Developing an ATP Forehand Part 2: The Forward Swing

[johnyandell]

Would love to hear your thoughts on Brian Gordon's new article, "Developing an ATP Forehand Part 2: The Forward Swing".

[jryle1]

Wow, I'm genuinely in awe once more. Firstly, congratulations to Brian, Rick and John on another amazing article.

I was wondering if Brian or John or somebody could answer a question or two for someone with less of the jargon maybe.

Ok, my first question is, as the racket is moving from the dyanamic slot to the transition point should a player consciously try to keep the wrist laid back?

(And as you say in the article, I think, the longer you can last until you make it to the transition point the better?)

Also, when the player is moving from the transition point to contact and the rotation occurs, should the player consciously try to rotate the wrist forward the 45 degrees or whatever it ends up being or should this happen naturally?


Again, well done on a fantastic article, and I look forward to the next edition.

Jonathan.

[GeoffWilliams]

This site is getting more awesome. Wow is all I have to say.

[bman]

Needs to be translated into english.

[johnyandell]

Then I failed in my task...

[don_budge]

Bobby Jones on Jack Nicklaus...

When Bobby Jones saw Jack Nicklaus play golf for the first time he said..."He plays a game of which I am not familiar".

It's english alright. But of course it's an english that we are not used to reading everyday. Failure...no. Impossible task...yes, to a certain extent.

I read the first article three times trying to decipher the meaning...the lesson. It is technique-speak. To some...high minded mumbo jumbo. Let's face it...let's try to be honest with each other. It's a tough read. This is coming from someone who can do the math.

The question is...is it worth the effort? The answer to that is...only if you make the effort. Sometimes in life the things that you must work the hardest for...end up being the most redeeming.

That being said...I am not saying that this article is one of those things nor am I saying that it is not. But it certainly is an interesting question. Don't you think so?

[wmbauer]

Tremendous Work

I have been waiting a long time for these articles. The methods and analysis are extremeley precise and honest. Of course there are many levels involved in learning any task. If anyone immediately understood the subtleties Dr. Gordan demonstrates there would be no no need for that person to go further. Thank you and please keep up the good work.

[GeoffWilliams]

A hard to read piece but the effort is worth it. Does not flow off the page into the mind without a lot of work! I think that the tip on loading diagonally is good. Also the tip on the snap back and how that is common to the top men, and not to the women is good. The tip on wrist flexion is good, and the delay or lag of the shot after the hips open up although hidden in there, is good.

If we all just loaded right, on diagonal, it would give us something to snap back into. Pro men load whether open stance or neutral or closed, with the same angle of shoulder to opposing net posts on diagonal axis. More coil, more power, more time to react to incoming shot pace/rpm, is the reason.

[avazpinto]

I think these last two articles have been absolutely amazing!

As a player and coach I always thought that I had a good forehand and although I've been studying the strokes from the pros (and my students) in the past ten years I could not be sure where to improve it.

What these two articles have done is show me how I could improve my forehand. It is very easy for me to understand now that I had previously a Type 1 FH. I am now changing it to a type 3 FH and as soon as I record it on high speed video I'll posted here to show you how I changed it.

The second article is really difficult to read, but it is worth it.

I have notice as well that players with a type 1 and 2 FH seem to have a much more bended elbow at contact with a typical L shape at contact. That means that the contact point is much more closer to the body than on a type 3 FH.

[tennisplayer]

This is an excellent article! I had to read it twice to get all of it. It answers pretty much all the questions that have been raised regarding the role of the wrist, and provides lots of new insights. Many thanks to Brian and John for this brilliant piece!

[tennisplayer]

I should add that some posters on TW have been uncannily close to the mark regarding the role of the wrist - about how the wrist is released, that the chief function of the wrist is control, that the purpose of laying back the wrist is to create range of motion, etc. Perhaps John you should let them peek at this article, just to put years of contentious argumentation to rest. On the other hand, who knows, it could lead to more disagreements and mudslinging... you can never tell with TW!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.