Juan Monaco, Double Bend, & the Kinetic Chain

[oliensis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBMwya9vQYs

If you freeze frame at :25 on JasonF1979's lone "after" video, you'll see a very nice double-bend forehand with a sweet-looking "leveraged lift" going on.

Here's the "before" video

http://www.youtube.com/user/jasonf1979#play/all/uploads-all/1/BkkxEYpSKrw

Nice improvement in 4 lessons. Very nice.
Footwork and spacing much improved.
Revolutionary?
That's another story.

That's impressive, Carrera, re: being able to develop a 5.0 forehand in 1 hour.
It's a very impressive story. It speaks to your talent as a tennis player. But I do'nt see anything in the videos above that is any different than what's on the site here. Maybe it's my narrow mindedness...too much tennis, tae kwon do, t'ai chi, Kalaripayattu...too much yoga...too much eastern and western philosophy. Too much psychoanalysis. Too much Jungian study. Too much Taoism. Too much Buddhism. Too much Kabbalistic Judaism... It's all left me unable to open my mind to your revolution...which looks just like everyone else's tennis.

[nabrug]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBMwya9vQYs
If you freeze frame at :25 on JasonF1979's lone "after" video, you'll see a very nice double-bend forehand with a sweet-looking "leveraged lift" going on.

Here's the "before" video

http://www.youtube.com/user/jasonf1979#play/all/uploads-all/1/BkkxEYpSKrw

Nice improvement in 4 lessons. Very nice.
Footwork and spacing much improved.
Revolutionary?
That's another story.

That's impressive, Carrera, re: being able to develop a 5.0 forehand in 1 hour.
It's a very impressive story. It speaks to your talent as a tennis player. But I do'nt see anything in the videos above that is any different than what's on the site here. Maybe it's my narrow mindedness...too much tennis, tae kwon do, t'ai chi, Kalaripayattu...too much yoga...too much eastern and western philosophy. Too much psychoanalysis. Too much Jungian study. Too much Taoism. Too much Buddhism. Too much Kabbalistic Judaism... It's all left me unable to open my mind to your revolution...which looks just like everyone else's tennis.

Too old?

[carrerakent]

Mr. O,

For what it's worth, I don't recall saying or thinking this girls improvement was revolutionary, but I do have to say that I don't know a coach or pro that improves players that much in such a short time. I'm sure that some do though.

Anyway, Jason and I would be the first to tell you or this girl that the old habits will creep in as soon as the spacing is wrong. I don't get why people have to try to search for Federer or one of this girls forehands to prove a point that "ah ha, they do a bend too." I just don't get the point. Thankful there is no utopia, but when people don't want to accept someone's point of view or don't agree with it strongly, judgment is often introduced against utopian expectations.

[oliensis]

Carrera,
The improvement is great!

The only reason you're meeting with any opposition from me is that you come around with a Christ complex, acting all persecuted by years of imperfect teaching and claim to have "the" answer, in contrast to all the other benighted ignoramuses...blah blah blah.

I offered in the past that if your claims were less preclusive of other people's correctness, and were themselves more modest, then you could have avoided any and all conflict or cantankerous sentiment. But you refused that interpretation, saying that there was more to your claims that anyone could possibly understand...and that really the revolution was under way, with only those who were too blind to see to be left behind.

It looks like your coach is a very good teacher. And if he gets people to get good spacing/footwork, so much the better. But, again, nothing revolutionary here that I can see.

[jeffreycounts]

I'm no big fan of Gulbis' forehand, technically. One of the problems is that he does not get a pivot/closing action from the elbow. James Blake is much closer to Jeff Count's "leveraged lift" or what I've called a "torquing" action like a jack-handle.
Blake: http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...LevelSide3.mov

Federer (extended often) has a history of his forehand falling apart viciously at times. He just completely loses his timing/contact zone.

This is exactly right. When Federer was struggling it was the forehand that kept letting him down. The commentators noticed it right away. And the reason is because his forehand requires much more timing than the double bends.

What CarreraKent doesn't realize is that Federer's forehand involves the integration of torso, wrist, arm, and forearm on many balls that is brilliant when it is on. But the complexity of elements and the timing of those elements is really unique to Roger. And even he can lose his timing - which is scary considering the amount of hours he plays a day since childhood.

No other straight armed forehand looks like his. Not Verdasco's, not Philippousis, not Schrichiphan. Those are much simpler. I'm telling you, Roger's forehand is very unique to him. Nadal seems to me to be close, but his grip is very different and he uses the reverse on so many balls.

Personally I don't think we will ever see a forehand like Roger's again.

As for the videos of that girl - she has a classic double bend there both before and after. Great improvements on the unit turn and the contact point - but as Oliensis says - nothing revolutionary.

[oliensis]

I went through the girl's video more closely. Not an extended/straight arm in the bunch. Every one is a classic double bend, as Jeffrey Counts notes.

Now, if she's simply "occasionally back-sliding" to "before" technique, you'd think that there would be, say, 60% extended and 40% double-bend...or even 40% extended...or 25% extended. But there are 0% extended and 100% "classic" double bend.

Also, noticed that in the "before" video she's hitting balls that are deep and above the shoulders often. Probably "live" stroking. But in the "after" video, she's hitting short balls that are waist-high, almost certainly "feeds." The improvement is good, but the context is much more advantageous, so it's not exactly "apples to apples."

[jeffreycounts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBMwya9vQYs
If you freeze frame at :25 on JasonF1979's lone "after" video, you'll see a very nice double-bend forehand with a sweet-looking "leveraged lift" going on.

Here's the "before" video

http://www.youtube.com/user/jasonf1979#play/all/uploads-all/1/BkkxEYpSKrw

Nice improvement in 4 lessons. Very nice.
Footwork and spacing much improved.
Revolutionary?
That's another story.

That's impressive, Carrera, re: being able to develop a 5.0 forehand in 1 hour.
It's a very impressive story. It speaks to your talent as a tennis player. But I do'nt see anything in the videos above that is any different than what's on the site here. Maybe it's my narrow mindedness...too much tennis, tae kwon do, t'ai chi, Kalaripayattu...too much yoga...too much eastern and western philosophy. Too much psychoanalysis. Too much Jungian study. Too much Taoism. Too much Buddhism. Too much Kabbalistic Judaism... It's all left me unable to open my mind to your revolution...which looks just like everyone else's tennis.

To facilitate the discussion, here are some QTs of the Utube links previously posted.

Student Before:


Student After:

[nabrug]

This is exactly right. When Federer was struggling it was the forehand that kept letting him down. The commentators noticed it right away. And the reason is because his forehand requires much more timing than the double bends.

What CarreraKent doesn't realize is that Federer's forehand involves the integration of torso, wrist, arm, and forearm on many balls that is brilliant when it is on. But the complexity of elements and the timing of those elements is really unique to Roger. And even he can lose his timing - which is scary considering the amount of hours he plays a day since childhood.

No other straight armed forehand looks like his. Not Verdasco's, not Philippousis, not Schrichiphan. Those are much simpler. I'm telling you, Roger's forehand is very unique to him. Nadal seems to me to be close, but his grip is very different and he uses the reverse on so many balls.

Personally I don't think we will ever see a forehand like Roger's again.

As for the videos of that girl - she has a classic double bend there both before and after. Great improvements on the unit turn and the contact point - but as Oliensis says - nothing revolutionary.

A lot of false arguments here. To me you are saying here that Roger has a different FH technique. Otherwise you should have said that it looked a lot like others but that Roger has his personal style.
A personal style can't be copied. A technique can at all times be copied!

If you don't know a technique it is difficult. If you know it it is not. When you serve do you think about the 100 different things you have to do? When you hit FH2 you don't do that as well. So assumptions over timing problems are assumptions till you know how to hit it. And that goes the same about if we are going to see it again. I am convinced we will see the technique again. I am not so sure about Roger's style.

[jeffreycounts]

A lot of false arguments here. To me you are saying here that Roger has a different FH technique. Otherwise you should have said that it looked a lot like others but that Roger has his personal style.
A personal style can't be copied. A technique can at all times be copied!

If you don't know a technique it is difficult. If you know it it is not. When you serve do you think about the 100 different things you have to do? When you hit FH2 you don't do that as well. So assumptions over timing problems are assumptions till you know how to hit it. And that goes the same about if we are going to see it again. I am convinced we will see the technique again. I am not so sure about Roger's style.

I still don't think Roger's forehand can be copied. We have versions of the straight arm out there that all look different to me. Roger doesn't look like Verdasco. Verdasco doesn't look like Nadal. There are subtle differences to all these strokes which you can see in the unique finishes.

The one big thing about Roger's forehand that I think is unique is the way he breaks off at the elbow moments after contact on some of his forehands. There is an integration of the wrist, the forearm there which, I think, involves very personalized timing. Of course Roger also hits many forehands that look more traditional, but it's that almost whip like forehand he hits that just looks totally unique to me.

My personal opinion is that when you combine several elements together - leg lift, hip rotation, arm lift, wrist movement, forearm movement, shoulder drive - the way Roger does then you get a unique stroke that can't be copied.

Can you copy certain elements? Yes of course. But to put them all together the way Roger does is more an act of genius and is one reason he has dominated this generation of players.

[nabrug]

I still don't think Roger's forehand can be copied. We have versions of the straight arm out there that all look different to me. Roger doesn't look like Verdasco. Verdasco doesn't look like Nadal. There are subtle differences to all these strokes which you can see in the unique finishes.

The one big thing about Roger's forehand that I think is unique is the way he breaks off at the elbow moments after contact on some of his forehands. There is an integration of the wrist, the forearm there which, I think, involves very personalized timing. Of course Roger also hits many forehands that look more traditional, but it's that almost whip like forehand he hits that just looks totally unique to me.

My personal opinion is that when you combine several elements together - leg lift, hip rotation, arm lift, wrist movement, forearm movement, shoulder drive - the way Roger does then you get a unique stroke that can't be copied.

Can you copy certain elements? Yes of course. But to put them all together the way Roger does is more an act of genius and is one reason he has dominated this generation of players.

It is unique. Yeah, only Nadal and Federer use it on the FH side but you missed the point. If somebody uses the same (other) elements in a structural way than there is a different technique. That has nothing to do with if it is unique or if people can do it. That doesn't mean that Roger within the FH2 technique can have a unique style. Now there are only two top players to compare but like with FH1 some people show a style we much more appreciate.

Thank you for calling me a genius. I am very honoured. But I think it is not true. FH2 is just a technique and you can learn it. Not the personal style of Federer (maybe Djokovic).

This is more a debating thing. It occurs to me that people react with non arguments if they have no answers anymore. In the few years I read these posts I heard arguments like:
- a gift from god.
- shot tolerance
- it came from outer space
- and if they don't really know it anymore than it is all mental.
Well all these things have to do with tennis so it is very safe to go and hide yourself over there. But I think as long as you make assumptions on assumptions don't have an opinion and only describe the facts.

[jeffreycounts]

To facilitate the discussion, here are some QTs of the Utube links previously posted.

Student Before:


Student After:

bump.