A New Teaching System: Forehand: Body Rotation

[Guest]

I tried my forehand the other day and I noticed a couple things. First, it's hard to tell when I'm hitting the ball whether I'm square to the net or off by 10 or 15 degrees. Second, it felt better the more my shoulder was rotated at contact: seemed like contact was more in front, the arm can release more naturally into the line of the shot, and the ball went deeper. So, is it better to over-rotate the shoulders than under-rotate? Are there pitfalls to over-rotation?

What do you guys think?

thanks,
Peter

[johnyandell]

What is your grip? My belief is that if the turn is good and the finish point on the swing is good, the rotation should take care of itself. But impossible to really say for you Peter without looking at some video.

[seano]

Brian Gordon talks about different degrees of hip rotation depending if it's a type 1, 2, or 3 forehand. The type 1 is trunk dominated and has the hip/shoulder/arm working as a unit. Type 2 has less of a unit swing, with type 3 being an initial burst of the hips, then trunk, then shoulder, then arm involvement. A key component of the type 3 forehand is the arm working independent of the body.

[johnyandell]

To me there are two issues--the actual chain of events--but more importantly--how they are activated. I believe as the article states that trying to consciously rotate the hips throws the sequence off. If the coiling is good and the player "swings" the racket for the finish the activation sequence is automatic. Look at that video of Scott when he tried to "fire" them. He couldn't believe that players actually "try" to do that and the sequencing on hsi forehand is basically perfect. Not saying that cue won't work for somebody, but...

[seano]

John, I agree with what your saying but, to me, the swing style (linear momentum vs. angular momentum) you use will ultimately determine the degree of hip involvement. Not sure who Scott is but the gentleman with the brighter, light blue shirt in your video has more of a linear swing. If he involves the hips more, it "will" cause a disruption in his swing. Trying to blend 2 momentum types (linear vs. angular) won't be too successful. The taller gentleman with the beard, has a rotational swing, thus will fire his hips more. To me, the body parts involved is all situational, depended on the amount of time you have and whether you are hitting a defensive, neutral or offensive shot.
If you don't have time on the shot or you're on the defense - you will have a smaller axis of rotation. You may "only" be able to manipulate with your hand. An example of this is hitting a ball on the dead run. Arms and legs are pumping just to get to the ball, and all you're able to swing with is your hand. Have a little more time and you can swing with your shoulder (arm) and hand. But if you have time and looking to generate power, you need angular momentum to hit a "heavy ball", with the legs, core, shoulders and arms all involved. Driving off the ground and firing the hips will initiate the swing. If your swing is more linear, you won't be able to hit a true "heavy ball". Just my thoughts...

[10splayer]

John, I agree with what your saying but, to me, the swing style (linear momentum vs. angular momentum) you use will ultimately determine the degree of hip involvement. Not sure who Scott is but the gentleman with the brighter, light blue shirt in your video has more of a linear swing. If he involves the hips more, it "will" cause a disruption in his swing. Trying to blend 2 momentum types (linear vs. angular) won't be too successful. The taller gentleman with the beard, has a rotational swing, thus will fire his hips more. To me, the body parts involved is all situational, depended on the amount of time you have and whether you are hitting a defensive, neutral or offensive shot.
If you don't have time on the shot or you're on the defense - you will have a smaller axis of rotation. You may "only" be able to manipulate with your hand. An example of this is hitting a ball on the dead run. Arms and legs are pumping just to get to the ball, and all you're able to swing with is your hand. Have a little more time and you can swing with your shoulder (arm) and hand. But if you have time and looking to generate power, you need angular momentum to hit a "heavy ball", with the legs, core, shoulders and arms all involved. Driving off the ground and firing the hips will initiate the swing. If your swing is more linear, you won't be able to hit a true "heavy ball". Just my thoughts...

What do you mean by swing style linear vs angular?

[seano]

Older styles used more linear momentum from the body to generate power (stepping towards your target and reaching towards your target, as long as you can) Example on the forehand - point the racquet tip towards the back fence in the backswing and finish with the racquet pointing towards the fence on the other side. Body and arm tend to move together.
Angular momentum, your body rotates around the axis of your spine, allowing you to separate body parts to create tension and torque (elastic energy). In this type of forehand, the racquet tip could point towards the fence on the opposite side, in the backswing and finishes towards the rear fence. Just the opposite of the linear swing.

[pvchen]

John, I have a classic 3/3 forehand grip, and my tendency is toward a straight arm forehand.

This linear vs. angular momentum idea is interesting...

I seem to be having the most success thinking of my shot as linear, trying to translate the rotation of the hips and shoulders into a release of the arm that goes straight to the ball and along the path of the shot.

Peter

[nickw]

Don't forget the link between stance and linear/angular, as this can help understand it, and develop it in your forehand. If you are using closed or neutral stance, then it will be natural to use a linear swing. If your feet are open or semi-open, then angular is going to be the more natural way. Linear is more classic old style as seano says, but you'll still see it used at pro level for lower bouncing attackable balls. Linear is more efficient and less stressful on the body, and I believe studies have found that linear has greater power potential because of that efficiency (basically the energy is being transferred more in a line and then into the shot). Angular can create more energy, but because of the increased body rotation, that energy isn't transferred into the shot as efficiently (more of it is lost). The problem with the closed or neutral stance is that recovery takes a fraction longer, which is why at the fast-paced pro level, players are more likely to use it when they are in control of the point or not too far wide, and can afford that extra time.

[don_budge]

Don't forget the link between stance and linear/angular, as this can help understand it, and develop it in your forehand. If you are using closed or neutral stance, then it will be natural to use a linear swing. If your feet are open or semi-open, then angular is going to be the more natural way. Linear is more classic old style as seano says, but you'll still see it used at pro level for lower bouncing attackable balls. Linear is more efficient and less stressful on the body, and I believe studies have found that linear has greater power potential because of that efficiency (basically the energy is being transferred more in a line and then into the shot). Angular can create more energy, but because of the increased body rotation, that energy isn't transferred into the shot as efficiently (more of it is lost). The problem with the closed or neutral stance is that recovery takes a fraction longer, which is why at the fast-paced pro level, players are more likely to use it when they are in control of the point or not too far wide, and can afford that extra time.

This is a good post and evidence that the foundation of the teaching of forehand fundamentals should ALWAYS be the teaching of the slightly closed stance. Of course this is the way that power is most efficiently generated. Not only that but it is the best position to be in for control...to teach about being in control, under control. Balanced. After all control is power and control is made up of the elements of speed, spin and placement. This is the foundation of the fundamentals.

The modern game is too fast to always play from neutral or closed stance? Its true and so was the classic game. Players were always reverting to open stances when the situation called for it. Closed stances are good for short balls or attacking balls. This was a good percentage of the time followed up with a net attack...players were moving forwards and weren't always recovering to reverse field to only take off in the opposite direction. If you teach a student to play from the closed stance initially they will "evolve" and play from other stances as well. This is nothing new or modern.

Baseball batters always bat from a closed or neutral stance...perhaps even slightly open. Golfers always play from a closed stance...lining up the feet in the direction of their shot. But golfer subtly adjust their feet too....depending on whether they are playing a "fade" or a "draw".

Nice post nickw...thoughtful and thought provoking. There are many conversations that might evolve from such a post...particularly if you know anything about other sports.

[johnyandell]

Peter would love to see some video.

[hockeyscout]

This is a good post and evidence that the foundation of the teaching of forehand fundamentals should ALWAYS be the teaching of the slightly closed stance. Of course this is the way that power is most efficiently generated. Not only that but it is the best position to be in for control...to teach about being in control, under control. Balanced. After all control is power and control is made up of the elements of speed, spin and placement. This is the foundation of the fundamentals.

The modern game is too fast to always play from neutral or closed stance? Its true and so was the classic game. Players were always reverting to open stances when the situation called for it. Closed stances are good for short balls or attacking balls. This was a good percentage of the time followed up with a net attack...players were moving forwards and weren't always recovering to reverse field to only take off in the opposite direction. If you teach a student to play from the closed stance initially they will "evolve" and play from other stances as well. This is nothing new or modern.

Baseball batters always bat from a closed or neutral stance...perhaps even slightly open. Golfers always play from a closed stance...lining up the feet in the direction of their shot. But golfer subtly adjust their feet too....depending on whether they are playing a "fade" or a "draw".

Nice post nickw...thoughtful and thought provoking. There are many conversations that might evolve from such a post...particularly if you know anything about other sports.

Yes, this new poster nickw has very interesting thoughts.

[Guest]

Thanks for the positive feedback don_budge and hockeyscout. Not that new on here hockeyscout, just that time constraints mean I'm not as regular as I would like to be.

Very valid and interesting point about comparing to other sports don_budge, there is always lots to learn from doing that.

[nickw]

Thanks for the positive feedback don_budge and hockeyscout. Not that new on here hockeyscout, just that time constraints mean I'm not as regular as I would like to be.

Very valid and interesting point about comparing to other sports don_budge, there is always lots to learn from doing that.

That was me by the way! Was logged out before posting.

[stotty]

The modern game is too fast to always play from neutral or closed stance? Its true and so was the classic game. Players were always reverting to open stances when the situation called for it.
cool:

Very true. This is most evident on return of serve. You can hark back to many classic matches and find open stance returning quite routinely going on. Open stance backhands under duress in rallies are also not uncommon.

Yes nickw's post was a good one. My fellow countryman never ceases to impress me with his knowledge of the game.

Stotty