Fh1/ Fh2

[airforce1]

Think i may have this fh1/fh2 thing sorted out if anyone is interested?
Does anyone care?

[jperedo]

sure..let's hear it!

[tcuk]

me too.

[uspta990770809]

me, Three!

don

[uspta1366106393]

I was hoping the this would have a conclution someday!

[tennisplayer]

Absolutely! I thought I had it figured out, but it will be great to hear your thoughts. It's amazing how something new pops up just when one thinks everything is figured out...

[10splayer]

Airforce? Oh Airforce?

[airforce1]

Sorry, Was out of town a bunch.

Nothing really earth shattering, but here it is. (I think, LoL)
One clue is related to his use of the term receiving area and increasing it. It's a term used by the Spanish training if my info is on target and probably a common source with what Nabrug is saying.

My understanding is that when you use the open stance on your Fh2 for example, and come at the contact from below the ball, along with somewhat outside the ball to inside, across the body pulling with the swing; that here you greatly increase the size of your quality reception area as compared to the more conventional swing (Fh1).

The conventional swing (Fh1) would be setting up early in a neutral stance, stepping into and swinging along the target line (thru 3 balls as they say), with extension of the swing out beyond contact before beginning the swing across to a follow thru. This Fh1 would have a much smaller quality receiving area.

I'm guessing that this is the major points of distinction between the 2 approaches to hitting.
tech 1- more linear and flatter swing
tech 2- more angular and more vertical swing
any thoughts?

[uspta990770809]

Is Tech 1/FH1 pre-wiper

Sorry, Was out of town a bunch.

Nothing really earth shattering, but here it is. (I think, LoL)
One clue is related to his use of the term receiving area and increasing it. It's a term used by the Spanish training if my info is on target and probably a common source with what Nabrug is saying.

My understanding is that when you use the open stance on your Fh2 for example, and come at the contact from below the ball, along with somewhat outside the ball to inside, across the body pulling with the swing; that here you greatly increase the size of your quality reception area as compared to the more conventional swing (Fh1).

The conventional swing (Fh1) would be setting up early in a neutral stance, stepping into and swinging along the target line (thru 3 balls as they say), with extension of the swing out beyond contact before beginning the swing across to a follow thru. This Fh1 would have a much smaller quality receiving area.

I'm guessing that this is the major points of distinction between the 2 approaches to hitting.
tech 1- more linear and flatter swing
tech 2- more angular and more vertical swing
any thoughts?

So is the tech 2 really the wiper and tech 1 is what we used to teach before the wiper and Oscar Wegner?
don

[airforce1]

So is the tech 2 really the wiper and tech 1 is what we used to teach before the wiper and Oscar Wegner?
don

yes, for the Fh TS, I believe this is correct.

of course, I'm postulating, as like the rest of you, these FH1/FH2 terms I have only seen from Nabrug.

[airforce1]

Well, I guess this was anti-climatic , lol

[rosheem]

Issues with FH1/FH2 Terminology System

I agree that the "essence" of these strokes are different, but I really just see the ends of a spectrum here. On one end, we have maximum rotation or wiper action. On the other end, we have a flat forehand.

Does that mean that there is nothing in-between? I think it is more like a continuum...we can vary the amount of rotation to match the situation. We do not have to choose from only two options.

I reviewed these FH1/FH2 and BH1/BH2 discussions yesterday. That was not easy, because those terms are too short for the forum search engine.

It would be great if the discussion could continue, but I think it would be better for everyone if we could come up with a better terminology.

[uspta990770809]

Who's on first?

In the words of Bud Abbot: "Exactly!"

[airforce1]

Even though Nabrug has not said as much, it appears that my attempt to define his Fh1/Fh2 have fallen short, but may be on track as to larger characteristics. There is evidence that this subject is an outgrowth from the Wegner method/MTM.

As to your continuum- I don't think that is accurate, but a common misconception. They are 2 different strokes. Mixing their characteristics muddies the waters even more, although it may help the conventional Fh to some extent.
The conventional Fh (Fh1?) need not be flat,
and the Modern Fh (Fh2?) need not be loopy.

The difference is more in how they are executed, and more importantly,
the common result of each as it relates to control and power.

The conventional stepping in, swing thru 3 balls Fh creates depth challenges that are somewhat subtle due to the length of the available court. Players have learned not to drive thru serves like this, as the svc box is quite limiting, so depth challenges for a stroke are very apparent. Also serves are usually hit from nearly the same spot each time.

Ground strokes on the other hand, are hit from all over the place and hitting crosscourt lengthens the court greatly, making harder to pin down where the fault lies for a given stroke. Using tighter strings is another subtle result of the conventional stroke IMO. Maybe why many rec 4.0s use tighter strings than many of the modern pros. I've found that since I've gone full modern in my strokes, my need to have a fresh strung racket for precise control is nearly non-existent.

Hitting with precise power and spin is easier to do with the modern, open stance, accelerating up and across the contact. Given that control under duress is the most important factor in this game, Modern Tennis Strokes seem the clear choice and why most of the pros hit this way.

[rosheem]

Mixing their characteristics muddies the waters even more, although it may help the conventional Fh to some extent.

I can't say that I agree or disagree, since I'm not sure I still have a perfect grasp of all of this, but I do understand what you are saying. For example, I learned the modern forehand exclusively when I started playing. Your comments really help explain why I had so much trouble "hitting through 3 balls" those very few times I worked with instructors who were bent on getting me to do that.

Maybe why many rec 4.0s use tighter strings than many of the modern pros. I've found that since I've gone full modern in my strokes, my need to have a fresh strung racket for precise control is nearly non-existent.

The same happened with me, but not as a result from switching from one style of forehand to another (I only know modern). For me, it was more about getting to a certain level of mastery with the stroke. Once that happened, I was able to back off the tension and open up a whole new world of feel with my racquet, which improved all my other shots.

Hitting with precise power and spin is easier to do with the modern, open stance, accelerating up and across the contact. Given that control under duress is the most important factor in this game, Modern Tennis Strokes seem the clear choice and why most of the pros hit this way.

I agree here as well.

You also mentioned that the MTM forehand need not be loopy. Within the MTM forehand, what variation would you recommend for "flattening the shot out?" Flatten out the swingpath?