where'd the bent arm come from anyway?

[tennisplayer]

After watching a lot of videos, and trying some experiments, I think I understand the differences between the double bend way and the straight arm way of hitting.

The fundamental difference is that the double bend utilizes the pecs and the straight arm uses more of the deltoids and biceps.

The double bend uses an open stance, so that at the time contact is made, the chest is roughly parallel to the net. How should the arm be positioned to get the best leverage? Definitely not by holding it extended straight out, when one is using the pecs to push it forward! By holding the elbow closer to the body, and using body rotation, one gets more stability and leverage.

In the so called straight arm method (I say so called because the arm need not always be straight), the motion is more like an upper cut, using the deltoids and biceps, with the chest facing the ball rather than the net. Sometimes the ball appears to be almost at the side of the player. This motion, made with a supinated arm, with a good distance between the player and the ball, will tend to straighten the arm. However, if the ball is too close, the arm need not be completely straight - yet by virtue of being all arm, it is still different from the classic double bend stroke. There is definitely less body rotation in this technique.

In short, I do see these as being two fundamentally different strokes, employing different body kinetics. Whether one is superior to the other or not is not for me to say... I could settle for either of Federer's or Sampras' forehands.

[tsonga]

Tennisplayer you said there is less rotation with the straight arm, but if you watch Yandell's videos on the straight arm he emphasizes it requires MORE body rotation which is why it might be too extreme for a regular player.

[carrerakent]

After watching a lot of videos, and trying some experiments, I think I understand the differences between the double bend way and the straight arm way of hitting.

The fundamental difference is that the double bend utilizes the pecs and the straight arm uses more of the deltoids and biceps.

The double bend uses an open stance, so that at the time contact is made, the chest is roughly parallel to the net. How should the arm be positioned to get the best leverage? Definitely not by holding it extended straight out, when one is using the pecs to push it forward! By holding the elbow closer to the body, and using body rotation, one gets more stability and leverage.

In the so called straight arm method (I say so called because the arm need not always be straight), the motion is more like an upper cut, using the deltoids and biceps, with the chest facing the ball rather than the net. Sometimes the ball appears to be almost at the side of the player. This motion, made with a supinated arm, with a good distance between the player and the ball, will tend to straighten the arm. However, if the ball is too close, the arm need not be completely straight - yet by virtue of being all arm, it is still different from the classic double bend stroke. There is definitely less body rotation in this technique.

In short, I do see these as being two fundamentally different strokes, employing different body kinetics. Whether one is superior to the other or not is not for me to say... I could settle for either of Federer's or Sampras' forehands.

i appreciate your effort, but i wonder if you adjusted your contact point much further from your body to hit "straight arm". if you didn't then that explains your observations and comments.

the extended forehand (as you are calling "straight arm") does not employ either the deltoids or the tripceps. that is where the difference in an "extended forehand" like federer's is different than what is perceived to be a "straight arm" forehand.

i have gone away from saying straight arm because i realized that until a person is understanding the torque and balance as it should be, they will tend to use muscles to get the arm out straight which is not what federer or anyone that hits a truly naturally extending forehand is doing.

i disagree with the stability and rotation thing. because one has to have better movement and better balance and better awareness of where they should be, they automatically have more stability. how much "stability" is required? NONE if you are balanced. Look at Federer hit balls completely in the air and have a total separation of his upper shoulder structure from his hips. he still has complete rotation etc.

most people do not know that the shoulder structure is independent of the ribs and it should be able to float on top of the torso. so if someone is rigid in their shoulders and especially torso rotation at the waist, then they will feel a need to rotate more and do other stuff to make up for their lack of structural integrity and flexibility.

everyone that doesn't have a fused lower spine or such should be able to get ample shoulder and torso rotation to hit an extended forehand.

absolutely NOT on the shoulders facing the ball. rotation is the same on either double bend or extended, if not more rotated towards net because of the freedom of torque release (as I calll it) rather than the units working separate of one another. just look at verdasco, nadal, and federer when they are extended to the ball. where are they facing?

Tennisplayer you said there is less rotation with the straight arm, but if you watch Yandell's videos on the straight arm he emphasizes it requires MORE body rotation which is why it might be too extreme for a regular player.

What Mr. Yandell is saying is true only because people that use the double bend are often using so many wrong muscles to hit the stroke that they can get away with not rotating "properly". But rotation is something we see in most male pros. (i just can't get myself to talk about female pros)

More rotation is a key element that almost every one could use to improve. I often can give a lesson to a new student and only change his/her amount of rotation and it will fix many other things at the same time. I am glad you guys are talking about rotation because that is one of the few key elements that sets players apart between the professional and amateur ranks. Movement, rotation, and ball recognition. Difference in a pro and not being a pro. (whew, that should get some feedback). I'm trying to generalize, but those key elements are the foundation in my opinion.

[jeffreycounts]

Someone once told me, look at what the majority do and figure out why you should not do the same, because the majority is never exceptional.

John, for two years now, and I have already given these examples on here, I have taken beginner 10 year olds, 80 + year olds, and every where in between and sent their forehands to levels pretty amazing for their abilities, etc by simply teaching them how to reach full natural extension by first reading the optimum contact point, getting to that point, and using the full torso, shoulder rotation thing to get their racket to the contact relaxed, traveling faster than ever, and far more consistently than the ever changing degrees of bent.

My point really is that the technique I am talking about is not advanced, it is just more natural. I am currently testing players and teaching pros in the area to formulate a theory as to what causes players all over the world to guide and force a tennis ball. So far my research is pointing to the fact that they are never taught the most critical fundamentals of the tennis stroke.

Players start out being taught around stage 4 or 5...maybe even 6. They never learn the first stages because the teaching pros and coaches don't know them. At least I have not found one that does. I'm sure some do...but where the heck are they? It's not genius or the lack thereof...it's just over sight, I think.

Can you really doubt that all of the guys you mention with big forehands would not have had bigger more accurate ones if they had more natural biomechanics? No players level ever reached their potential, so how can we state that what they did is optimum and what we should seek? Makes no sense to me...

And yes, I think it is right to ask questions of the entire tennis community to expand our collective thinking. What I think is wrong is the overwhelming assumptions that because most top players do something it makes it right. You know as well as anyone how many things over course of time in the tennis world have been thought to be the best way possible only to learn a few years later how silly all of the top guys were performing. Without asking questions that relate across sports and physics and natural body mechanics how can we as tennis teachers, players, etc. expect to not stay one step behind?

BTW, Federer has never hit a double bend forehand because it was his first choice. Go ask him. I was on court with him for workout sessions with a friend. He NEVER hits anything except fully extended and relaxed when he has the chance.

Your arguments are riddled with holes so big I could drive a truck through them. You say don't look at what the majority do because they aren't exceptional. I hate to tell you, but John's stroke archive consists of the smallest segment of elite tennis players in the world. If you consider the under 1% of the tennis population that has made it to not only the pro tour, but at the TOP of the pro tour to be the "majority" of tennis players you are confused beyond help. The majority of tennis players out there have NO hitting structure, let alone the pro double bend structure we see at the top of the game.

We have about 2 or 3 players at the elite level hitting with a fully straight arm. Everyone else has a bent elbow. The numbers here are so overwhelming that it's just ridiculous. And if your argument is true, why is it MURRAY and not Verdasco gunning for the number one position in the world. Why was Philippousis and Srichiphan never the number one player?

Please post a video of your amazing straight arm forehand - that would be more valuable than your nonsensical and deceptive arguments (posting a picture of a baseball player's arm AFTER throwing to say that a forehand should therefore be hit with a straight arm - are you freaking kidding me???)

Your claims are also just laughable. You taught an 80+ year old a great straight armed forehand!! You have personal access to Roger Federer??

Despite what I think about your ideas and your crazy claims, you serve no purpose coming onto John's site, ranting about how you know everything, and expressing your stupification that other's don't see it your way. It's a waste of time - both yours and ours.

[jeffreycounts]

Dude, chill out. I'm not sure I have time to bring you up to speed. So far just about every guy on this site that tries to bash me just shows their elementary understanding...but i will take partial responsibility because i haven't always been as good at explaining things as i want and these threads are so fragmented.

If you don't like what I write, don't read it. I guess the numerous guys that have emailed me telling me how what I'm saying is starting to make sense and they are seeing how they can improve with it are delirious too. And those same guys talking about how unless you are a "famous coach" or agree with you guys on here, then I don't stand a chance. Ha ha...geez, that hasn't been my experience. I'm just saying what people on this site are telling me personally.

Anyway, one interesting thing you ask is why is Murray gunning for #1 instead of Verdasco? Please help me here. Did I ever allude to the fact that only straight arm hitters will be at the top? Or that that one factor will make them the top? Why would Fed and Nadal choose the kind of extension I'm talking about if it was a bunch of bunk? You can answer that for yourself...I already know the answer.

I am sorry that you do not have a high enough level of comprehension of muscular and structural biomechanics and physiology to understand my reasons for the comparisons. I didn't expect very many people to get it. But those that did, are laughing at you, not me.

No, I don't have a personal line with Fed. I got to spend a day on court with him while my coach and one of his players worked out with Fed. I felt like being that close and watching him groove and not seeing a single contact in over an hour with his right arm bent at contact pretty much solidified what I was already experiencing in my game and ALL of my students games.

Let's agree to not read each other's posts. That way you don't waste my time and I don't waste yours. I'm gonna take some new students.. video them before their first lesson with me and then after just one lesson. Give me a little time to do that and then you can watch the videos and keep your truck drivin' on the road where it belongs. cheers

My point isn't really about the straight armed forehand or the bent armed forehand. It's your ATTITUDE. You come on here saying that everyone gets it wrong, you are the genius, and if people (including elite athletes like Tsonga) just listened to you the world would be a better place. None of the writers on this site have that kind of an attitude, so to get it from some no-name poster on the forum is particularly irritating. The fact that you chose to dismantle John Yandell's seminal discovery of the double bend hitting structure makes it that much more annoying considering this entire site is his brainchild and you are posting on it.

Is the straight armed forehand - as specifically executed by Nadal and Verdasco - an amazing shot? There is no denying it. But to say that straightening the arm leads to tennis nirvana is just stupid considering the fact that Djokovic, Hewitt, Tsonga, Coria, Agassi, Murray, Roddick, etc all hit the ball with all the power they could ever possibly need with a bent arm, makes your exaggerated arguments look silly.

[carrerakent]

Mr. O's question...

It has been a head scratcher for me in the past two years why Fed is missing more. His movement does not look as good as in the past. Since the mano thing in early 2008, he just hasn't been the same.

I have noticed his hip alignment to his target is more lazy, aka lazy movement... maybe? Technically that would account, in my opinion, why he's not getting the penetration with his forehand and not hitting his targets as wel as in the past.

Back to your question...my initial response is so obvious to what I think is better, but i want to take a step back and try to break apart my answer.

One thing I haven't seen on this site, although I haven't been reading the threads for very long, is the ability of power/energy transfer by actually NOT going "through" the ball as we traditionally think.

Six months ago my coach taught his top male player and me on the same day to center our weight more between our legs before the forward motion of the racket to the ball and as the shoulders turn and the racket begins coming forward we actually shifted our weight kind to the back hip and kind down into the hip, resulting in a slight tilt backwards with the torso. Result? Immense amounts of more power for both of us! We were sold.

Now, Jeffrey Counts, chime in and tell me how my baseball comparison is stupid. For maximum drive, batters assume pretty much the same body posture as I tried to describe above. Some of you physio/physics guys can jump in and explain the opposing forces being generated.

I taught students for years to drive everything forward. Now I now how that teaching caused a break down of the kinetic chain. I talked to my physiologist structural guy about it, (he knows nothing about tennis by the way) and he said, "of course, the shoulder structure will generate much more power to the arm and racket by tilting the torso a little back because that allows a natural axis upon which the ball can be driven forward"...AND, he said, "being perfectly straight upward with your torso, and shoulder directly over your hips with natural axis turn will result in driving the ball into the bottom of the net." Remember, this guys knows nothing about tennis.

I cannot say if Fed is falling away a little on purpose. I think he is. I think he is feeling something we don't understand. Of course as you say, how often can one set up exactly perfectly to a pro hit ball. But I just went back and watched the older videos and the 2009 ones. Take out the one's that are a little off balance and I do like his 2009 shots where he falls out as you say. his fall out or away to me is not fall out or away, but instead his body is doing what the follow through of the racket does...following the natural path around the axis.

Back to my answer: I think solution #2 is way worse. Solution #1 may be more beneficial than we think. But, I choose #1 because adjustment away maintains integrity of the entire structure and swing path. Solution #2 causes a kinetic memory (if i may steal that from someone) and trust in your kinetic memory hiccup.

I would never advocate that someone use solution #2 because solution #1 will make the future set ups to the ball more correct. Solution #2 is what I believe has caused all of the majority of great players to not be able to compare in part towhat Roger Federer accomplishes with that racket and a tennis ball.

Door #1 please...

[carrerakent]

I admit that I started out with these threads with a chip on my shoulder. I've apologized for that. I have been angry for decades for trusting and paying so many experts that taught me so much stupid stuff...most of which I think John has dismantled himself on this site. I started out my subscription three years ago with these words to John:

John,

I've been studying your website for several days now and I have to confess that you are brilliant! Your use of high speed video for analysis is a great idea, but that's not what I'm talking about. Your insight into differentiating between key elements of a tennis stroke and the non-key elements that are merely a result of key elements lends so much insight into truly understanding the principles of tennis versus the practices that so many players and teaching pros mistakenly focus upon.

My game has improved tremendously in the past week alone simply by becoming more aware of the elements you emphasize on your website.

Thank you for creating the best learning tool I have ever witnessed. I tell every tennis player that I know about your website.Kent

Since that time I have learned so many things that I have faith are beyond what I see and read here. I'm just trying to share it and argue so that I feel good about myself.

I have repeatedly said that all of those pros could be better with better set up to the ball and an elongated stroke. In some threads I tried to emphasize that duplication aka consistency is a key factor here because less brute force is required for the same power and spin.

My arrogance, which i admit is present, is only here because what i am saying has been proven to me. I went from a one bend forehand to one that give me more power, more spin, and better placement over and over in ONE day with my coach. I am so excited for the world to experience the amazement and joy that I felt.

My wife says, "you are too passionate to a fault." I won't argue with that.

BTW, I'm not the genius, my coach is. I only talk what he has taught me and then I taught my students and they all value from it.
He may soon prove to be the first person able to truly teach what Federer does. No one else that I've heard or read is even close to doing that. We just have to find the right method to get it out there.

I think this site and people's response have been a litmus test for me to see how much rejection there is...there's about the amount I suspected.

Let's try to think back when Fed starting wowing everyone. It was in how effortless he created a shot so heavy that noone had seen before and he did it repeatedly. That's all I'm trying to attain...in doing that myself as much as possible and teaching people how to do it.

[jeffreycounts]

It has been a head scratcher for me in the past two years why Fed is missing more. His movement does not look as good as in the past. Since the mano thing in early 2008, he just hasn't been the same.

I have noticed his hip alignment to his target is more lazy, aka lazy movement... maybe? Technically that would account, in my opinion, why he's not getting the penetration with his forehand and not hitting his targets as wel as in the past.

Back to your question...my initial response is so obvious to what I think is better, but i want to take a step back and try to break apart my answer.

One thing I haven't seen on this site, although I haven't been reading the threads for very long, is the ability of power/energy transfer by actually NOT going "through" the ball as we traditionally think.

Six months ago my coach taught his top male player and me on the same day to center our weight more between our legs before the forward motion of the racket to the ball and as the shoulders turn and the racket begins coming forward we actually shifted our weight kind to the back hip and kind down into the hip, resulting in a slight tilt backwards with the torso. Result? Immense amounts of more power for both of us! We were sold.

Now, Jeffrey Counts, chime in and tell me how my baseball comparison is stupid. For maximum drive, batters assume pretty much the same body posture as I tried to describe above. Some of you physio/physics guys can jump in and explain the opposing forces being generated.

I taught students for years to drive everything forward. Now I now how that teaching caused a break down of the kinetic chain. I talked to my physiologist structural guy about it, (he knows nothing about tennis by the way) and he said, "of course, the shoulder structure will generate much more power to the arm and racket by tilting the torso a little back because that allows a natural axis upon which the ball can be driven forward"...AND, he said, "being perfectly straight upward with your torso, and shoulder directly over your hips with natural axis turn will result in driving the ball into the bottom of the net." Remember, this guys knows nothing about tennis.

I cannot say if Fed is falling away a little on purpose. I think he is. I think he is feeling something we don't understand. Of course as you say, how often can one set up exactly perfectly to a pro hit ball. But I just went back and watched the older videos and the 2009 ones. Take out the one's that are a little off balance and I do like his 2009 shots where he falls out as you say. his fall out or away to me is not fall out or away, but instead his body is doing what the follow through of the racket does...following the natural path around the axis.

Back to my answer: I think solution #2 is way worse. Solution #1 may be more beneficial than we think. But, I choose #1 because adjustment away maintains integrity of the entire structure and swing path. Solution #2 causes a kinetic memory (if i may steal that from someone) and trust in your kinetic memory hiccup.

I would never advocate that someone use solution #2 because solution #1 will make the future set ups to the ball more correct. Solution #2 is what I believe has caused all of the majority of great players to not be able to compare in part towhat Roger Federer accomplishes with that racket and a tennis ball.

Door #1 please...

I was wrong - it's not just your arrogance that annoys me. It's actually the weakenss of your arguments. To make your point you resort to these wonderful modes of reason:

1) Hyperbole and personal experience instead of scientific method:
ex) I taught an 80 year old how to hit an amazing straight armed forehand

2) Invalid comparisons
ex) Throwing a ball is just like hitting a forehand (yeah except one doesn't involve a racket).

3) delusion
ex) If only I had taught Tsonga, Murray, Agassi, etc they would have been so much better. If only I taught all aspiring tennis players then all future players would have superior forehands.

ex) All coaches out there just don't know the secret ingrediant I do.

4) misunderstading of terms:
ex) your belief that an elite tennis player ranked top 20 in the world is considered the "majority" of tennis players.

5) pure association to bolster your argument:
ex) I watched Federer play in person therefore I know things you don't

6) lack of logic:
ex) MY techinque is the most natural, yet all the best players in the world don't do it!

Look, the list goes on and on. Let's just say that your thought process and ability to reason and reach conclusions would get you an F in any college classroom. I don't don't your enthusiasm or your conviction. I don't even doubt that Nadal's forehand is an amazing shot. But your ability to reason and to draw helpful, meaningful conclusions is really compromised.

[carrerakent]

I was wrong - it's not just your arrogance that annoys me. It's actually the weakenss of your arguments. To make your point you resort to these wonderful modes of reason:

1) Hyperbole and personal experience instead of scientific method:
ex) I taught an 80 year old how to hit an amazing straight armed forehand

2) Invalid comparisons
ex) Throwing a ball is just like hitting a forehand (yeah except one doesn't involve a racket).

3) delusion
ex) If only I had taught Tsonga, Murray, Agassi, etc they would have been so much better. If only I taught all aspiring tennis players then all future players would have superior forehands.

ex) All coaches out there just don't know the secret ingrediant I do.

4) misunderstading of terms:
ex) your belief that an elite tennis player ranked top 20 in the world is considered the "majority" of tennis players.

5) pure association to bolster your argument:
ex) I watched Federer play in person therefore I know things you don't

6) lack of logic:
ex) MY techinque is the most natural, yet all the best players in the world don't do it!

Look, the list goes on and on. Let's just say that your thought process and ability to reason and reach conclusions would get you an F in any college classroom. I don't don't your enthusiasm or your conviction. I don't even doubt that Nadal's forehand is an amazing shot. But your ability to reason is really compromised.

Wow, that's pretty good fiction. You'd make a good politician with all of the idea and out of context twisting. Good bye for the rest of my life. Go hop in your truck.

[jeffreycounts]

Kent,

I read through all of the posts. I agree with John - either propose an article for the site, start your own site, or stop the "I know everything and you don't" mentality. A forum is about bouncing ideas off each other and discussing the content of the site. Differences of opinion are encouraged, but nobody appreciates it when one person starts claiming they have the one golden key to the universe and everyone must listen to them. Your agenda is more appropriate for a blog or your own site - not the forum on someone else's site.

I do like the "hop on a truck" line though. Makes me even more convinced that a straight arm is the key to tennis nirvana.

Jeff

[carrerakent]

Jeff, i fail to see how you don't see the sharing dialogue between the few posters and myself. i would happen to guess that those guys are open minded. just a guess.

i pay for this site. therefore i think i have the right to demand quality for my money. hmmm, i guess that's arrogance. forums are for praise, complaint, criticism, asking questions, and sharing. at least that was my web forum understanding.

[tennisplayer]

Tennisplayer you said there is less rotation with the straight arm, but if you watch Yandell's videos on the straight arm he emphasizes it requires MORE body rotation which is why it might be too extreme for a regular player.

Hi tsonga, I don't recall any such assertion from John - but I would consider John's statements to be the authoritative ones. I am merely a 4.5 level amateur with a keen interest in the sport and a desire to understand the game even more than I do now.

[oliensis]

Carrera...these quotes from you...

I admit that I started out with these threads with a chip on my shoulder. I've apologized for that. ....I have been angry for decades for trusting and paying so many experts that taught me so much stupid stuff...
My arrogance, which i admit is present, is only here because what i am saying has been proven to me.
My wife says, "you are too passionate to a fault." I won't argue with that.

It is possible to be passionate, enthusiastic, assertive AND let go of the chip on your shoulder. You know, all your teachers were doing the best they could. Just as you are doing the best you can...and as are all the other people on these boards (except maybe Narburg, who refuses to articulate his brilliant insights with sufficient clarity to help even one person understand what he's talking about).

It is a mark of maturity to recognize every step on the journey as necessary to arriving at where you are...even if it's not been in a straight line.

The arrogance has nothing to do w/ who taught you what. There are plenty of people who've been taught stuff that is sub-optimal and are not arrogant. You gotta own the arrogance yourself...and then let it go. Nobody here as deceived you. And you would be a lot better received if you remain open to the possibility that yours is not the only way to do things.

Hell, I would give a lot to have Agassi's crummy old inefficient forehand.

Let me share w/ you something. I have studied Chinese, Indian, Korean, and modern martial arts. The teachers of each style believe that theirs is the best, most efficient, "only" way to do things. They're all right...when you're in their school. But none of them is right out on the street.

You're in Yandell's school here. There are a lot of smart, committed, curious people with a lot to contribute and learn from. When you are arrogant, you only diminish yourself...and anyone else's capacity to be stimulated by dialogue with you.

[carrerakent]

MR. O,

True...

[tennisplayer]

i appreciate your effort, but i wonder if you adjusted your contact point much further from your body to hit "straight arm". if you didn't then that explains your observations and comments.

the extended forehand (as you are calling "straight arm") does not employ either the deltoids or the tripceps. that is where the difference in an "extended forehand" like federer's is different than what is perceived to be a "straight arm" forehand.

Small correction - I said biceps, not triceps.

(deleting rest of post for brevity)

Carrerakent, I can't say I disagree with you since you obviously are on to something, but I cannot fathom exactly what it is from your posts. Perhaps you could post some videos to make things more explicit.