Unanswered questions about the ATP forehand.

[stotty]

I wrote this thread sometime ago and decided not to post it. But it's been bugging me for ages now so I decided to throw caution to wind.

I know the ATP forehand is big deal with many on the forum. Perhaps the biggest deal ever for many...but I've got some questions. There's something missing from the puzzle.

Back in the days of diddy rackets, most players took the racket back and then forwards again with the racket on edge, e.g. McEnroe and Connors.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/modern_legends/jimmyconnor/jc_forehand/jc_fh_center/jc_fh_center.html?JCFHCenterSide.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/modern_legends/johnmcenroe/mac_forehand/mac_forehand.html?MacFHCenterSide1.mov

Not much flip going on with those two. A few players back then flipped here and there but not many when you study old clips. I guess approaching the ball with the racket on edge with small rackets makes sense.

These days most tour players seem to use the ATP model as far as I can see.

The question is when did the ATP forehand start happening? I'd wager it was never a coached event. So was it a natural consequence of modern rackets? When did it first become recognised? Through BG, or earlier? And if it has never been a coached event how come it spread so rapidly across the globe? Did players somehow subconsciously transmit it each other? The ATP forehand is not coached in my country (most coaches are ignorant of the ATP forehand) yet young players are doing it? I am assuming imitation has played a big role where unless there is evidence out there that the ATP has been mostly a coached event.

My unqualified opinion reaches for the fact that it's an equipment thing.

Equipment doesn't always present an immediate advantage. Players took a while before taking maximum advantage of modern equipment. Agassi was perhaps the first to take FULL advantage of modern rackets: slugging balls early and taking full advantage of the larger frame.

Connors and McEnroe couldn't take much advantage of new equipment because essentially their technique remained the same. They suddenly had lighter and easier rackets to play with but it was to of no real benefit to them from a pace perspective because their strokes were the finished article.

So when did the ATP forehand start to become commonplace? What's the history? What were the triggers?

[klacr]

Some people have considered Jimmy Arias t be the first player to hit with what we would consider the modern ATP forehand.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Nothing new under the sun...It's engineering baby!!!

I wrote this thread sometime ago and decided not to post it. But it's been bugging me for ages now so I decided to throw caution to wind.

I know the ATP forehand is big deal with many on the forum. Perhaps the biggest deal ever for many...but I've got some questions. There's something missing from the puzzle.

Back in the days of diddy rackets, most players took the racket back and then forwards again with the racket on edge, e.g. McEnroe and Connors.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/modern_legends/jimmyconnor/jc_forehand/jc_fh_center/jc_fh_center.html?JCFHCenterSide.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/modern_legends/johnmcenroe/mac_forehand/mac_forehand.html?MacFHCenterSide1.mov

Not much flip going on with those two. A few players back then flipped here and there but not many when you study old clips. I guess approaching the ball with the racket on edge with small rackets makes sense.

These days most tour players seem to use the ATP model as far as I can see.

The question is when did the ATP forehand start happening? I'd wager it was never a coached event. So was it a natural consequence of modern rackets? When did it first become recognised? Through BG, or earlier? And if it has never been a coached event how come it spread so rapidly across the globe? Did players somehow subconsciously transmit it each other? The ATP forehand is not coached in my country (most coaches are ignorant of the ATP forehand) yet young players are doing it? I am assuming imitation has played a big role where unless there is evidence out there that the ATP has been mostly a coached event.

My unqualified opinion reaches for the fact that it's an equipment thing.

Equipment doesn't always present an immediate advantage. Players took a while before taking maximum advantage of modern equipment. Agassi was perhaps the first to take FULL advantage of modern rackets: slugging balls early and taking full advantage of the larger frame.

Connors and McEnroe couldn't take much advantage of new equipment because essentially their technique remained the same. They suddenly had lighter and easier rackets to play with but it was to of no real benefit to them from a pace perspective because their strokes were the finished article.

So when did the ATP forehand start to become commonplace? What's the history? What were the triggers?

The old clay court specialists had swings that resembled todays "modern" swings. The ATP forehand is a natural progression of slow court tennis with bigger racquets...theoretically speaking. Tennis wise.

Connors and McEnroe were playing a game that is extinct today and their grips reflected this. They were playing all court tennis which meant frequent trips to the forecourt and to the net. Their technique and tactics were all geared for this type of foray...whereas the ATP forehand may or may not be. But when they switched they took full advantage of the equipment...but the courts had not been engineered to slow the game down at that point so they continued to play the all court game with great success. Keep in mind that they were among the top professional players that had to make the change in mid stream. From standard size to over-size.

It remains to be seen as to whether this type of forehand would hold up to such tactics...such conditions.

The ATP forehand is largely a byproduct of equipment and perhaps even more importantly...the speed of the court. Would the "backwards emphasis" hold up on a slick hard or grass court? I have my doubts...and questions.

Although it seems perfectly adapted for todays "modern engineered" game. One of the great ironies of this lifetime is that perhaps my little buddy Aaron Krickstein was the first "original" ATP forehand in the modern era.

[gzhpcu]

Tom Okker?

Or going way back... Bill Johnston...

[klacr]

The old clay court specialists had swings that resembled todays "modern" swings. The ATP forehand is a natural progression of slow court tennis with bigger racquets...theoretically speaking. Tennis wise.

Connors and McEnroe were playing a game that is extinct today and their grips reflected this. They were playing all court tennis which meant frequent trips to the forecourt and to the net. Their technique and tactics were all geared for this type of foray...whereas the ATP forehand may or may not be. But when they switched they took full advantage of the equipment...but the courts had not been engineered to slow the game down at that point so they continued to play the all court game with great success. Keep in mind that they were among the top professional players that had to make the change in mid stream. From standard size to over-size.

It remains to be seen as to whether this type of forehand would hold up to such tactics...such conditions.

The ATP forehand is largely a byproduct of equipment and perhaps even more importantly...the speed of the court. Would the "backwards emphasis" hold up on a slick hard or grass court? I have my doubts...and questions.

Although it seems perfectly adapted for todays "modern engineered" game. One of the great ironies of this lifetime is that perhaps my little buddy Aaron Krickstein was the first "original" ATP forehand in the modern era.

Very nice points don_budge.

Good call on Aaron. Arias and Krickstein are the first names that come to mind when I think of atp forehand in modern era.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

Tom Okker?

Or going way back... Bill Johnston...

Neither player has an ATP forehand...

[bottle]

History vs. How-To

I've always wanted to hear more from the forum members who have actually explored this shot, which I see as a basic pattern or "convention" with probable variations.

How is it going? What small points did you discover? Any wedge between expectation and reality? Did the shot turn out as well as you thought? Worse? Better? How so?

In re-reading the old great book ED FAULKNER'S TENNIS, I haven't found much illumination for my forehands, but a lot to cool out my backhands, including a basic preference for cheated-over-to-backhand waiting position.

From racket over to left and at shoulder height one doesn't have to do much more than turn body, straighten from shoulder to waist, and swing while keeping racket on edge the whole way from beginning to end. Diagonal thumb with heel of hand to left on top panel seems essential for this most basic, solid, reliable and elegant of looped one-handers.

But what about the orchestration of this shot in the rest of one's game? Specifically, how does it work together with one's version of ATP-3 ?

Well, if the racket starts from over to the left but at shoulder height, hasn't one spared oneself the time and effort of getting it up in the air like Roger Federer and others who start from a lower and let's say body median position? Yes, the racket tip already is high enough. And there is an added benefit if one believes as I do in the Wegnerian principles of "siting" or lining up the ball before you get the racket back.

Here too there are more probable variations than people realize.

One could hold up the strings like the jack of clubs and keep them still like Monica Seles, but maybe one would prefer more moving aim like Annie Oakley shooting skeet.

"Cheated to the left" means that initial body turn will take racket and left arm along the baseline-- a great time to adopt or maintain a 3.5 base knuckle forehand grip.

Continuity being the idea, left hand can now leave the racket and point across to achieve the second half of desirably extreme turn. I want to put "patting the dog" right there-- to have arm smoothly straighten as shoulders are fluxing backward and around-- very un-Potro-like of me. Del Potro stops the shoulders and does a breast stroke. I think I'd like to put some imaginary eyeballs along the left arm as well.

But there must be compensation included if we want to bring hand in directly behind the ball while out in the slot.

So, pet a bit to the outside since the continued body turn will bring the hand in directly behind the ball.

Flip then-- mild or harsh-- will warp the strings slightly to the inside of the ball.

And on the opposite side, though I'm planning a few very big (because rolled) backhands too, one can, similarly, take racket slightly toward side rather than rear fence since one's step across will finish the racket orientation to directly behind the ball.

[hernandezarturo]

Progression

I am not sure if I have a fully modern forehand today because I use a stong eastern grip. I do notice that with lighter rackets, bigger head sizes and the poly strings I spend a lot less effort worrying about hitting the sweet spot. My grip is considerably looser and I can whip the ball much more easily. It used to be that even graphite rackets reacted quite negatively to mishits. The ball would go in the wrong direction. With 100 sq inches this is much less of a concern. So I can now loosen my grip MUCH more and whip the racket through without fear of a mishit. I know some years ago Djokovic was asked to hit with a wood racket and said that his forehand was not doable with old equipment. I am guessing is that some kids were fooling around and started deviating from their pros lessons and started trying things. That's why Sampras would reverse his forehand. The ball was just coming too fast. Eventually, everyone started imitating it. The interesting part is that there are still many old school pros out there who teach the traditional strokes. The claim is that sometimes people overmodernize things and then actually produce less effective strokes. But my guess is that creativity and imitation is what led to the change.

Arturo

[stotty]

But my guess is that creativity and imitation is what led to the change.

Arturo

I would go along with this also. It was certainly player created and not coach created in my view. I think coaches were a decade behind at least before they really knew what was going on.

I think the one problem Tennisplayer throws up for coaches with its use of high speed video and ground breaking understanding of what is really going on in the game, is how to teach it all. I think some coaches are starting to understand all this stuff, but developing the tools and know-how to get their students to do the same is still in its infancy. Teaching the classical game is still far easier to teach because most of us understand it far better.

[gzhpcu]

I think some coaches are starting to understand all this stuff, but developing the tools and know-how to get their students to do the same is still in its infancy. Teaching the classical game is still far easier to teach because most of us understand it far better.

IMHO, first the coach has to be able to play the modern game himself and use the strokes during lessons to provide the student with a visual image to emulate. I always found that talking too much confuses the student, and showing the student by demonstrating is better.

To study and understand is important, but the normal student will not do it, and therefore resorts to a tennis pro for guidance. This site would just confuse a beginner, but promotes understanding of biomechanical aspects to advanced players, tennis pros, etc.

[stotty]

IMHO, first the coach has to be able to play the modern game himself and use the strokes during lessons to provide the student with a visual image to emulate. I always found that talking too much confuses the student, and showing the student by demonstrating is better.

To study and understand is important, but the normal student will not do it, and therefore resorts to a tennis pro for guidance. This site would just confuse a beginner, but promotes understanding of biomechanical aspects to advanced players, tennis pros, etc.

True but you slightly misunderstand my point. Let's leave aside beginners and club players from the discussion and assume we are dealing with promising juniors.

Few kids can imitate perfectly. Teaching an ATP forehand to a kid who is missing certain positions is tricky. The kid would have to try and understand the concept at this point. Explanations through words are tricky...and we don't want paralysis by analysis. What coaches need are skills and tricks to get kids to make those missing positions...the outside backswing is certainly one of them. This is what I mean when I allured teaching skills are lagging behind the high speed discoveries of Tennisplayer.

It's one thing coaches finally coming to grips with all this stuff, quite another to teach it. It really isn't easy.

[hernandezarturo]

Maybe the Spanish coaches are on to something

Interesting thought about how to coach it. Lewit's article on the Spanish forehand seems to imply that there is little technical teaching. Rather they try to develop exercises which ask students to do certain things. They also hand or racket feed close to the student in order to get a better view. As he notes in the article, some Spanish coaches feel there is not enough attention to technical detail. Lewit thinks it is implicit in their training. I have tried using exercises to help my son with things. Recently, I discovered that if I put light ankle weights on him his groundstrokes improve a lot. I am not sure exactly why that is. I haven't filmed him in both conditions to figure it out. But if I ask him to hit the ball imagining that he has ankle weights when I remove them he continues to hit better. I have nit picked at his technique in the past but it just makes things worse. So I just find the situation that improves things and ask him to keep doing it until he can do that without being in the situation.

Sampras started reversing his forehand when it skid on the line and he had little time. Nadal reverses to create topspin. Uncle Toni tried to get him to hit like Fed a few years ago. It didn't last.

But yes it is difficult for coaches to teach what they don't know. Maybe that is why it is better to guide students to do certain things on the court and then let them innovate to a certain extent. Rather than teaching them specific things they should be allowed to explore with some guidance. It sounds a little hands off but if tennis coaching had mandated certain technical movements there would be no modern forehand.

I often wonder how much I should let my son innovate and how much I should keep him contained. The ankle weights seem to do a pretty good job...

[gzhpcu]

What do you think about this?

http://www.apbelt.com/

[stotty]

Great post...

Interesting thought about how to coach it. Lewit's article on the Spanish forehand seems to imply that there is little technical teaching. Rather they try to develop exercises which ask students to do certain things. They also hand or racket feed close to the student in order to get a better view. As he notes in the article, some Spanish coaches feel there is not enough attention to technical detail. Lewit thinks it is implicit in their training. I have tried using exercises to help my son with things. Recently, I discovered that if I put light ankle weights on him his groundstrokes improve a lot. I am not sure exactly why that is. I haven't filmed him in both conditions to figure it out. But if I ask him to hit the ball imagining that he has ankle weights when I remove them he continues to hit better. I have nit picked at his technique in the past but it just makes things worse. So I just find the situation that improves things and ask him to keep doing it until he can do that without being in the situation.

Sampras started reversing his forehand when it skid on the line and he had little time. Nadal reverses to create topspin. Uncle Toni tried to get him to hit like Fed a few years ago. It didn't last.

But yes it is difficult for coaches to teach what they don't know. Maybe that is why it is better to guide students to do certain things on the court and then let them innovate to a certain extent. Rather than teaching them specific things they should be allowed to explore with some guidance. It sounds a little hands off but if tennis coaching had mandated certain technical movements there would be no modern forehand.

I often wonder how much I should let my son innovate and how much I should keep him contained. The ankle weights seem to do a pretty good job...

This entire post is interesting and intelligent...thank you.

I've been there, especially the nit picking and making things worse. And yes it's a real conundrum where the dividing line is. I've come to the conclusion that trying to micro manage students' technique is a waste of time mostly. Better to teach the fundamentals and key positions and try not to feel too responsible for what players morph into. A lot must ultimately rest with the players themselves and their innate ability.

It begs the question how useful is coaching? What percentage does it amount to in the development of a player? Maybe just 20%? It could be a very important 20% in some cases...decisive even. But when you consider how many factors are outside coaches' control: height, physique, natural ability, receptiveness, etc, etc., maybe coaching is a less of a factor than we think.

My generation were mostly self taught. Today, in my locality, all the youngsters are coached. Ironically, many don't end up as good as players from my generation. Now this means either that the coaching is substandard or that maybe coaching isn't as big a contributing factor as perhaps we thought.

[johnyandell]

Phil,

I have seen the APBelt in action--it's on the site in the Pat Dougherty footwork articles.