Producing an 'Explosive' Forehand and Backhand

[julian1]

http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=341:tennis-explosive-article&catid=95:tennis-general-articles&Itemid=173#method

[bottle]

&&&&&&&&&& &&&&

I read every word of this article, PRODUCING AN 'EXPLOSIVE' FOREHAND & BACKHAND, by Rafa Bahamonde at Indiana University. But why are there quote marks around the word 'explosive?' And why does the author use an ampersand (&) instead of the simple word 'and?' Already in the title we detect the author's coy, secret wish not to connect with actual tennis players.

In order not to drown, I decided to steal only certain parts of this scholarly, forbidding article and not the whole. Also, I was put off by the initial untruth, viz., "One of the most common mistakes made by coaches and athletes is to imitate the technique of professional players." Who would expect a Puritan to bear the first name "Rafael?" One of my favorite thugs here at Tennis Player always used to say the same thing. His name was NABRUG and he lived in some place like Holland or Belgium but never would say exactly where, and he finally quit the website and this forum in a huff after taking a final personal potshot at everyone he could remember.

Here's the first fallacy: Excitement is necessary for anyone to learn anything. And if we don't admire great strokes (and disdain turgid and pedantic language), we certainly won't develop any greatness of our own maybe even just for a single shot. Second fallacy: While watching players we admire, we can identify basics that apply to everybody if we're smart enough. Third: Dancers learn from the dancing of a great dance instructor, not just from his words, and Roger Federer is a great dance instructor.

I call an imitation Roger Federer forehand "a Federfore." And Federfores bring up the whole question again of straight arm hitting in tennis although that isn't the only thing Roger does on the forehand side. From my revisiting of forehands taught at the Chris Lewit Tennis Academy in Manhattan, as revealed in Lewit's book THE TENNIS TECHNIQUE BIBLE, VOLUME ONE, I'm about to discuss a few findings, in narrative description, I believe, at "A New Year's Serve."

Whether my discussion will add to anyone's game other than my own I won't know until I've done it (e.g., I have to go to the court for some experiments right now). But I'll tell you this. An experienced tennis player will have a much better chance of understanding and perhaps incorporating Lewit's content if he ever followed his natural impulse to imitate Roger Federer's forehand.

Frankly, I can't understand why any serious tennis player wouldn't try a Federfore at some point in his life. Rafa Nadal certainly did. So did Jonas Bjorkman: He imitated every aspect only to discover that the shot wouldn't work for him. So he returned to his own forehand.

Was this process a "mistake?" Of course not!

[stotty]

Closed versus Open

I've skim-read most of the article...found it a bit of a grind to get thru!

Not sure the closed stance is more effective than the open stance in producing more power. With a closed stance the hips act as a block as a player follow thru; the hips block rotation. With the open stance rotation happens much more freely.

The open stance (semi-open would be more accurate; open stance has become a loose term where often the writer is really referring to semi-open) was in use well before the game became as quick as it is today. Borg hit off a semi open stance all the time in the what was the wooden racket era. He hit plenty of reverse forehands too!

And when was a truly world class player been so lazy he chose an open stance because he couldn't be bothered to step across! In cockney English we call this a "load of old cobblers".

I did find other parts of the article relevant and interesting though.

[DougEng]

I read every word of this article, PRODUCING AN 'EXPLOSIVE' FOREHAND & BACKHAND, by Rafa Bahamonde at Indiana University. But why are there quote marks around the word 'explosive?' And why does the author use an ampersand (&) instead of the simple word 'and?' Already in the title we detect the author's coy, secret wish not to connect with actual tennis players.

In order not to drown, I decided to steal only certain parts of this scholarly, forbidding article and not the whole. Also, I was put off by the initial untruth, viz., "One of the most common mistakes made by coaches and athletes is to imitate the technique of professional players." Who would expect a Puritan to bear the first name "Rafael?" One of my favorite thugs here at Tennis Player always used to say the same thing. His name was NABRUG and he lived in some place like Holland or Belgium but never would say exactly where, and he finally quit the website and this forum in a huff after taking a final personal potshot at everyone he could remember.

Here's the first fallacy: Excitement is necessary for anyone to learn anything. And if we don't admire great strokes (and disdain turgid and pedantic language), we certainly won't develop any greatness of our own maybe even just for a single shot. Second fallacy: While watching players we admire, we can identify basics that apply to everybody if we're smart enough. Third: Dancers learn from the dancing of a great dance instructor, not just from his words, and Roger Federer is a great dance instructor.

I call an imitation Roger Federer forehand "a Federfore." And Federfores bring up the whole question again of straight arm hitting in tennis although that isn't the only thing Roger does on the forehand side. From my revisiting of forehands taught at the Chris Lewit Tennis Academy in Manhattan, as revealed in Lewit's book THE TENNIS TECHNIQUE BIBLE, VOLUME ONE, I'm about to discuss a few findings, in narrative description, I believe, at "A New Year's Serve."

Whether my discussion will add to anyone's game other than my own I won't know until I've done it (e.g., I have to go to the court for some experiments right now). But I'll tell you this. An experienced tennis player will have a much better chance of understanding and perhaps incorporating Lewit's content if he ever followed his natural impulse to imitate Roger Federer's forehand.

Frankly, I can't understand why any serious tennis player wouldn't try a Federfore at some point in his life. Rafa Nadal certainly did. So did Jonas Bjorkman: He imitated every aspect only to discover that the shot wouldn't work for him. So he returned to his own forehand.

Was this process a "mistake?" Of course not!

"Explosive" is in quotations since it actually isn't a scientific/biomechanical term. You may be trying to read too much that isn't there with the ampersand. Rafael was Brian Gordon's academic advisor. He isn't Puritan or European; he's from Puerto Rico. In addition, although I am not sure which article (url won't open) I would agree with the assessment that most coaches and athletes try to copy professionals is a mistake. On the other hand, other common mistakes include teaching what they have been taught (which is why you hear step into the ball, punch the volley, etc when often they are not true). And finally should we teach emulation of the pros? Or actually development of a game that can win 10 years into the future, if the goal is to become a touring pro. Often you hear some pros say, don't do that...even Robert Lansdorp didn't teach the reverse forehand until he realized that many strong players were doing it. Which is ironic, since it is not a new stroke (some pros have been teaching it for years). Often coaches learn from the top juniors coming up. Look at the top kids who are 14-18 and you can glimpse into the game 8-10 years from now.

[julian1]

My bad

"Explosive" is in quotations since it actually isn't a scientific/biomechanical term. You may be trying to read too much that isn't there with the ampersand. Rafael was Brian Gordon's academic advisor. He isn't Puritan or European; he's from Puerto Rico. In addition, although I am not sure which article (url won't open) I would agree with the assessment that most coaches and athletes try to copy professionals is a mistake. On the other hand, other common mistakes include teaching what they have been taught (which is why you hear step into the ball, punch the volley, etc when often they are not true). And finally should we teach emulation of the pros? Or actually development of a game that can win 10 years into the future, if the goal is to become a touring pro. Often you hear some pros say, don't do that...even Robert Lansdorp didn't teach the reverse forehand until he realized that many strong players were doing it. Which is ironic, since it is not a new stroke (some pros have been teaching it for years). Often coaches learn from the top juniors coming up. Look at the top kids who are 14-18 and you can glimpse into the game 8-10 years from now.

I will try to fix the problem with url tomorrow-sorry

[bottle]

To Emulate-- ONO-- Because a Basic isn't a Basic Unless it Bores

No, sorry, anybody who opposes emulation of excellent tennis players is absolutely wrong and what are they doing at a place like Tennis Player with all of its videos anyway? Probably these people are left brain, which means too much self-indulgent self-immersion in excessive detail. (I know, I know, I've done this too but I fight it every day.)

The emulation opposition suffers from a stunted philosophy of education that excludes the apprenticeship system used by such old Dutch Masters as Rembrandt and Vermeer. And Pancho Gonzalez, everybody's apparent favorite tennis player, certainly was an emulator as he put together his game.

The anti-emulators are free to make their argument, but what is the evidence? Especially when clusters or "pockets" of excellence suddenly appear again and again in unpredictable spots in the world where somebody has recently been great. The emergence of a Djokovic spurs people, not the sudden building in Serbia of a bunch of eighth grade shop and trade schools for tennis.

The excitement of example and the encouragement of a neighbor winning is more significant than genetic wonderfulness and quirk, too. Self-discipline and smart technique that could be used by anybody driven and smart enough to crack its code is also part of the equation (again, in my view.)

Sorry again, but the unconscious or conscious wish to be a wet blanket is the reason someone is a Puritan, not his religion or country of origin. (Mencken's old definition of a Puritan: "A person who is desperately afraid that someone somewhere is having a good time.")

P.S. No one gets to use the unprofessional ampersand in my English class. He can exhaust himself with two more key strokes and write out the word "and" instead, especially if he has high-fallutin' ambitions to become a distinguished scientist or academician as I assume Brian Gordon's advisor did.

P.P.S. The best scientists and doctors avoid obscurity whenever possible and try more and more to communicate in common language without compromising any required principle of their profession-- it's a good trick and a balancing act since scientific terms need to denote and not be connotative. Quote marks around the word "explosive" may indicate that the intended meaning isn't literal (for a specialized audience too insulated to figure that out for themselves) but also is self-conscious and draws too much attention to itself. Just use the word explosive plain and unadorned in the interest of reaching the widest possible audience.

[DougEng]

No, sorry, anybody who opposes emulation of excellent tennis players is absolutely wrong and what are they doing at a place like Tennis Player with all of its videos anyway? Probably these people are left brain, which means too much self-indulgent self-immersion in excessive detail. (I know, I know, I've done this too but I fight it every day.)

The emulation opposition suffers from a stunted philosophy of education that excludes the apprenticeship system used by such old Dutch Masters as Rembrandt and Vermeer. And Pancho Gonzalez, everybody's apparent favorite tennis player, certainly was an emulator as he put together his game.

The anti-emulators are free to make their argument, but what is the evidence? Especially when clusters or "pockets" of excellence suddenly appear again and again in unpredictable spots in the world where somebody has recently been great. The emergence of a Djokovic spurs people, not the sudden building in Serbia of a bunch of eighth grade shop and trade schools, only for tennis.

No, the excitement of example and the encouragement of a neighbor winning is more significant than genetic wonderfulness and quirk. Self-discipline and smart technique that could be used by anybody driven and smart enough to crack its code is also part of the equation (again, in my view.)

Sorry again, but the unconscious or conscious wish to be a wet blanket is the reason someone is a Puritan, not his religion or country of origin. (Mencken's old definition of a Puritan: "A person who is desperately afraid that someone somewhere is having a good time.")

P.S. No one gets to use the unprofessional ampersand in my English class. He can exhaust himself with two more key strokes and write out the word "and" instead, especially if he has high-fallutin' ambitions to become a distinguished scientist or academician as I assume Brian Gordon's advisor did.

P.P.S. The best scientists and doctors avoid obscurity whenever possible and try more and more to communicate in common language without compromising any required principle of their profession-- it's a good trick and a balancing act since scientific terms need to denote and not be connotative. Quote marks around the word "explosive" may indicate that the intended meaning isn't literal (for a specialized audience too insulated to figure that out for themselves) but also is self-conscious and draws too much attention to itself. Just use the word explosive plain and unadorned in the interest of reaching the widest possible audience.

Maybe. Often in layman discussion, yes quotation marks can indicate a certain untruth (or disbelief or even disdain). "Explosive" is not understood by the scientific community. Even S&C coaches have trouble understanding. I don't think the article was written for the widest audience. The term "explosive" seems to predominant in the tennis community but largely is not used by other sporting communities. Much like some tennis coaches think drop step is a half step in the air (e.g, a partial split step) on the volley whereas the rest of the sports world sees it as moving backwards.

Also, about emulating strong players, it is more important to be visionary. In fact, that's why people copy top players; it becomes a vision or dream. Something perhaps attainable. But maybe not. Many sport scientists and developmental coaches don't want less trained players to copy top players in developmental years. The mechanics are different and can lead to flaws or injuries if copied without proper training. Such imitation is best exemplified by a sport like gymnastics or skateboarding where the risks are easier to see. For example, in tennis, a beginner who copies a western grip, fully loaded open stance may not be ready for it. They might have trouble using the grip, loading properly, strength in the hips and core. Or a 12-year old copying a kick serve by Sam Stosur. Not a good idea since that kind of movement is very advanced and would put heavy strain on the back and shoulder of the 12-year old.
On the other hand, adult athletes (reasonably trained), even if beginners can somewhat emulate pro tour strokes if taught reasonably. In addition, some pro serves are fairly unique and sometimes people may mistakes copying them. Some historical examples of often imitated strokes: John McEnroe's serve, Monica Seles two-handed game, Pete Sampras' forehand (backswing and preparation), Andy Roddick's serve.

Those strokes are rather unique and player and coaches sometimes have to decided what's fundamental and what's style. Rafael Bahamonde meant don't copy a pro since often you end up imitating style. Most people can't tell the different between style and fundamentals.

That makes some strokes highly emulated. Federer's game for one. Andre Agassi's returns and forehand. Edberg's volleys.

A more correct phrase might be: "Copy the best techniques among pros and apply fundamentals. Understand how strokes are developed and train off-court to use the modern game."

[bottle]

Good. But what is "proper training?" It's good teaching. Which happens sometimes when the teacher stands back a little even at the most primitive levels. First step: correctly to assess the student's interest and, I would add, his or her potential for excitement, with "excitement" being an educational tool as well as something having to do with sex.

[stotty]

Good. But what is "proper training?" It's good teaching. Which happens sometimes when the teacher stands back a little even at the most primitive levels. First step: correctly to assess the student's interest and, I would add, his or her potential for excitement, with "excitement" being an educational tool as well as something having to do with sex.

Very true, bottle, very true.