Locked Elbow vs. Bent Elbow

[cms56]

Re Paul Cohen's comment on the locked vs. bent elbow, I commend him for not genuflecting before the two great players who mysteriously use this departure from mechanical efficiency. Tellingly, he states: "Some coaches believe the straight elbow, combined with the shoulder generated windmill swings, creates more leverage and power." [emphasis added]

The pertinent word here is, of course, is "believe." And that coaches would base instruction on belief, unless strongly supported by some kind of compelling corroborating evidence (no Federer and Nadal are not alone enough), gets us to the very problem with coaches generally: when it comes to mechanics, too much belief, too little knowledge. Sometimes I think mechanical instruction ought to be left to the mechanics pros -- namely the Yandells -- of the world, and the coaches should implement that instruction while providing their own instruction in conditioning and practice routines, and building motivation, all of which they (often, but not always) do so very well.

[stotty]

To bend or not to bend.

The locked v bent elbow argument has been going on as long as I have been on Tennisplayer. Both methods are thoroughly justified, as shown by two players with the best forehands ever...Nadal and Federer. And there are plenty of others...Verdasco and Djokovic.

I would urge coaches to let nature take its course...be it players end up with a locked arm or a bent elbow, it won't matter much. I'm not even sure either method is coachable....not that I've tried....players seem to be either one or the other.

[julian1]

Paul Cohen

Re Paul Cohen's comment on the locked vs. bent elbow, I commend him for not genuflecting before the two great players who mysteriously use this departure from mechanical efficiency. Tellingly, he states: "Some coaches believe the straight elbow, combined with the shoulder generated windmill swings, creates more leverage and power." [emphasis added]

The pertinent word here is, of course, is "believe." And that coaches would base instruction on belief, unless strongly supported by some kind of compelling corroborating evidence (no Federer and Nadal are not alone enough), gets us to the very problem with coaches generally: when it comes to mechanics, too much belief, too little knowledge. Sometimes I think mechanical instruction ought to be left to the mechanics pros -- namely the Yandells -- of the world, and the coaches should implement that instruction while providing their own instruction in conditioning and practice routines, and building motivation, all of which they (often, but not always) do so very well.

What is the source for the Paul Cohen's comment?

[bottle]

I’m sure cms56 means well enough although he’d like to take away the range of available options on which the jury is out IN EVERY CASE. Bent arm forehands mean you can reach out or tuck in, as Peter Burwash pointed out, great for last instant adjustment. Straight arm means you could tuck in (go bent) but you couldn’t go straighter. And you could SCISSOR. Something Chris Lewit likes and presumably therefore teaches to a lot of Manhattan kids! Chet Murphy was more inclined toward ground strokes in which the arm extended from the elbow during contact, no? And the stay-bent-through-contacters and the stay-straight-through-contacters use different muscles, but no sport scientist I know of has identified the muscles with a take on the advantages and disadvantages of both. Maybe I’m paranoid, but I smell sterility and boredom in the whole line of thought in the original post here (although the thought was well expressed). And boredom leads to poor play.

Coaches and players need more belief, not less. Science is great but should never be used to bludgeon down individual belief. Nobody's going to do anything without confidence, which requires encouragement from anyone in a mentoring position. So much of good tennis is "hunches" that take place very fast in a psychological realm that's borderline mystical. Or semi-conscious if you prefer. Don't neglect the science in this sport but don't neglect the art, either. Or the risk-taking particularly in the development of great strokes that is common to both, and we all need the confidence (and the authorization!) to be thoroughly wrong from time to time as well-- so we can learn and maybe then do the opposite (or the slant).

The most conservative and "by the book" teaching professionals will never provide it.

"Leave it to the experts." O gak. "Don't try this at home." Please. Give me a break. If you really think there are organizations of any kind that are going to come to your rescue you might as well jump off a bridge like Tony Scott.