Slow motion comparison: Borg - Federer Forehand

[stroke]

Thx 10splayer, just what I suspected about Borg and Sampras. Very interesting about Laver.

[10splayer]

Thx 10splayer, just what I suspected about Borg and Sampras. Very interesting about Laver.

Yeah, you had it right.....As I look at those slow mo's of Roger, im just amazed at the "load" placed on his forearm, and the angles that he achieves with an eastern grip... Actually think one can see that with the naked eye. That's stretch reflex working, (and i think partly due to straight arm) . It's no wonder the shot is such an incredible combination of velocity and spin rate. Eastern grip with the spin potential of much stronger ones.

Yandell was right, (5 yrs ago or something) it's really kinda revolutionary....or whatever he called it.

[stroke]

Yeah, you had it right.....As I look at those slow mo's of Roger, im just amazed at the "load" placed on his forearm, and the angles that he achieves with an eastern grip... Actually think one can see that with the naked eye. That's stretch reflex working, (and i think partly due to straight arm) . It's no wonder the shot is such an incredible combination of velocity and spin rate. Eastern grip with the spin potential of much stronger ones.

Yandell was right, (5 yrs ago or something) it's really kinda revolutionary....or whatever he called it.

Yes, we've touched on this before per Brian's articles. The more eastern grip of Federer, with his straight arm, produces the almost inimitable forehand of his(Dimitrov is very close though it looks like to me), and as Brian and Rick would probably concur, the most efficient. Roger's flip on the forehand is just so violently efficient. Nadal is right there also of course, but he certainly does not appear as efficient in his execution as Federer. I suppose it just takes more effort to produce that massive spin he gets.

[stotty]

The flip with wood...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4VxccAUPto&hd=1


I think, the short answer is no. (think you two have it right) Very little flip in Borg's forehand. Let's look at a couple videos and I'll point out what i look for in assessing the amount of flip.

The position of the forearm and racquet face at the BOTTOM of the loop is what's critical. The forearm must be pronated (to greater or lesser degrees) and the face must be closed WHEN the racquet is pulled. This can be a bit deceiving, because players can, and do, close the face at different times throughout the backswing. Many however, will begin to open it in the later stages. So by the time they reach the bottom of the loop, the racquet is opened and arm is rotated externally externally. No flip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpLOObXHzDM&hd=1Take a look at this Sampras video.

Pete begins the backswing by elevating the elbow and closing the racquet face. But look what happens as he steps up to the top of the loop. He begins to supinate his forearm thus opening the racquet face. FRom there, he simply drops it into the slot, so at the bottom of the swing, the racquet face is more or less "on edge" and his arm is already externally rotated. There's nothing to "flip". Borg (in a less dramatic way) essentially does the same thing.

Now take a look at the FED video at the top. Remember, these guys have very similar grips. (which has a bearing on the racquet face angle) Easier comparison. Roger does something entirely different. He pronates his forearm throughout the backswing sequence. Notice how the racquet face NEVER opens until he pulls it at the bottom of the loop. This quick closed face/pronated forearm to opened face/supinated forearm transition is the mythical flip/stretch shorten load.

Btw, I was looking at some video of Laver, and I think he had a generous amount of flip...Pioneer.

This is a super post. I really do like your strong, independent views on tennis. You don't post as often as some but when you do I always learn something...always. You have an excellent understanding of the game and the biomechanics of strokes. Over this side of the pond they'd be looking to make you a coach educator...no kidding.

I have never considered the racket face when assessing the flip. I tend look for the counter-rotation of the hitting arm joints early in the forward swing. I found your take on the racket face really interesting. It's strange in a way, too, because with wooden racket players, I've always assumed it essential the racket be on edge early (or even throughout)...for timing reasons. The case of Laver enlightened me. I haven't checked out the oldies in the archive but I've always imagined they use little or no flip. You'd imagine timing of it would be really tricky with small-headed rackets.

Interesting stroke's take on Nadal's forehand. I guess getting a lot of topspin is a physical business regardless of whether a player flips or not. Borg was a physical specimen much like Nadal. But wouldn't Nadal's flip be even greater than Federer's as his forward swing (transition) is late, and he has a very straight arm on contact, plus he's really gunning for topspin and the tip of his racket is often pointing toward the court? I'm assuming these things all add up to a greater flip?

I asked John what Borg's rpm's were on the forehand. He doesn't have any rpm data on Borg. That would be interesting because Borg's forehand would be the most rpm achievable with very little flip...with a wooden racket. It would be great to contrast that with modern tennis and modern equipment.

[10splayer]

This is a super post. I really do like your strong, independent views on tennis. You don't post as often as some but when you do I always learn something...always. You have an excellent understanding of the game and the biomechanics of strokes. Over this side of the pond they'd be looking to make you a coach educator...no kidding.

I have never considered the racket face when assessing the flip. I tend look for the counter-rotation of the hitting arm joints early in the forward swing. I found your take on the racket face really interesting.

It's strange in a way, too, because with wooden racket players, I've always assumed it essential the racket be on edge early (or even throughout)...for timing reasons. The case of Laver enlightened me. I haven't checked out the oldies in the archive but I've always imagined they use little or no flip. You'd imagine timing of it would be really tricky with small-headed rackets.

Interesting stroke's take on Nadal's forehand. I guess getting a lot of topspin is a physical business regardless of whether a player flips or not. Borg was a physical specimen much like Nadal. But wouldn't Nadal's flip be even greater than Federer's as his forward swing (transition) is late, and he has a very straight arm on contact, plus he's really gunning for topspin and the tip of his racket is often pointing toward the court? I'm assuming these things all add up to a greater flip?

I asked John what Borg's rpm's were on the forehand. He doesn't have any rpm data on Borg. That would be interesting because Borg's forehand would be the most rpm achievable with very little flip...with a wooden racket. It would be great to contrast that with modern tennis and modern equipment.

That's nice of you to say Stotty.

An important point in looking at the racquet face angle in assessing the amount of rotation counter rotation. (roughly that is) is this...As you probably know, the grip has an effect on how closed/open the racquet face is. When comparing Nadal and FEd, I would argue that Fed has significantly more pronation in his backswing. At the bottom of the loop both players basically have the face completely closed/shut. With his easternish grip, however, Fed has to really turn his thumb down/pronate to find this equivalent position. Much more so then Nadal with his SW. Just try and find this completely shut position with an strong eastern grip. It really puts a bind on your forearm, which creates a rather explosive flip.



Just armchair theory, though.

[bottle]

But maybe armchair theory is best. I don't think anybody should neglect Don Brosseau's subjective opinion that Roger's flip is too harsh. Or Eric Matuszewski's pointing to the extent of wrist layback range so much greater in Federer than in most people which category certainly includes me. I get wrist laid back first before the dog (or "descent of milkweed" which I used to call it so liked by LadyPro). I use a bit of finger twiddle to close the racket an extra amount at the top. I then just use backward roll in the low flip, not the simultaneous backward snap of wrist which you see all over the place with so little discernible advantage for most dudes using it. Mine as described is not a great shot but it's my shot and it's consistent and doesn't sit up at waist level like my Australian grip J. McEnroe forehand imitation which really is just a timed straight-wristed pendulum in both direction, goes fast, penetrates, is good in doubles, can be solid with body at contact, is easy to hook a little. I like the mix of these two forehands but that's enough about me.

[10splayer]

But maybe armchair theory is best. I don't think anybody should neglect Don Brosseau's subjective opinion that Roger's flip is too harsh. Or Eric Matuszewski's pointing to the extent of wrist layback range so much greater in Federer than in most people which category certainly includes me. I get wrist laid back first before the dog (or descent of milkweed which I used to call it so liked by LadyPro). I use a bit of finger twiddle to close the racket an extra amount at the top. I then just use backward roll in the flip, not the snap of wrist at bottom which you see all over the place with so little discernible advantage for most dudes using it. This is not a great shot but it's my shot and it's consistent.
And it doesn't sit up at waist level like my Australian grip J. McEnroe forehand imitation which really is just a timed straight-wristed pendulum in both direction, goes fast, penetrates, is good in doubles, can be solid with body at contact. I like the mix of these two forehands, but that's enough about me.

A couple points.


1) I agree that Fed"s "flip" is pressing the envelope a bit. As I mentioned, when you take an eastern grip, and completely close the face, it requires a pretty substantial/explosive counter rotation move to "right the ship" and get the hitting arm back into position for the forward swing. It may be why he is able to achieve the kind of angles (layback, potential wiper) in the forward swing. If you combine this with a straight arm delivery, it's explosive and yet probably temperamental.

2) I believe that the amount of available forearm/upper arm/shoulder rotation is increased with a straight arm. But i may be wrong. Verify this. Take an eastern grip and set up a double bend structure. Turn the tip up and down and note the available range of motion. (which is the wiper potential). Now, straighten out the arm. By eliminating the elbow joint, I find there to be much greater (and freer) range of motion.
What do you think? It may be one of the reasons Roger has the spin potential of someone with a stronger grip and bent elbow.

3)Yes, with the McEnroe forehand thoughts. Pendulum is a good description. Not many angles formed in the backswing or forward swing. Like an opening and closing gate. Wow, could he do amazing things with it though.

[bottle]

Good stuff. All of my forehands are straight-arm. I had to decide.

[stroke]

That's nice of you to say Stotty.

An important point in looking at the racquet face angle in assessing the amount of rotation counter rotation. (roughly that is) is this...As you probably know, the grip has an effect on how closed/open the racquet face is. When comparing Nadal and FEd, I would argue that Fed has significantly more pronation in his backswing. At the bottom of the loop both players basically have the face completely closed/shut. With his easternish grip, however, Fed has to really turn his thumb down/pronate to find this equivalent position. Much more so then Nadal with his SW. Just try and find this completely shut position with an strong eastern grip. It really puts a bind on your forearm, which creates a rather explosive flip.



Just armchair theory, though.

Armchair theory, and the essence of Fed's forehand to me. 10splayer, do you feel Dimitrov is close to Fed's explosive, violent flip? Also, I do not know why it has not occurred
to me before, but I have always felt Fed had a more violent flip than Nadal, and you have explained it very well.

[10splayer]

Armchair theory, and the essence of Fed's forehand to me. 10splayer, do you feel Dimitrov is close to Fed's explosive, violent flip? Also, I do not know why it has not occurred
to me before, but I have always felt Fed had a more violent flip than Nadal, and you have explained it very well.

I'll take a look when I get a chance....

[stotty]

10splayer, do you feel Dimitrov is close to Fed's explosive, violent flip? Also, I do not know why it has not occurred
to me before, but I have always felt Fed had a more violent flip than Nadal, and you have explained it very well.

I think Nadal's transition out of the slot is more delayed than most players, which in theory (armchair stuff again) means less muscular inhibition. It's much about bones going one way and muscles and tendons resisting, after all. He seems to get a "flicking" effect when he hits the ball. I know his extreme grip offers less wrist lay back than Federer but it's still pretty substantial.

Interesting about Dimitrov. I'll have to take a look...Dimitrov is double bend if memory serves me right? So there's a core difference to start with.

[stroke]

I think Nadal's transition out of the slot is more delayed than most players, which in theory (armchair stuff again) means less muscular inhibition. It's much about bones going one way and muscles and tendons resisting, after all. He seems to get a "flicking" effect when he hits the ball. I know his extreme grip offers less wrist lay back than Federer but it's still pretty substantial.

Interesting about Dimitrov. I'll have to take a look...Dimitrov is double bend if memory serves me right? So there's a core difference to start with.

The slight double bend, and I think it is very slight, is the main difference between Fed and Dimitrov. Grip structure looks identical. To me, Nadal's grip, though certainly semi western, is not that severe compared to someone like Novak. I think he is really not that far from Fed, and he does get the benefit of a laid back wrist(look at the position of the heel of the hand at contact sometime with those 2). I remember in Brian's articlles he mentioned that the very best type 3 forehands delay the transition point the longest. LC mentioned Nadal's delayed transtion point. My guess would be both Nadal and Fed delay the transition point about as long as possible. Which one delays most would be very interesting.

[10splayer]

I think Nadal's transition out of the slot is more delayed than most players, which in theory (armchair stuff again) means less muscular inhibition. It's much about bones going one way and muscles and tendons resisting, after all. He seems to get a "flicking" effect when he hits the ball.

I know his extreme grip offers less wrist lay back than Federer but it's still pretty substantial.

Interesting about Dimitrov. I'll have to take a look...Dimitrov is double bend if memory serves me right? So there's a core difference to start with.

Stotty,

Theoretically, a stronger grip should offer more natural wrist lay back and available hand and arm rotation. John Y does a good job explaining this in one of his Advanced tennis articles. (i think hand and arm rotation). Anyway, what I find amazing about Fed's forehand is the amount of layback and arm rotation he gets with such a mild grip. I've never seen anything close with said grip. Perhaps one reason why there has been so much speculation as to his grip?

[stroke]

10splayer, I've got one more question for you. What do you make of Del Potro's forehand? He seems to bypass the Macci endorsed method forehand preparation. It looks to me like he just kind of straightens his arm out high and to his right side. That is pretty much his preparation for his huge straight arm forehand. It looks very unusual to me.

[tennis_chiro]

10splayer, I've got one more question for you. What do you make of Del Potro's forehand? He seems to bypass the Macci endorsed method forehand preparation. It looks to me like he just kind of straightens his arm out high and to his right side. That is pretty much his preparation for his huge straight arm forehand. It looks very unusual to me.

Click repeatedly on the scroll bar right above the M in Martin and you will see the stroke from the point his hands separate. Beautiful video. Brian Gordon may be endorsing a slightly more outside starting position for the racket head, but it seems to be right in line with Gordon model to me.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/high_speed_archive/phantom/Juan_DelPotro_HD_HS/index.html?dir=Forehand/JD_FH_Center&stroke=FH%20Center%20NeutralStance%20Front%20240fps.mp4

don