Best Forehand: Nadal or Federer

[bottle]

Thanks, NABRUG

Two questions:

1. Would you describe this as a different technique compared to the "old" one?
2. Did you try it on the BH side?

Good questions. On 1), do you see "old" one as my previous forehand or Roger's forehand which all sensible people have understood perfectly all along or classical as opposed to Roger's "modern retro"? If my previous forehand, this is a change. I was pushing the ball more with my arm off to the left. Twist that elbow up the least bit and you totally alter the swing pattern. You alter it too much. You clobber the ball toward left fence. That can be great and should be kept as an option, but is nowhere near as good for control. Two videos of Rod Laver's forehand in this website illustrate this distinction perfectly. In the first, the strings go up the ball, which leaves at a right angle. In the second, the strings follow the ball.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/golden_legends/rodlaver/rodlaver_sa.html?RLFHCourtLevelFront.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/golden_legends/rodlaver/rodlaver_sa.html?RLFHShortCourtLevelFront.mov

Still on question one, if the "old" technique is Roger's which other people have described in different ways, I'm not sure whether I've found a departure or not. For all I know, I'm doing something the same as Roger or something different. I only know it's working for me and think it might work for others. And I cheer when players other than myself tell their personal discoveries. These are not always superior to more generic discussion, but sometimes they're amazingly helpful because so specific, e.g., I hurt my shoulder rotors pitching in baseball and here's how I adjusted my serve (a real example in these posts right now). The generous man's observations might apply to someone with stiff (but not damaged) rotors as well.

I guess a third possibility for "old" technique could be swing straight ahead
with both ends of the racket moving at the same speed and "c-a-a-r-r-r-y"
the ball. I'd throw that one right in the waste basket on my home page and in fact did before I even had a computer.

2) I've been too busy applying the new principle (new to me, at least) to
my serves to get around to trying it on my backhand. But I'm getting excited.
My preferred backhand is very wide right now-- a good start. It MIGHT work.
Thanks for the suggestion.

[nabrug]

With the old technique I wanted to refer to the technique which is leading in the pro game nowadays. The technique of f.e. Djokovic, Soderling. The spring event like Jeff Count describes it.

[tcuk]

James K - Forehand

Toitally good article. Really agree with the thoughts and kind of conclusions

[bottle]

Works like a Charm

Applying same principle to the backhand-- at least to the waist high take-back Donald Budge type backhand I now have-- worked very well from the first ball hit.

The slowness of the shoulders turning forward allows time for a completely coordinated easy bowl down a little and then up, with everything stopped by the left hand and stomach muscles just before contact.

At which time racket can roll left on relaxed forearm, continuing in the direction started as hand resumes original speed and wide path gently around to the right (but mostly out).

Hit a few of these shots and then go back to the flat version, surprising your opponent. Also go back to the flat version to center yourself (and the more
topspun version).

I compare the core pendulum action of the shoulders to a pool (billiards) shot. There, the pendulum is vertical; here, it's circular and horizontal as in certain old clocks; but, a pendulum is a pendulum and great for timing.

Tennis is clever and receptive to ideas and unexpected connections.

I could not be more eager about this. Thank you, NABRUG. This was a terrific, transAtlantic tennis lesson.

[jperedo]

Personally, I take this as the "throwing the racket head at the ball" which sesjel has written about. He is not the first to wonder if maybe Roger's forehand was a serve in disguise.

I think it's no coincidence that the modern windshield forehand can be compared to a serve. As per Brian Gordon's articles (and those of Bruce Elliot) upper arm internal rotation is the key mechanism to the serve. Based on what I've read from Bruce Elliot, upper arm internal rotation is also the key mechanism to powering the windshield wiper.

[sejsel]

I think it's no coincidence that the modern windshield forehand can be compared to a serve. As per Brian Gordon's articles (and those of Bruce Elliot) upper arm internal rotation is the key mechanism to the serve. Based on what I've read from Bruce Elliot, upper arm internal rotation is also the key mechanism to powering the windshield wiper.

Well, not only the viper, but forehand altogether. It (the upper arm internal rotation) is - according to some research the major single contributor to development of racquet head speed at contact.
Elbow-lead forehand, anyone?

[uspta990770809]

biomechanics of the forehand

Is this just a planted thread to make us drool for Brian Gordon's series on the forehand?

[sejsel]

Is this just a planted thread to make us drool for Brian Gordon's series on the forehand?

Yeah, I wish someone wrote something as good on methodics. For all this chat on biomech., all this knowledge has to be successfully implemented on the court, with a student.

[carrerakent]

bunk

one word about upper arm rotation creating racket head speed.

total BUNK! missing the point of what's actually happening. try this...

go teach a student to rotate their upper arm and you will have created a crippled player. they will actually experience decreased racket head speed because that mechanism of the stroke isn't a cause, it's an effect.

instead teach the student to use centrifugal force...which is what Federer is doing and then the arm rotation will be a natural biomechnical by product of the most efficient swing.

[jperedo]

ok...but how? how would i teach MYSELF for example?

[carrerakent]

windshield wiper forehand

i keep seeing tons of excited analysis of this windshield forehand like it's a new stroke with enormous potential.

why are players hitting that stroke? because they are hitting it too far back in their stance so the only way they can get the necessary racket head speed and thus spin desired is to accelerate up. use of centrifugal force. you see it all the time with davenport. they don't need that kind of force generation with a better set up to the ball because it comes from a different arena

i first hit a windshield wiper forehand by accident years ago and had to stop and think about it. the ball skidded on clay back past my intended contact point more quickly than anticipated, without thinking and without intent i instinctively "performed" the wonderfully new windshield wiper forehand only because i recognized an instant need to create racket head speed to get my ball up and out of their mid court with increased top spin to make my ball a little more difficult for the opponent to exploit.

take a gifted athlete, davenport, sampras, nadal are examples...they do this instinctive biomechanical mental computer analysis and their body recognizes the positive result and wallah, we have a new stroke to analyze and try to learn.

if this stroke were the preferred stroke, federer and nadal would use it exclusively...Fed seldom does, nadal does when he's off balance or needs to generate extra racket head speed from the unfortunate contact point he is faced with.

[carrerakent]

I've always liked Federer's forehand better. But there is something about Nadal's forehand in the first link below that is really incredible. This perspective (from behind the players) shows the flight of the ball, and Nadal's forehand looks like it would be almost impossible to miss with.

Both are awesome, but these clips give me a newfound appreciation of what Nadal's forehan does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB6EY7FxgUg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_yWe...eature=related

i don't think you could teach the masses to hit nadals forehand. you can teach anyone to hit federers forehand, to some degree because it doesn't have all of the unnecessary muscle contractions that nadal uses to generate his ball. nadal is so gifted he can do it. most people can't...therefore why do we focus so much on it. we aren't him, so we can't hit it. federer hit his forehand at age 3, naturally

[carrerakent]

i don't think you could teach the masses to hit nadals forehand. you can teach anyone to hit federers forehand, to some degree because it doesn't have all of the unnecessary muscle contractions that nadal uses to generate his ball. nadal is so gifted he can do it. most people can't...therefore why do we focus so much on it. we aren't him, so we can't hit it. federer hit his forehand at age 3, naturally

tony nadal said himself, "i was impressed with how rafael threw his whole body into his shots" exactly! that is what isn't needed or duplicatable because then athleticism because so much of the determining difference in whether someone can repeat it over and over.

[sejsel]

Bunk, oh really?

one word about upper arm rotation creating racket head speed.

total BUNK! missing the point of what's actually happening. try this...

go teach a student to rotate their upper arm and you will have created a crippled player. they will actually experience decreased racket head speed because that mechanism of the stroke isn't a cause, it's an effect.

instead teach the student to use centrifugal force...which is what Federer is doing and then the arm rotation will be a natural biomechnical by product of the most efficient swing.

With all due respect - You are mixing things up.

I do not think the debate and research on the role of the upper arm internal rotation was ever intended to be a research on methodics of teaching forehand - or serve for that matter. Explaining what occurs when the shot is being made (and providing precise measurements for it) doesn't really say anything about how the biomechanically sound stroke should necessarily be taught.
That should be rather obvious.

It is, however, important to understand biomechanics of the stroke(s) - or human body when executing them, in order to discern what is wrong and right - in case of the forehand - focusing on wrist and forearm ("myth of the wrist") instead on big body parts and upper arm as their closest "lesser" (belonging to arm) "attachment" in biomech. chain.

There are coaches around who teach people to use centrifugal principle for ages (several decades, if not even longer) now.

It is also a matter of simple arithmetic - since upper arm internal rotation has been accounted for about 45% of whatever in forehand, the rest, which should be 55%, must come from some other contributing elements.

[sejsel]

viper or reverse?

i keep seeing tons of excited analysis of this windshield forehand like it's a new stroke with enormous potential.

why are players hitting that stroke? because they are hitting it too far back in their stance so the only way they can get the necessary racket head speed and thus spin desired is to accelerate up. use of centrifugal force. you see it all the time with davenport. they don't need that kind of force generation with a better set up to the ball because it comes from a different arena

i first hit a windshield wiper forehand by accident years ago and had to stop and think about it. the ball skidded on clay back past my intended contact point more quickly than anticipated, without thinking and without intent i instinctively "performed" the wonderfully new windshield wiper forehand only because i recognized an instant need to create racket head speed to get my ball up and out of their mid court with increased top spin to make my ball a little more difficult for the opponent to exploit.

take a gifted athlete, davenport, sampras, nadal are examples...they do this instinctive biomechanical mental computer analysis and their body recognizes the positive result and wallah, we have a new stroke to analyze and try to learn.

if this stroke were the preferred stroke, federer and nadal would use it exclusively...Fed seldom does, nadal does when he's off balance or needs to generate extra racket head speed from the unfortunate contact point he is faced with.

Are you sure that you are not talking about reversed forehand follow-through instead of viper forehand?

Being late in stance is not the reason viper occurs. Viper-like forehand has been hit throughout the history of tennis, even in 1920's.