I was out hitting today. I must say, I've made some good progress on my two-handed backhand. Satisfied, I decided to try another experiment, an Eastern forehand.
First an aside: when I first started taking private lessons, I remember that my pro had a good laugh when he saw me hitting forehands with a continental grip and serves with an Eastern forehand grip--I was doing things completely opposite!
Anyways, an Eastern forehand grip was what I was using until my junior year of high school. My coach switched me over to a semi-western forehand because he noticed I had a tendency to end points quickly, mostly by losing them, when I would go for a big flat forehand. So during some lessons, I became comfortable with a semi-western forehand that utilized a more low-to-high, vertical swing path.
Well, after reading the Federer forehand analysis, I decided to try to give the Eastern forehand a go, this time utilizing hand and arm rotation, and a slight bit of low-to-high motion, to get some good spin on the ball for consistency's sake. I have to say, I hit a bunch of terrible forehands. I was consistently bad with the Eastern grip. When I made contact with the ball, my hand felt so weak on the racquet and inevitably, the racquet face would open up and sometimes even slide under the ball.
I've got all the basics in my forehand down, atleast from the visualization I've done in the mirror. I studied the commonalities of the modern forehand article inside and out. I'm just bewildered about this Eastern forehand because yeah, I do want to hit with a bit more pace. I guess what I'm wondering/asking/confused by is the whole path of the racquet and how one really establishes the hitting arm position. The weakness I felt in my hand on the Eastern forehand made me think that when I hit "well" with my semi-western forehand, maybe I was just spinning the ball in and not actually following through on all the key positions.
I kind of wished I never tried this experiment. It's got me confused and really second guessing my whole forehand. Yikes.
First an aside: when I first started taking private lessons, I remember that my pro had a good laugh when he saw me hitting forehands with a continental grip and serves with an Eastern forehand grip--I was doing things completely opposite!
Anyways, an Eastern forehand grip was what I was using until my junior year of high school. My coach switched me over to a semi-western forehand because he noticed I had a tendency to end points quickly, mostly by losing them, when I would go for a big flat forehand. So during some lessons, I became comfortable with a semi-western forehand that utilized a more low-to-high, vertical swing path.
Well, after reading the Federer forehand analysis, I decided to try to give the Eastern forehand a go, this time utilizing hand and arm rotation, and a slight bit of low-to-high motion, to get some good spin on the ball for consistency's sake. I have to say, I hit a bunch of terrible forehands. I was consistently bad with the Eastern grip. When I made contact with the ball, my hand felt so weak on the racquet and inevitably, the racquet face would open up and sometimes even slide under the ball.
I've got all the basics in my forehand down, atleast from the visualization I've done in the mirror. I studied the commonalities of the modern forehand article inside and out. I'm just bewildered about this Eastern forehand because yeah, I do want to hit with a bit more pace. I guess what I'm wondering/asking/confused by is the whole path of the racquet and how one really establishes the hitting arm position. The weakness I felt in my hand on the Eastern forehand made me think that when I hit "well" with my semi-western forehand, maybe I was just spinning the ball in and not actually following through on all the key positions.
I kind of wished I never tried this experiment. It's got me confused and really second guessing my whole forehand. Yikes.
Comment