My fast track way to a pure straight-arm forehand

[ochi]

I have finally experienced the absolute straight-arm, no-biceps forehand that Carrerakent so passionately promotes (if I'm understanding it correctly), but have not tried it in play yet because it presents new challenges -- besides not bending my elbow at all, I need more leg-propulsion and must make sure that I'm at the right distance from the incoming ball. Since no elbow-bending is allowed, it's either get set up in just the right place, or lean a little this way or that. For a 6'4" character such as Bottle, it will pose an even bigger problem, like getting jammed a lot.

To help myself and others (but not with mastering the footwork), I have thought of an orthopedic training device, one that holds the arm straight at all times. I was inspired by Brad Gilbert's Wrist-Assist TV ads. My script will be, "Learn how it feels to hit a Robin Soderling forehand just once in your life! Like Jimmy Connors used to! It will be the best $120 you have ever spent. Allow six weeks for delivery."

It will force you to hinge shots only at the shoulder, while revolving on the ball of your front foot.

The beauty part is that the Soderfore trainer can be used effectively on backhands, too -- even on overheads like Connors' signature skyhook overheads, even for slow, Connorslike serves, before he figured out how to put juice into them, late in his career.

Did you see how Soderling faltered in Paris last week? He was a shadow of the Soderling who massacred Nadal at the French with effortless sharp, crosscourt forehands. Why? Because he was bending his right arm. Maybe not much, just enough to engage his biceps. He needed my rigid-elbow device to help him through his bent-arm relapses. Not having one of my lightweight orthopedic braces must have cost him hundreds of thousands of Euros. Someday I will post a mini-video of training with this device.

[bottle]

Aw, it doesn't matter if you bend it about half the time like Federer.
Also if you have the wrist, fairly straight but with adjustable spring resistance,
absorb the 200 pounds of shock by going backward like Doug King. But for
wide shots this device is indispensable and I endorse it like Carrerakent.

[10splayer]

Here's my "review" on the straight arm. I've alway hit and taught the double bend and will more than likely continue to do so. And mind you, I have absoulutely zero formal biomechanical background, so much of this is just speculation based on my own experimentation and arm-chair theory. Hopefully, this topic will be broached by Brian Gordon, in his forthcoming forehand article.

I really do feel like the straight arm, offers some real advantages. One of which, is the ability to really "plow through the ball" as the optimal contact point IS the point of maximum extension. The accompaning line of accelleration is so long, power is really easy to come by, if one meets that contact point requirement.(which for me, was the difficult part, at higher levels of play)


Available hand and arm rotation is also increased, when you bypass the elbow joint. This has been suggested on Tennis Warehouse by some, and I definately tend to agree with this observation. The internal/external range of motion does seem to be greater. If this is true, it would explain some of the reasons Fed can do what he does with the ball. That is, create enourmous in line power via the length of acceleration, coupled with a greater range of motion in the wiper. (Eastern grip, increased line of acceleration, with the hand and arm rotation capabilities of a SW).

I certainly feel like I can do more with the ball, if I can manage the contact point. Which in my case, is a pretty big if.

[10splayer]

Here's my "review" on the straight arm. I've alway hit and taught the double bend and will more than likely continue to do so. And mind you, I have absoulutely zero formal biomechanical background, so much of this is just speculation based on my own experimentation and arm-chair theory. Hopefully, Brian Gordon will discuss this subject in his forthcoming forehand article, and separate fact from fiction.

I really do feel like the straight arm, offers some real advantages. One of which, is the ability to really "plow through the ball" as the optimal contact point IS the point of maximum extension. The accompaning line of accelleration is so long, power is really easy to come by, if one meets that contact point requirement.(which for me, was the difficult part, at higher levels of play)


Available hand and arm rotation is also increased, when you bypass the elbow joint. This has been suggested on Tennis Warehouse by some, and I definately tend to agree with this observation. The internal/external range of motion does seem to be greater. If this is true, it would explain some of the reasons Fed can do what he does with the ball. That is, create enourmous in line power via the length of acceleration, coupled with a greater range of motion in the wiper. (Eastern grip, increased line of acceleration, with the hand and arm rotation capabilities of a SW).

I certainly feel like I can do more with the ball, if I can manage the contact point. Which in my case, is a pretty big if.[/QUOTE]

[uspta146749877]

Duplicates

Here's my "review" on the straight arm. I've alway hit and taught the double bend and will more than likely continue to do so. And mind you, I have absoulutely zero formal biomechanical background, so much of this is just speculation based on my own experimentation and arm-chair theory. Hopefully, Brian Gordon will discuss this subject in his forthcoming forehand article, and separate fact from fiction.

I really do feel like the straight arm, offers some real advantages. One of which, is the ability to really "plow through the ball" as the optimal contact point IS the point of maximum extension. The accompaning line of accelleration is so long, power is really easy to come by, if one meets that contact point requirement.(which for me, was the difficult part, at higher levels of play)


Available hand and arm rotation is also increased, when you bypass the elbow joint. This has been suggested on Tennis Warehouse by some, and I definately tend to agree with this observation. The internal/external range of motion does seem to be greater. If this is true, it would explain some of the reasons Fed can do what he does with the ball. That is, create enourmous in line power via the length of acceleration, coupled with a greater range of motion in the wiper. (Eastern grip, increased line of acceleration, with the hand and arm rotation capabilities of a SW).

I certainly feel like I can do more with the ball, if I can manage the contact point. Which in my case, is a pretty big if.

[/QUOTE]
From some reasons a post got duplicated-it is NOT biggy,just to let you know

[nokomis]

I certainly feel like I can do more with the ball, if I can manage the contact point. Which in my case, is a pretty big if.

Well, isn't this the catch. When the elbow leaves the side the consistency factor of the forehand decreases by quite a bit especially on balls hit with any pace. I've watched two leading female player (Sharapova & Jankovic (sp?) in the past couple of day really up close and one cannot help be struck by how mechanically sound their forehands are. Are they the biggest in the game, no but they stack up quite well on the female side of things.

[carrerakent]

nokomis

nokomis, your observation has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy because siting a factor of mechanics in a couple of players and then trying to say that is why they are accurate is pretty silly. i have noticed that everyone on this forum that has disagreed with and my observations, teachings, experiences has exactly that...not had the experience of hitting the bent arm forehand and evolving to the federer type forehand with success to talk about them with "experience."

for the record and mainly because i know it is true, straight arm gives by far the most accuracy. the fewer components the player has to modify the more likely it is repeatable. that is just one factor that makes straighter more accurate.