Developing an ATP Forehand Part 2: The Forward Swing

[GeoffWilliams]

There are no common men in the ATP. Genetic freaks. Reactions of a Jedi knight. Strategies of Hannibal vs. Napoleon. Speeds never before seen on all shots. Rpms into the stratosphere.

[bottle]

Down with the common man. Look at what he likes to read. FIFTY SHADES OF GRAY! And he gets too much admiration in modern tennis. Unless he can dig verbal exchanges like the one just above here and build on them, in which case he is uncommon.

[GeoffWilliams]

Someone described it as "techno babble speak", although I would not say it was too hard to read, just not smooth or laymanish.

[BrianGordon]

Further, she allows the head of the racquet to drop below the hand prior to the pull - this causes the vertical component of her "flip" to be up rather than down - still, it is essentially type 3 as was Henin's.

Seems like a new idea to me and one I immediately want to try. Or was it a criticism? Don't think so. Want to try it in any case.

FLAW !!!!! CRITICISM !!!!

[bottle]

Further, she allows the head of the racquet to drop below the hand prior to the pull - this causes the vertical component of her "flip" to be up rather than down - still, it is essentially type 3 as was Henin's.

Seems like a new idea to me and one I immediately want to try. Or was it a criticism? Don't think so. Want to try it in any case.

[BrianGordon]

Greetings all :

To those that found Part 2 interesting (and readable) I thank you for the nice sentiments.

I apologize to those who found it too painful to read. John and I went to lengths to avoid this and in general it is much less technical than I would prefer.

To begin to understand how the strokes work, one must look at the mechanical properties of the body - these properties are complicated and come with some techno jargon which is hard to avoid - again, we try our best.

As to the cause of hand motion in the other thread, I thought it was emphasized that this motion results from integrated motions of the legs, torso, and shoulder joint. Both John and Don Budge explained this nicely.

Stroke - in the backswing, Sam accomplishes the descending portion of the hand path in the loop by at least partially dropping the entire arm at the shoulder joint (rather than only extending the elbow). This decreases joint range of motion to establish the pull which has implications to the early hand force in the forward swing and complicates type 3 arm positioning at contact.

Further, she allows the head of the racquet to drop below the hand prior to the pull - this causes the vertical component of her "flip" to be up rather than down - still, it is essentially type 3 as was Henin's.

Finally, I continue to try to connect the dots to understand the strokes - as pieces become more clear I'm always amazed about the adaptability, complexity, and elegance of the human neuromuscular-skeletal system.

[don_budge]

The effort...

I am going to read it. I am going to make the effort. Thanks bottle...for the words of encouragement. If you can do it...I can do it. Deep breathes don_budge. I've studied the headline and the titles of the sections. I looked at the pictures...and the videos. It's 2012. Come on baby...you can do it! Get psyched.

[klacr]

I say let the frickin' TW people subscribe like everyone else if they want the world's best information.

AMEN!

[bottle]

I'll second that. Thanks tennisplayer.

[johnyandell]

I say let the frickin' TW people subscribe like everyone else if they want the world's best information.

[tennisplayer]

Hi bottle, I think I got away with only reading it twice is because I've spent a lot of time ruminating on these very same issues, and I've also read and understood Part 1. I agree, for a newbie or those not inclined to brood over tennis mechanics like some of us do, more than two readings may be necessary to get the gist of Brian's findings.

Also agree that "the flip" sounds like it's exactly the right way to describe the mechanics, although we are all used to the "mondo" by now...

[bottle]

You only read it twice? The real trouble is not that the article is too much "techno-speak", but that tennis players tend to be sloppy and lazy both when it comes to new technique or if they have to read anything that challenges them.

The way to read something dense and of value is to read and re-read and then re-read again, then maybe study it a bit, then maybe go back to a quick read. It's the way to read a good poem, which never yields up all of its meaning on the reader's first attempt. And a good scientific document, too. But if you think this one is too difficult you should read some Rod Cross. Or ask Brian Gordon or Doug Eng to put you in touch with some truly dense scientific writing. Any ordinary person who has ever read five true scientific papers would greet these two popular articles with a sigh of relief. The question is relative, of course, but to me this article is extraordinarily accessible.

I love for instance the way a term I've used all the time is changed in the article from "mondo" to "flip." I'm tempted never to use "mondo" again. And I've always wondered how some person who demonstrates very little affection for English is the first to appoint himself high commissioner of contemporary usage as if he's Edmund Wilson when he ain't. And he's the pretentious fruitcake (oh oh, I went too far.)

"Simplify, simplify, simplify," Ralph Waldo Emerson, a good American and very down to earth, said. Well, "mondo" to "flip" is simplification. And not appointing yourself an expert on English or scientific language in English when you basically hate English would be simplification, too.

[stroke]

Brian, I am still very curious what elements of the type 3 fh are missing in Sam Stosar's fh. I always felt her fh, and Justine Henin's, were the best in women's tennis. Knowing what her fh is missing could be a great learning tool.

[stroke]

A lot of the folks on the TW Message Board would even argue and try to start some sort of negative discourse, even with quantitative analysis.

[GeoffWilliams]

Non believers don't accept any evidence. Objective folks do. Some will resent the fee no matter what. And then go out and buy a dvd or pay for cable/dish $4/day daily.