm movements
for a righthander and vice versa.It contradicts the post #24 above

julian mielniczuk
usptapro 27873
Courtside Tennis Club,Bedford,MA

https://www.julianmielniczuk.usptapro.com

juliantennis@comcast.com

[bottle]

Julian-- may I answer.

I thought about that and ultimately concluded that this view is "conventional" as you say, in fact, too pat and conventional. The image that comes to my mind is John McEnroe sweeping the full cups off the table with his racket. It is a hell of a shot. He doesn't scrape the table at all but hits the cups fat. How else could they go so far and spatter so well? That's spatial expertise for sure, coming from the right brain, and he is a left hand player mainlined to right brain, so that part of the conventional view seems to bear itself out.

However, at the same time he is acting out, with calculation, the hunter-gatherer drawing on meanness, the guy who starts wars, and yes, consciously thinking ahead to the reaction and attention he will get. Very left-brained, all that.

So he used both lobes of the brain, and all good players do, all the time, in my view. Nobody's the Timothy Gallwey model just letting it happen. If they were, they couldn't even keep score, wouldn't complain if somebody got it wrong. They'd just look at the clouds the way my wife, a painter, would, then come back refreshed for the next point. No, everybody uses both, and I've always thought that the truth of tennis lay 50-50 between Gallwey and his coach at Harvard, a great analyst, John O. Barnaby, who Gallwey gave only one tiny bit of credit in his books for Barnaby's statement on volleying to "bite the ball." I think Gallwey, captain of the Harvard tennis team, owed a lot more to Barnaby than that.

Probably, though, a left hander does have a natural advantage. But that doesn't mean a right-hander like Roger can't be natural, too. I'm not a neuro-scientist, but from what I can understand in my schoolboy way, the impulses for a right-hander would draw on right brain too but come or go through
the corpus callosum, the organ between the lobes, a mediator which is larger in some people than others. It's larger for instance in kids who listened to a lot of good music when they were young (but they were out of the womb so I guess you couldn't call it "the Mozart effect.") Anyway that surprising development of the corpus callosum which nobody expected is documented in scientific research.

It's a fascinating subject, but one wouldn't have to spend six months studying
THE ALPHABET VERSUS THE GODDESS: THE CONFLICT BETWEEN WORD AND IMAGE by the late Leonard Shlain, if one could just arrive at the view that logic and feel work together on every stroke.

[uspta990770809]

Right and left brain

A conventional theory says that a LEFT part of brain controls arm movements
for a righthander and vice versa.It contradicts the post #24 above

julian mielniczuk
usptapro 27873
Courtside Tennis Club,Bedford,MA

https://www.julianmielniczuk.usptapro.com

juliantennis@comcast.com

The right frontal cortex controls all deliberate movement of the left side of the body and vice versa for the left frontal cortex. So a blood clot in the left carotid artery, etc. will cause paralysis on the right side of the body. But, as Bottle points out, it is the corpus collosum that controls coordination of the right and left sides of the body in complex coordinated motions. I don't have the technical details, but deliberate motions and actions seem to reside or be controlled from the left hemisphere of the brain. I'm not sure if that is referring to something other than the frontal lobes. More artistic pursuits and complex reasoning that is more intuitive seems to be located in the right hemisphere...long term memory and things like recognizing faces. We know this from people who have strokes paralyzing different sides of their body. The right sided paralytic will recognize faces (right side of the brain in tact), but will not be able to remember names or words. Left sided paralytics will tend to be lacking in emotion and sensitivity. I don't think these are black and white rules, but pretty well established as a strong pattern.

Two scientists in the 1950's (I think Doman and Delocotto, but I don't think I have the spelling right) did a lot of work on developing right and left hemisphere integration by doing enough cross crawling before starting to walk. I.e., if you didn't crawl enough you were a slow learner or maybe more likely to be a dyslexic. Great information on this in Paul Dennison's books: Switching On was one of them.

The real problem with "chocking" is when we try to overpower our right hemispheres with "trying too hard" with the left hemisphere. Tennis is too difficult a task to perform "deliberately" at high speeds. You have to train and program the computer and then get out of the way and let it run. In the moment, doubt, hesitation, anxiety interferes with execution, you are doomed. However, the work of people like Dennison is applicable in trying to reestablish your "concentration" when you find yourself unable to execute, even if it does not get you all the way back to "the zone". The moment you become judgemental of your performance, you are dead. I tell my players to learn to critique between points, but only between points and only objectively and never criticize.

I think that's one reason some players play so well under the gun. They are too busy to think about the consequences of failure. That's why it would have been interesting to see Serena get into that tiebreaker with Clijsters. But I think the point penalty was the only call the chair could make given the situation.

[ochi]

Am getting the hang of straight-arm, and like it a lot, but have to be conscious about doing it, every time. That may take a while. There's more velocity and depth with less effort! My usual doubles partner has an excellent forehand with this technique, but can't handle low balls when he fails to scoot forward. How come, I wonder?

And what about hitting deep and almost loopy, making it difficult for opponents to return in singles (because they're not used to having to do it)? Which grip, continental? Get underneath more with the eastern? I wish I'd learned more about these things when I was young. Like the Bottle dude, I keep learning. (BTW, a couple years ago, he included a pic of himself with a post -- an overly tall Falstaff, full of life... run that again, will you?)

Carrera, what you say about all this? Where you been lately? You've added a lot.

[bottle]

~

Rare Tennis Photographs 189.jpg


Actually, I've played Sir Andrew Aguecheek in "Twelfth Night" and Elbow, the tall, skinny dumb cop in "Measure for Measure," so you're pretty close. I'll forward your comment to my sister, who took the photograph; hopefully, she'll be pleased.