Open Stance

[acik24]

At last the first article I've ever read that explains the open stance. The example of the back and front feet lining up towards the direction of the hitting zone is something I have believed in for the last few years.

The only thing in Kerrys article I'm not sure about is the lack of weight on the front foot. To explain I teach players to have their weight on the back leg and transfer to the front, during the forward rotation.

Please bear in mind that the players I coach mostly come for about 1 hour a week and articles like Kerry's will save on at least half a dozen lessons if they take time to read them.

I would appreciate comments on my second paragraph. Many thanks for an excelent site

Louis Gunn

[BrianGordon]

open stance

Louis,

Interesting position on the role of the front leg on an open stance stroke. When you say weight should be transfered to the front leg I assume you mean by planting it on the ground. When you say during the forward rotation I assume you are referring to spin rotation into contact as the the very nature of the primary back leg push tends to cause slight backward rotation of the body. Finally I assume you mean prior to contact. Given those assumptions, I can't think of any rationale (though I'd be interested to hear yours) for planting, or transfering weight to the front foot on an open stance stroke. The ground force from such an action, while likely causing some insignificant forward rotation, would certainly serve to slow drastically the spinning rotation into contact which forms the basis of racquet speed acquisition. Further, subsequent spin rotation would rely on internal twisting of the front thigh which is a hip joint rotation of limited range - in fact the main benefit of the open stance approach is that it derives a significant component of its spin rotation from external rotation of the back thigh - a far easier hip joint rotation in terms of available range of motion among other things. In contrast to planting the front leg, I submit it should be lifted as this action facilitates the driving action of the primary back leg (stand on a bathroom scale , quickly lift one leg, and note the increase in the scale reading). I commend you on depth of thought and raising an important issue. BG

[kerrymitchell]

open stance

Louis,
The key to all movement is that it flows seemlessly so timing is good on most shots. There is nothing wrong with stepping and transfering onto the front foot as long as the front foot is stepping in alignment with your intended target. The problem with allowing your students to step onto there front foot is that they may never learn proper alignment. Watch them when they first try hitting just off their back foot and you will see just how far away (too far in most cases for their intended shot direction) from the ball they are when they set up. This is what happens when you key too heavily on stepping in with the front foot. If they try to get closer to the ball with their style they will often get jammed because the front foot is in the path of the incoming ball.
I make my students hit almost exclusively open stance (off the back foot) both forehand and backhand so they learn two things--1) proper alignment to the target and 2) the ability to chase the ball with their rear foot. The second idea is the most important because it will help them to move into the court more efficiently (towards the net). The first step forward into the court should be with your rear foot (chasing the short ball with that foot). After they have improved on their alignment skills then they may step in with the front foot (toward the target), but you will have to be wary that they don't revert back to their old style of chasing the ball with their front foot. Reviewing and repracticing is always important. It is easy to slip into improper foot work. When I made my transition from a two-handed backhand to a one-handed backhand (due to an injury to my left wrist) I spent two years hitting almost exclusively open stanced so I could learn to drive (topspin) the ball in game situations. I still hit quite a few backhands open stanced because it is easier to hit over the ball under pressure that way.


As for what Brian says, I really don't have a clue what he is talking about. Upper body rotation into the shot (forehand and two-handed backhand) can occur when hitting off the front foot as long as your feet are not too crossed over. Rotation of the hips into the shot, in my opinion should not occur until after contact if even then. If the hip rotation comes too early, your arm comes through late catching the ball behind the hips. This kind of timing is inefficient because you lose the natural kinetic flow of the whole swing, thus losing arm speed.
Thanks for looking in on my articles. I am putting together a article on the hips and there role in all shots.
Kerry.

[BrianGordon]

open stance

Hi Kerry-

Good discussion - I'd like to respond to your points:

“As for what Brian says, I really don't have a clue what he is talking about. Upper body rotation into the shot (forehand and two-handed backhand) can occur when hitting off the front foot as long as your feet are not too crossed over.”

How true – in fact upper body rotation can occur even if a closed stance is used. The point is not whether it occurs, but under what conditions for the muscles that cause the rotation. Independent rotation of the upper trunk (shoulders) relative to the lower trunk (hips) creates very poor working conditions for the muscles that rotate the upper trunk. More coincident rotation of the shoulders and hips does the opposite, creates great contractile conditions for those muscles along with increasing quality range of motion for shoulder rotation – combined this creates the potential for superior upper body rotation speed. As this rotation is linked to at least 30% of racquet speed at contact, its presence seems important.

“Rotation of the hips into the shot, in my opinion should not occur until after contact if even then. If the hip rotation comes too early, your arm comes through late catching the ball behind the hips.”

Rotation of the hips enhances shoulder rotation capability, which in turn enhances rotational capabilities of several hitting arm joints. As a result, rather than causing a situation where the arm comes through late, the arm has a much better chance of succeeding in the goals of optimal position and speed.

“This kind of timing is inefficient because you lose the natural kinetic flow of the whole swing, thus losing arm speed.”

Kinetic flow theory as described in the tennis literature states that forces derived from the ground are passed through the legs to the trunk, to the hitting arm, and finally to the racquet whereby the latter gets its speed. Assuming until another day that this is the way it works, and this is what you mean by kinetic flow, then not rotating the hips would represent a complete break in the force transfer chain – that is, force derived from the ground would be transferred though to the legs and stop at the hips. Aside from being a physical impossibility this would seem a much bigger demise than problems associated with mistiming hip rotation.


You make some interesting points, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the role of the hips. I’ve measured hip rotation speeds up to 400 degrees/second in high quality players during the forward swing to contact and never measured less than 100 degrees/second in any player. In fact, hip/shoulder interaction is one of the more important variables that differentiates level of player. I’d be happy to send you some rotation profiles if you would like – John Y. could give you my email.

[kerrymitchell]

hips

Brian,
Your information sounds very technical, but at what point do you say the hips initiate their rotation? And at what angle are the hips in at contact (ex. parallel with the baseline, 45% to the baseline, etc)?
Thanks,
Kerry.

[BrianGordon]

hips

Hi Kerry,

Thanks for the question – a little background for these numbers – these are determined using 3 dimensional measurements utilizing motion capture systems (film and magnetic sensor based) operating at between 100 and 125 measurements per second. My general observations are based on assessing around 50 measured players of different levels, genders, and styles. The numbers I’ll put forth represent the higher level of these players.

In all cases the hip rotation starts just prior to the end of the backswing. The shoulders start rotation after the hips but also just prior to the end of the backswing and generally somewhat slower than the hips following initiation – this causes the muscles that rotate the upper trunk or shoulders to be stretched initially which provides length and activation conditions conducive to these muscles generating more forceful contraction than they could otherwise – a good thing.

This is contingent on definition of the end of the backswing, of course. I define the start of the forward swing component as the first instant at which the racquet face center acquires speed BOTH forward and laterally in the direction of the contact side RELATIVE to motion of the body – the end of the backswing, then, is the instant prior.

I’ll give hip orientation trends relative to the hitting side baseline at the end of the backswing (EBS) and at contact for the major stroke classifications – these are only trends and individuals will vary, more or less. Keep in mind that some rotation has occurred prior to the end of my definition of the EBS.

Forehand & Backhand (2 handed):

Square stance-

EBS: 90 degrees Contact: 45 degrees Rotation: 45 degrees

Open stance-

EBS: 75 degrees Contact: 20 degrees Rotation: 55 degrees

Backhand(1 handed):

Square stance –

EBS: 90 degrees Contact: 65 degrees Rotation: 25 degrees


These are the trend minimums (most conservative). The speeds of rotation over these ranges of rotation can be quite impressive.

Hope this answers your questions - Brian

[johnyandell]

If anyone wonders who Brian is and why he isn't writing for the site--the answer is that he is a former player and coach, now completing his PhD, who has a body of research that is going to open up all our eyes--and challenge us to evaluate our beliefs--and learn a lot.

He has a great article on the serve going up in the next couple of months on Tennisplayer, and that's just the start. We will also be bringing you info on how you can get your own strokes analyzed in 3D, something that has been impossible before outside very limited and expensive and time consuming conditions.

Thrilled he is taking the time to contribute here!

[acik24]

Open Stance

Thank-you Brian and Kerry for the information you supplied in response to my original question, you have helped my understanding a lot.
On my forehand side ( I'm right handed ), I stop with my weight on my right leg, my left leg would be more or less unloaded and a racket placed across my toes would be in line with my intended shot direction. I rotate into the ball with hips etc.
On completion of my shot weight ends up on my front foot.
Kerry in his reply said that you can have the front foot on the ground.
To compare I tried the same shot but with front foot off the ground as per Kerry's article and your explanation.
The point I would like to raise is that I could'nt rotate my right hip any further with one leg on the ground than with my two.

Many thanks again for your interest

Louis Gunn

[tennismaverick]

When I look at videos of top pros forehand's in an open stance they frequently come off the ground but not just upward but also forward. It is if they have loaded all their weight on their back foot and leg and then lunge forward into the ball. So this would take the place of stepping into ball from a closed stance in the old days. The pros are now jumping into the ball with their entire weight being transferred to the ball mid air for more power. I am guessing, since this isn't all time, that they do this when hitting an attacking forehand versus a defensive forehand. That is when they have time to setup and go after the ball versus when they barely have time to get into position and return the ball. Do you agree with that assessment?

[johnyandell]

I'll give a little input here too. It's not really jumping--it's unloading. The coming off the ground part has to do more with the height of the ball. You can find plenty of balls where both feet stay on the ground or close in all the stance variations.

[tennismaverick]

Whether their feet come off the ground or not, are they still transfering their weight from their back side to their front side into the ball, in an open stance? If their feet stay on the ground then they would transfer the weight from the back leg to the front leg. If their feet come off the ground then they would transfer the weight from the back foot to the front side by jumping into the ball.

[johnyandell]

Take a look at this one of Roger. The whole concept of "weight transfer" is nebulous and probably incorrect. The racket is what hits the ball so it is impossible transfer "weight" into the shot. There is only racket head speed and racket head path. So If you load in the open stance and then release during the swing, the "wight" will take care of itself. In this case it actually ends up going somewhat backwards. Look thru a few dozen open stance forehands and see what you see.

[shootermcmarc0]

if theres no such thing as a weight transfer in an open stance forehand, then is there any use for stepping into the shot? or is that a completely different thing.

[lukman41985]

I'm going to echo Kerry Mitchell and say that the whole issue of stances is irrelevant in comparison to alignment. The alignment of your feet is crucial because it influences the path the racquet will travel on. The point isn't to step in to transfer weight. John, I'm glad you made that point. Doug King has also built a whole new teaching philosophy around exposing this myth--you should add that to the other myths you discuss in the Advanced Tennis section, John. But back to my original point about alignment and racquet head path: ever notice how it's difficult for you to hit a quality crosscourt shot from a "closed" stance? It's not because a closed stance won't allow you to transfer weight. Again, the issue of weight transfer is irrelevant. Rather, what's at issue is the fact that by closing your stance, you make it very hard for the racquet to travel on a path that will produce a deep, crosscourt shot.

Funny thing is, this whole discussion made me realize another reason for why hitting "open" stance is so common: Probably because it doesn't really limit any paths the racquet can travel upon. To the beginner, it may make it difficult to feel extension through the shot. But once extension is developed, hitting open keeps the body out of the way of the racquet's path through the shot.

[shootermcmarc0]

this is interesting, i always thought that transfering the weight into the shot was possible because people always mention it and the commentators do during matches. the weight transfer is something that i tried to work into my strokes. at least now i don't have to think about it anymore