Welby Van Horn Balance

[paul pearce]

Mr Welby Van Horn suggests that good balance on the forehand stance begins bty hitting of the front foot in a closed/ square stance.
When one can comfortably hit the check marks recommended by Mr Van Horn including the abovementioned reference point what is the natural evolution?

[kenknight]

Natural evolution? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Are you trying to ask how the balance benefits your strokes?

And by the way, I don't recommend a closed stance. A square/neutral stance is ideal, as it directs almost all momentum forward.

When stepping into the ball and giving yourself a firm foundation, it makes it a lot easier for your body to work itself into the shot. Also, getting in the neutral/square stance and stepping in provides the forward momentum, and helps a lot with driving the ball and keeping it deep, not to mention pace and spin.

It also means a lot more consistency.



Or by "natural evolution", are you asking how the balls you're hitting look as you incorporate more balance? It's as I said above. You'll notice more depth, more consistency, and your body working much more smoothly. I think I read in some Bollettieri thing somewhere (might be this site, actually) that you "can't shoot a cannon from a sailboat". Or something like a sailboat, at least. Perfect description.

[EdWeiss]

Welby Van Horn Balance

As I am the author of an upcoming instructional book based on Welby's system, I thought I might respond to Paul's question. Welby believes in a square stance when starting out a beginner, not a closed stance or an open stance. The closed stance does not allow for proper rotation of the hips and shoulders. The open stance, of course, allows for plenty of rotation but for many beginners it can result in players hitting across their bodies and not through the ball. The square stance allows for a reasonable amount of rotation but also has the advantages of automatically turning the beginners shoulders sideways to the net and the weight transfer forward encourges hitting through the ball. Once the player had become comfortable with the square stance, Welby encourages his pupils to also learn the open and semi-open stances. I might also add that the square stance still has an important function even on the pro tour. Players use a square stance all of the time on two-handed backhands and one-handed backhands. They also will use it often on the forehand when moving forward on a ball inside the baseline - Federer is a good example of this. The bottom line is that as you progress you want to be comfortable with all of the stances, its just that when starting out Welby believes the square stance is best. I hope this helps. Ed Weiss

[johnyandell]

Well said, Ed. One thing that is important to understand is why the top players hit so many balls open. The main factor is not that it is somehow inherently superior. The main factor is ball height. The spin and velocity puts most balls well above the waist if not shoulder high or higher. The coiling in the open stance is the way players go up to the ball to control the contact height. But watch them hit a low ball at waist level or lower and most times you'll see netural stance.

This is why I think it's crazy to teach beginners the open stance. I agree with everything Ed said above but would add that since most club players hit most balls at a lower contact point, teaching open stance as the basic alignment doesn't make sense. It's not appropriate for most of the actual balls they will hit when they play. Bottom line complete players need a range of stances and if you can master the netural stance that's the perfect foundation for developing the more advanced variations. More on this later in an article.

[paul pearce]

I am still curious as too the teaching methodolgy of Welby Van Horn. The first article was logical, easy to apply and bound in common sense. Given that when the web site was set up a specific part of the site was allocated to Mr Van Horns teaching system it seems apparent to me that you feel their is great merit in the proposed system and yet we have seen no more.

Are any more postings or articles likely? Has Mr Weiss finished his book on the system and is it available to buy.

If Mr Van Horn is not to complete the series is it possible for A N Other contributor to complete the series of articles intended?

[johnyandell]

Paul,

Like I said before when you wrote about this the last time, it's great that there is so much interest in Welby and there will be more articles to come. Probably Jan or Feb for the next one. Ed has finished the draft of the manuscript. But I think it'll be pretty hard for anyone else to write Welby's articles for him...

John