Dog Pat Part 2

[uspta146749877]

Tennisplayer.net to be renamed Golfplayer.net

Carrerakent, I'm not advocating moving the weight forward during the forward stroke. I think 90 to 95% of the weight transfer(if there is one...in a square stance) has to take place as the downward action of the racket is completed and before the head starts its true forward motion. I'm afraid I have to study a little further what you are saying about the hip-ball distance, but certainly, I want my students hitting the ball further in front, but with some respect for the laws of diminishing returns at the limits.

PS. As I was hitting balls on the driving range yesterday, I was thinking about your arguments for increased distance and the thought that you use longer clubs to hit the ball farther. Of course, the ball is just sitting there.

don

Are you allowed to use LONGER clubs in golf?

[uspta990770809]

Advantages of open stance

Hi,
you may discuss pluses of open stance with your coach,
especially recovery benefits.
Some digging in posts of username julian would probably
help as well-the topic above was discussed last three years.
Some numerical data are available to compare open stance and neutral one.
Please see

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/biomechanics/John_Yandell/Comparing_Open_Closed_Stances/Comparing_Open_Closed_Stances.html

Switchin gears:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxKjYHwbZns&NR=1

is wotth watching as well-the middle part

julian mielniczuk
usptapro 27873
Courtside Tennis Club,Bedford,MA

https://www.julianmielniczuk.usptapro.com

juliantennis@comcast.net

When the open stance forehand first presented itself and became dominant in pro tennis, I would say the "generally accepted" opinion was that you could hit more topspin and power with the open stance stroke. From the preponderance of research that has been produced since then (& obviously not with a stroke like Federer's) there doesn't seem to be much of a difference. The reason I want my players to learn to hit open stance on both sides is that it expands their "effective" range and allows them to recover more quickly. To me this is the critical reason you must be able to hit open-stanced strokes. AND whether open or square or even closed stanced, they must be hit with a stable axis of rotation to be effective.

don

[uspta146749877]

Open stance vs neutral stance

Don,
I was wondering whether you saw/read

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...40409-0001.mov

?

If yes any comments ?

[uspta990770809]

Something's wrong with the link

Don,
I was wondering whether you saw/read

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...40409-0001.mov

?

If yes any comments ?

Link didn't work
don

[uspta990770809]

Longer clubs?

Are you allowed to use LONGER clubs in golf?

Actually, you are. Besides the difference between wedges and drivers (about 36" vs up to 46" normally), drivers have gotten longer for a number of years. It used to be they were all limited to 44". The R&A limited the length of drivers to 48" (I think, it might be just 46"), but most PGA pros have moved to the longer 46" drivers. For a long time, Tiger stayed with a 44" steel shaft (and still outdrove almost everyone) for better control. But I think (and someone can correct me here, please), while the limit is 48" and some of the senior golfers play with the long shafted clubs, there is hardly anyone on the PGA tour using more than 46". Interestingly, on the long drive tour, they use longer clubs and hit it farther. But on the PGA tour, it's not how far, it's how many!

There is a comparison to tennis (limited comparison), where I contend the game is still CAP (consistency, accuracy and power necessarily in that order) regulated.
don

[10splayer]

julian,

please no. you aren't really suggesting any copy of roddick on a ground stroke?

there are such better examples where the hip alignment utilizes a more optimal transfer of energy

. and why more open stance? that just creates less power and less consistency. and don, the weight staying back will produce more power as well is used properly. transitioning to the front leg during the stroke, especially if it happens too early will change a shift in the power transfer and also even the shoulders out or tilt forward. people think that gives thrust through the ball, but it actually causes the rotational axis to get "off axis" and limit power/racket head speed.

chow

carrerkent,

Could your further explain your position on this?

[carrerakent]

power distribution from the back leg is maximized when the opposing hip is aligned more with the target. the extreme open stance is the least powerful stance of all. since the "dirt ballers" developed that stance for wide sliding and reaching shots, it wasn't intended for power to begin with, but interestingly i think they were the first to institute the upper body lean back to create more power from an "unpowerful" position.

notice how federer plants the back leg on hard or slides on clay into a FH but as he thruss out of the back leg, the left hip actually comes forward to assist in power transfer...often almost aligning the hips with the target (optimal)...this same principle supports the idea that starting with the opposing hip open and leaving it open is a mis-use of the open stance position. (i like to put the open stance and double bend in the same receptical)

in one of my other posts i talked about the axis of the body and how a totally upright or forward leaning upper torso diminishes the power that the lower body thrust and overall torque has/can produce.

when the torso is in a somewhat leaned back position through the forward motion, contact, and follow-through, the player will be able to fully utilize again the power available.

i don't have all of the physiological and/or biomechanical words, but someone on here has already described opposing forces and how it works. what i'm describing is just how the body position can enhance or diminish those forces.

i do not recommend teaching any open stance or lean back technique to a player until they are able to establish and maintain balance throughout strokes, especially when they have to fade the body back to adjust. when you can see that happening you know they are athletically up to the challenge.

i never teach open stance because human nature will kick in and they will start leaving the hips so far open....and then guiding more and more with the arm...in walks the double bend compensation stroke.

i've done some observation tests and find that a very huge majority of the time that a top pro player makes a FH unforced error, you will see their hips out of alignment...usually with the left hip (if right handed) pointing at the umpires chair. when they are mis-aligned for inside out FHs (extreme open stance) you really see the errors pile up.

hope this helps. i know it is a hodge-podge description, but i'm doing it on the fly as things pop into my head.

[uspta146749877]

A video?

power distribution from the back leg is maximized when the opposing hip is aligned more with the target. the extreme open stance is the least powerful stance of all. since the "dirt ballers" developed that stance for wide sliding and reaching shots, it wasn't intended for power to begin with, but interestingly i think they were the first to institute the upper body lean back to create more power from an "unpowerful" position.

notice how federer plants the back leg on hard or slides on clay into a FH but as he thruss out of the back leg, the left hip actually comes forward to assist in power transfer...often almost aligning the hips with the target (optimal)...this same principle supports the idea that starting with the opposing hip open and leaving it open is a mis-use of the open stance position. (i like to put the open stance and double bend in the same receptical)

in one of my other posts i talked about the axis of the body and how a totally upright or forward leaning upper torso diminishes the power that the lower body thrust and overall torque has/can produce.

when the torso is in a somewhat leaned back position through the forward motion, contact, and follow-through, the player will be able to fully utilize again the power available.

i don't have all of the physiological and/or biomechanical words, but someone on here has already described opposing forces and how it works. what i'm describing is just how the body position can enhance or diminish those forces.

i do not recommend teaching any open stance or lean back technique to a player until they are able to establish and maintain balance throughout strokes, especially when they have to fade the body back to adjust. when you can see that happening you know they are athletically up to the challenge.

i never teach open stance because human nature will kick in and they will start leaving the hips so far open....and then guiding more and more with the arm...in walks the double bend compensation stroke.

i've done some observation tests and find that a very huge majority of the time that a top pro player makes a FH unforced error, you will see their hips out of alignment...usually with the left hip (if right handed) pointing at the umpires chair. when they are mis-aligned for inside out FHs (extreme open stance) you really see the errors pile up.

hope this helps. i know it is a hodge-podge description, but i'm doing it on the fly as things pop into my head.

Maybe a video from youtube of a coaching session of YOUR COACH would help?

[carrerakent]

Maybe a video from youtube of a coaching session of YOUR COACH would help?

we are working on something like that. problem is we realize how an incomplete understanding of any of the 10 pieces will still render mediocre results. 9 out of 10 just won't. i've watched people take a lesson from me and go out and try to teach it and fail miserably, so we intend to put together the whole thing.

do you have any input on this idea?

we want to take a player (or maybe several at varying levels) that know(s) nothing about this system, video them taking a lesson to fix a particular stroke from a "famous coach" or renowned system and obviously show the results, then have that person spend 1 hour with one of us and video that lesson and results. we want people to be able to see the difference for themselves rather than taking our word for it.

i appreciate your request.

[10splayer]

power distribution from the back leg is maximized when the opposing hip is aligned more with the target. the extreme open stance is the least powerful stance of all. since the "dirt ballers" developed that stance for wide sliding and reaching shots, it wasn't intended for power to begin with, but interestingly i think they were the first to institute the upper body lean back to create more power from an "unpowerful" position.

notice how federer plants the back leg on hard or slides on clay into a FH but as he thruss out of the back leg, the left hip actually comes forward to assist in power transfer...often almost aligning the hips with the target (optimal)...this same principle supports the idea that starting with the opposing hip open and leaving it open is a mis-use of the open stance position. (i like to put the open stance and double bend in the same receptical)

in one of my other posts i talked about the axis of the body and how a totally upright or forward leaning upper torso diminishes the power that the lower body thrust and overall torque has/can produce.

when the torso is in a somewhat leaned back position through the forward motion, contact, and follow-through, the player will be able to fully utilize again the power available.

i don't have all of the physiological and/or biomechanical words, but someone on here has already described opposing forces and how it works. what i'm describing is just how the body position can enhance or diminish those forces.

i do not recommend teaching any open stance or lean back technique to a player until they are able to establish and maintain balance throughout strokes, especially when they have to fade the body back to adjust. when you can see that happening you know they are athletically up to the challenge.

i never teach open stance because human nature will kick in and they will start leaving the hips so far open....and then guiding more and more with the arm...in walks the double bend compensation stroke.

i've done some observation tests and find that a very huge majority of the time that a top pro player makes a FH unforced error, you will see their hips out of alignment...usually with the left hip (if right handed) pointing at the umpires chair. when they are mis-aligned for inside out FHs (extreme open stance) you really see the errors pile up.

hope this helps. i know it is a hodge-podge description, but i'm doing it on the fly as things pop into my head.

Thanks for the reply. Take a look at Kerry Mitchell's "True Alignment" article, and see if that jives with what your saying.

The jest of the article, is that the hips must never, over-rotate at impact, even as the stance becomes more open. Makes sense. Through video, he shows how even as the stance starts open, the left leg, and hip, work back into a more "neutral position", or more parallel to the intended shot line, in and around contact. This would, I imagine, help preserve the integrity of the swing path(not pulling out too early) and increase angular momentum, in some fashion. I'm not a biomechanics guy, but player's most definately do this for a reason.

Do you agree? And if so, how is this over-rotation problem from open stance permutations, exculsive to those who opt for a double bend hitting structure.

P.S. I would argue the open stance, was not a result of clay courters "reaching or sliding but for the following 3 reasons.

1.To elavate. Open stance simply allows the player to move up to control contact height in the most efficient manner.
2. Reaction to the increased speed of the game. Simply rotating about an axis closer to the backside of the body, allows for the quickest production of the hitting arm to contact.
3.Stronger grips demand more overall torso rotation. Open stance allows for this in a much easier manner.

[carrerakent]

Thanks for the reply. Take a look at Kerry Mitchell's "True Alignment" article, and see if that jives with what your saying.

The jest of the article, is that the hips must never, over-rotate at impact, even as the stance becomes more open. Makes sense. Through video, he shows how even as the stance starts open, the left leg, and hip, work back into a more "neutral position", or more parallel to the intended shot line, in and around contact. This would, I imagine, help preserve the integrity of the swing path(not pulling out too early) and increase angular momentum, in some fashion. I'm not a biomechanics guy, but player's most definately do this for a reason.

Do you agree? And if so, how is this over-rotation problem from open stance permutations, exculsive to those who opt for a double bend hitting structure.

10S,

I'm anxious to check out the article you suggested. Will do that today.

You hit it on the head, "help preserve the integrity of the swing path(not pulling out too early) and increase angular momentum". even just the head pulling out instead of staying like Federer does make a difference, though almost noone ever experiences that. I never experienced it for 20+ years of playing...why I can only speculate is that I did not see the importance. Everyone always tells their students to watch the ball, watch it to contact, "keep the head down" (which is a mistake in and of itself) but without breaking that down and teaching them how to do that, those instructions make no sense, though we all think they do.


Not ever over rotating is something I'm experimenting with. For example, on a FH that is full power, mid court, where player totally explodes into the air and drives the ball down. I took a 12 year old that had wimpy shots and one day just had him leap in the air off both legs equally and hit it as "loud" as he could, i could not believe the power he produced. He had no idea what he had done.

I could see in that pushing off both legs equally and having a "balanced" and extended contact point his hips stayed true to their original alignment with his target while in the air at contact and almost at landing.

Tomorrow I am going to take my two top juniors (best athletes) and have them hit many of those jump FHs and then feed the ball a little inside and make them have to hit bent arm to see if that forces the hip rotation to continue with the shoulders. While in the air the body is going to succumb to forces distributed much more evidently.

I think this test will shed light on whether the bend, especially the double bend is a cause of lack of angular momentum as you put it, or is the inside contact point the cause of loss of angular momemtum and the bend is just a compromise of the swing to make contact. (well, as i read that, i realize it won't matter whether the chicken or the egg comes first, is it a compromise or not.)

What i feel and see is a breakdown of the swing path so already know it is a loss from the feeling, velocity, and spin of my shots, but i want to see how much the breakdown affects the hips and vice versa.

As far as open stance...well, let's define that. Yandell's stuff on this site seem to see the open stance as a foot position when it is not. Or maybe he/they don't recognize the difference in a open foot stance with OR without hips aligned. Maybe I missed something on here that actually talks about hip alignment. I haven't read the whole site!

Open stance is a hip position in my book. (Feet can be open and hips aligned, or hips can be open with feet aligned. These are very critical points that seem to be muddled.) i would only teach an open stance (with hips open) when absolutely necessary on a very wide ball...but then the player is out of the point anyway if the other guy executes...so the compromise is really just a delay in punishment.

[carrerakent]

P.S. I would argue the open stance, was not a result of clay courters "reaching or sliding but for the following 3 reasons.

1.To elavate. Open stance simply allows the player to move up to control contact height in the most efficient manner.
2. Reaction to the increased speed of the game. Simply rotating about an axis closer to the backside of the body, allows for the quickest production of the hitting arm to contact.
3.Stronger grips demand more overall torso rotation. Open stance allows for this in a much easier manner.

1. But, I see a hip and feet aligned position creating more "ups", so more elevation would seem to come from what we call on this site as neutral stance. because i see so much being overlooked about hip alignment i can't help but question whether the open stance position and elevation are an effect of lazy and/or poor true rotation and alignment with the target. (can you see a basketball rebounder going to an open stance to reach the max height to jump up? guys that reach 46-48 in veritical leaps go to a neurtral/hip feet aligned position before reaching their maximum heights.)

I do not know enough about point 1. to discount it so i won't...but I may be wrong about clay courters, but i seem to remember seeing the open foot and hip position stance emerging from the guys that hang out by the fence.

Also would not start to believe that all of those players that use open stance are even close to realizing consciously steps 1-3. i'd be much more inclined to believe that they do it because they are lazy in their footwork and/or see the ability to get back into the court easier from an open position.

2. agree with rotation using and back to the "back" leg. haven't thought of it as a quicker way to rotate shoulders to contact point. maybe a more efficient way. we teach rapid hip turn to target with emphasis of back leg starting the rotation. (can't figure out why federer can't figure out how to set up to a backhand when he does a forehand...i think i'd charge him $1,000,000 to fix that pathetic backhand setup. tells me he doesn't know why he does most anything he does. gifted athletes are the absolute worst teachers.)

3. easier rotation? lazy and/or unaware people do need something to make them rotate. lack of shoulder rotation is pretty much an amateur mistake, don't you think? lots of shoulder rotation may be the one single most differentiating factor between pros and the rest of us?

i can't see how grip impacts hips/stance/rotation. but it may.

[carrerakent]

how is this over-rotation problem from open stance permutations, exculsive to those who opt for a double bend hitting structure.

10s...your questions cause some good evaluation and thinking...

to be honest i haven't paid much attention to over rotation, open stance and double bends being linked. as soon as i see it i cringe and just want to change it.

my initial guess, and it is a guess, is that since the double bend has such an extremely lower racket head speed, the "power" has to come from someplace. even if leverage were a reasonable way to try to send a ball with more velocity, it cannot replace overall racket head speed and brings with it so many problems.

anyway...i'm assuming you mean over rotation with a very long backswing vs over rotation with the shoulders. i don't think i have ever seen someone over rotate the shoulders! big back swings yes!

if the hips are aligned with the target, maximum shoulder rotation coupled with a backswing resulting with the racket head behind the ball in alignment with the target is probably the position that will produce the greatest "power" and be a shot that is consistently hitting the intended target.

in this scenario i do not think there could be too much shoulder rotation.

[tennisplayer]

Sorry to sound so dense, but could you explain what "hips aligned with the target" means? Is the target the ball, or where ball should go? Thanks in advance.

[carrerakent]

Sorry to sound so dense, but could you explain what "hips aligned with the target" means? Is the target the ball, or where ball should go? Thanks in advance.

Tennisplayer, good question. Alignment of the hips with the general location of where you want your ball to land on the other side of the net, that's your target for alignment purposes, but if you want we can discuss later how we never aim for a spot on the court as the target, but the area/location at which you want the ball to be contacted by your opponent, that way you have trajectory, spin, etc accounted for in the target selection, not just where the ball hits the court.

Hip alignment is one of the factors that allows a player to not have to guide the ball via guiding the arm. We establish the back foot behind the contact area (note not actually directly behind the ball of course, but behind in relation to planting the back foot, not the front foot to establish position; front foot determines alignment). Then extend the stroke so that the arm on all strokes is fully extended, (yes on volleys too, but all out in front of the body) align the hips and if the player does not manipulate the racket with forearm, wrist, etc the ball will always go in alignment with the target.

Without hip alignment and an arm that bends on the way to the contact point, the chances of hitting the target are now left to chance and unnecessary arm muscle contractions to guide the racket/ball. If you really think about it, the more things that are constant, the more often the success.

Hope that helps.