A New Teaching System: Forehand: Body Rotation

[nickw]

You're too kind Stotty! Great to be part of a very knowledgable community here on tennisplayer.

[klacr]

Great thread going on here. I knew nickw would be a great poster after his 1-2 rhythm articles that he wrote for this site. Glad he has time to post. I love that there are so many good minds and the thrill of sharing our knowledge makes us better and hopefully benefits our best asset, our students.
So the question is...How do you communicate this technical jargon to your player? What visual and or kinesthetic cues do you tell them? All coaches have their ideas and key words to their students, which ones are the most effective? Its great if a coach knows a lot of stuff like many of us on this forum, but its even better when she/he can communicate that to a student.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

So the question is...How do you communicate this technical jargon to your player? What visual and or kinesthetic cues do you tell them? All coaches have their ideas and key words to their students, which ones are the most effective?
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Absolutely correct. It's one thing knowing; that's actually the easy part once you're read up, but it's quite another thing teaching and getting students to do stuff.

Stotty

[don_budge]

Shoulder Rotation...The Living Proof

Here is your teaching model for the modern forehand. Starting from a slightly closed stance...shoulder rotation. The planting of the back foot is paramount. This enables one to accurately plant the front foot which initiates the process of transferring the weight into the shot. Notice how by shifting the weight to the front foot the hips begin to rotate...followed very shortly by the shoulders. Once the shoulders have "cleared" and are out of the way the arm and subsequently the racquet come swinging on through rather effortlessly. The closed stance limits the amount of shoulder rotation and rightly so. More open stances allow for more rotation...which can be used to great advantage in a number of different ways. One important aspect is when the player is slightly off balance or too late with the front foot...the open stances evolve quite naturally.

Playing from the closed or neutral stance allows the player the option of moving forwards which in classic tennis was the name of the game. Modern tennis is played from side to side...hitting shots and then recovering to move from side to side.

https://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/roger_federer_09/rf_forehand/rf_fh_center/rf_fh_center.html?RFFHCenterNeutralStanceFront.mov

Even late in his career this player was evolving (adapting) although too slowly. He had the tools to have enjoyed a lot more success in his later years but he was too slow in adapting to the equipment. Giving away 12% racquet face against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray cost him a number of Slams. I was advocating a switch for a long time. I wonder why he didn't. Perhaps he had "The Borg Syndrome"...a distant cousin of "The Stockholm Syndrome" where the captive feels empathy for their captors.

[seano]

Planting the rear foot behind the ball is paramount, I agree. Then whether you step in with the left foot is purely situational. If the oncoming ball is in front of you and low, then yes you would step in with the left foot (approaching the net or not). Otherwise you would not have a neutral or slightly closed stance. There are so many different stance/footwork patterns involved in setting up to hit the ball, then recovery steps after hitting the ball that every thing is dependent on many factors. Step out with the rear foot, yes, then you may or may not step in with the left foot. I think the teaching model is the ability to adapt to the situation.
For better or worse, the pro game is a power game. When it comes to hitting a tennis ball, angular momentum provides far more M.P.H. & R.P.M. than linear momentum. I find it extremely unlikely that players hitting a linear swing will reach the 90+, even 100+ m.p.h. forehands that we see today in the pro game. Even in a rotational forehand, there are linear aspects to the swing, particularly in the legs.

[don_budge]

Written August 5, 2012...The Shape of Things to Come...the Fedefore

The Shape of Things to come...the Fedefore.

When you talk about determining the shape of something as ethereal as a forehand swing you had better pay attention to the base from which it is swung. The swing starts down below as the shamanic Ben Hogan suggests and it works it way up the body.

The consideration with respect to modern tennis is this...if you design and build your swing on open or even semi open stance you are limiting yourself to one option. Heavy topspin. Having the ability to apply heavy topspin is obviously an asset...but the ability to flatten the stroke out enhances ones chances of hitting for depth and penetration. In order to hit this kind of ball you will need to be able to perform your swing on a platform of a closed or neutral stance. Which comes first the chicken or the egg? In this case it must be the closed and neutral stances with an eastern grip because as you are finding out...once you go western you can never go back.

This being the case there is only one player in the game today from which to emulate. His name of course is Roger Federer...The Once and Future King. When he leaves the game the void is going to be so immense that you will hear a giant sucking sound as the air makes leaving a giant balloon. The vacuum that his absence will create in the professional game will be as profound as the difference between a world with cell phones...and one that was without.

Once again...it is the "Forehand Not Gone" video. A beautiful work of art that I never tire of seeing or listening to. Even the words of the song ring in my ears to haunt me as a message to all of those beautiful women that I loved...and lost. A wistful tear can form in my eye when I think of them. But oh well...I am, or rather was a tennis player. Past tense...like them. Of all people I should realize that love means nothing. It is the irony of life in the end...at the end of the night. Good old Ferdinand.

Where was I...oh yes. Roger Federer hitting from less than perfect position. Because the base of his swing is built on the foundation of a closed or neutral stance he is compelled to swing his forehand with his feet, body and racquet lined up when he begins his move forward to the ball. Hitting from a less than perfect position...is an art. I am sure that you will agree with me when you look at this video. This is a beautiful enigmatic piece of work courtesy of John Yandell. Who is the artist of the song...btw John?

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...one/index.html

In the music video "Forehand Not Gone", Roger Federer is hitting four forehands from less than perfect position. Notice though that he dutifully attempts to create perfect position at the moment of impact.

fh 1...backing up, left foot plants first and as he swings into the ball the right foot is backing up in line with the front

fh 2...moving to his right, right foot plants first and left comes swinging into line as he swings into the ball

fh 3...backing up, left foot plants first and right foot slides backwards into position as he swings into the ball

fh 4...backing up, left foot plants first and the right foot slides backwards into position as he swings into the ball

In the video Roger is swinging at four forehands and in three of them he is running around his backhand to his left. Since his momentum is carrying him to his left he plants his left foot first to assure himself that he has ample room to make his swing yet at the same time his right foot is backing up to bring himself into alignment with the ball. You see also that he must make a last moment adjustment by taking to the air to create just a bit more room to make his swing. Yet his head and body are perfectly still at the moment of impact.

In the single ball that he is moving to his right, at the last moment he plants his right foot a bit forward towards the net from his left foot as he tries to take the ball a bit earlier and at the same time his left foot is moving towards the ball so that at the moment of impact he is in as close to proper alignment with the ball as humanly possible.

The music video is simply a perfect example of how the forehand should be played when perfect position on the ball is not possible. Normally when I am watching Federer in a match, I like to watch just him without taking my eyes off him to watch the ball or his opponent. Coincidentally, I heard Rod Laver suggest the same thing. For instance, in the music video one can really appreciate the grace and perfect balance that Federer has when he is in the moment of truth...and that is when he has his body aligned to make his move on the ball from “get in position”. Even when he is actually in the air, off the ground, he is somehow able to achieve nearly perfect stability as he is swinging and this is evidenced with the still positioning of his head. He has the ability to achieve the Hoganesque lower body movement to the ball to initialize his swing...even with less than perfect position.

Another absolutely stunningly, brilliant music video...John. Catchy tune, too. The music coupled with the maestro's footwork and low center of gravity create...poetry in motion. Be still my beating heart!

I agree.

The least of all my concerns is reaching an agreement with you or anybody else for that matter. Just state your case...interestingly enough. I am a tennis teacher. My students start as beginners at either eight or nine years old or they are full grown adults. I teach fundamental tennis. I have a stated teaching paradigm. Perhaps you are familiar with it...perhaps not. Anyways...it goes like this:

The book is William Tilden. The model is Richard Gonzales with the Don Budge backhand. The coach is Harry Hopman. The Living Proof is Roger Federer.

What is your teaching paradigm? I'm curious.

I don't teach 90+ or even 100+ mph forehands. I don't teach rpm's. I don't even teach the pro game. I teach solid fundamentals. I am very familiar with the professional game though.

My original post in August of 2012 was with regards to footwork but it also serves as a beautiful example of the rotation of the shoulders from unbalanced swings.

It's an incredible video courtesy of John Yandell and I never get tired of looking at it...or learning from it. It is also one of my favorite posts...of mine.

[seano]

Don, your passion for and knowledge of the game is undeniable and I'm certainly not looking to get in an argument. I have learned many things from your writings. I do in fact use the same teaching paradigm that you do, for my students. Maybe, I'm not describing it properly but what I'm trying to say is how the game changes when it goes from a "static" game to a "dynamic" game, played on the move. I certainly don't teach 90+, 100+ forehands.

What I love about teaching (37 years) besides the relationships, is that I'm learning something new all the time. It never ceases to amaze me how complex and interesting the game is. That's is the exact reason I'm a member of Tennisplayer, the wealth of knowledge on this site is second to none. My teaching style and knowledge of the game is constantly evolving and I love that I'm getting better all the time. A perfect example of why I teach, is this 10 year old girl that I'm currently working with. She's the sweetest little girl and started off hitting with her arms flailing all over the place. I've been able to get her to the point where she is using Brian Gordon's type 3 backhand and it's the coolest thing to see. It had been mainly hand feeding but at this point she is starting to rally and it's becoming a repeatable swing, so cool.

[don_budge]

The Provocation...and the Response. Thank you seano.

Don, your passion for and knowledge of the game is undeniable and I'm certainly not looking to get in an argument. I have learned many things from your writings. I do in fact use the same teaching paradigm that you do, for my students. Maybe, I'm not describing it properly but what I'm trying to say is how the game changes when it goes from a "static" game to a "dynamic" game, played on the move. I certainly don't teach 90+, 100+ forehands.

What I love about teaching (37 years) besides the relationships, is that I'm learning something new all the time. It never ceases to amaze me how complex and interesting the game is. That's is the exact reason I'm a member of Tennisplayer, the wealth of knowledge on this site is second to none. My teaching style and knowledge of the game is constantly evolving and I love that I'm getting better all the time. A perfect example of why I teach, is this 10 year old girl that I'm currently working with. She's the sweetest little girl and started off hitting with her arms flailing all over the place. I've been able to get her to the point where she is using Brian Gordon's type 3 backhand and it's the coolest thing to see. It had been mainly hand feeding but at this point she is starting to rally and it's becoming a repeatable swing, so cool.

Thanks for the great post seano. You didn't take the bait...much to your credit. And I got to find out who you were. No argument...we both win.

The thing is that this is perhaps my ax to grind with the modern game and the teaching of tennis. In my paradigm...you always step to the ball whenever you can. This is the way that I teach it but that being said you make an important point when you state "when it goes from a "static" game to a "dynamic" game, played on the move".

The reason why this is my windmill that I flail at with my little tiny wooden racquet is multi layered. First of all...I am not so impressed with the modern game of tennis in the manner that it is being played and in the manner that it has been engineered. As a result the teaching and coaching has been hijacked. As I noted in my earlier post in all of sports the classic footwork is one of a closed or neutral stance.

Compounding my insistence on teaching the closed and neutral stances is the fact that my own forehand never was as reliable as it should have been and now I realize why. It was more or less to my inability to effectively transfer my weight and the reason for this is I never mastered the fundamental transition in the beginning and I struggled with an inconsistent forehand as a consequence. Furthermore...I have students who do not listen and insist on doing it their way, hitting from solely open stance, and it sort of weighs on my patience when I know that they are missing out on a fundamental lesson in the transfer of the weight to the ball.

I have one student in particular and he can hit it a zillion miles an hour. I swear that I don't think I have ever seen anyone hit the ball as hard as he can. Do you think he can keep more than three balls in a row in the court? The real question is...can he keep two in a row in. When we are playing points he will hit two or three in a row in and he thinks he has solved the puzzle but then he will miss the next five or six. What does this spell in a match like circumstance? Disaster.

We will never argue seano... and I very much appreciate your post to me. Thirty seven years is a long time...that dates you back to 1979 which was a great year for classic tennis. The best of the best. You've witnessed the whole transition to what we have today. I rest my case.

But tell me seano...what do you see in the music video..."Forehand Not Gone". Isn't it interesting how Federer manages to align himself with the ball in the manner that I am suggesting to be the sole teaching model? I understand that the game begins to be dynamic as soon as you begin to keep score and then anything goes. But it looks to me as if Roger Federer is sticking to his guns...while sticking to fundamentals.

[10splayer]

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.

I've never really understood this linear vs angular argument. Maybe it's just a confusion with terms. Linear momentum is a movement of center of mass in a straight line and can be expressed in any direction. As such, it it has very little direct influence on racquet head speed. As you mentioned, angular momentum is the big player in RHS, but I would argue it is not a zero sum game. (either/or.) Linear momentum is a catalyst in the production of angular momentum. It increases angular output. The act of stepping in, or back, or bending and pushing up (linear momentum) helps produce rotational momentum. In other words, any linear movement MUST be followed by a angular/rotational move to produce speed. All the "old time players", used angular momentum in a significant way, they just stepped, before they rotated.

[johnyandell]

I think we need a better explanation of both terms and the interrelationship, by someone who really understands both the physics of it and tennis. But this distinction I think verges into the tyranny of terminology. If the positions and shapes are good in the swing the result will be good without the need for understanding how much of what kind of momentum was generated when and by what.

[10splayer]

I think we need a better explanation of both terms and the interrelationship, by someone who really understands both the physics of it and tennis. But this distinction I think verges into the tyranny of terminology. If the positions and shapes are good in the swing the result will be good without the need for understanding how much of what kind of momentum was generated when and by what.

"Tyranny of terminology", I like it. Yeah it would be great for someone to weigh in.

[Guest]

Heralded Great Britian coach Louis Cayer has some interesting ideas about rhythm and momentum. He relates rhythm to racquet speed and momentum to body rotation. He says you want to feel like the stroke starts at impact. Want to feel like the stroke starts at impact with increased body rotation and racket speed. Two of his components to overcome choking. The other two are breathing out at impact and keeping the arm extremely loose. Worth a look-see.

[10splayer]

Heralded Great Britian coach Louis Cayer has some interesting ideas about rhythm and momentum. He relates rhythm to racquet speed and momentum to body rotation. He says you want to feel like the stroke starts at impact. Want to feel like the stroke starts at impact with increased body rotation and racket speed. Two of his components to overcome choking. The other two are breathing out at impact and keeping the arm extremely loose. Worth a look-see.

Interesting, because I would suggest body rotation slows as the the forward swing progresses to combat over rotation, and to properly transfer kinetic energy.

[stotty]

Interesting, because I would suggest body rotation slows as the the forward swing progresses to combat over rotation, and to properly transfer kinetic energy.

One of Louis's main teaching points is that the racket should approach the ball with care then speed up at impact. The shot starts at impact is what he repeatedly teaches. Whether a shot is going to be slow or fast is governed at impact. He states body rotation should also speed up at impact. I have to say that this is what Louis says but he never fully states what he means by "the shot starts at impact". I don't think he has ever made himself very clear about the matter.

I am not exactly sure, but I would have thought the racket head has reached top speed by impact and then drops off shortly after....dissipates.

Loius is a confident character who seems to enjoy delivering coach education seminars. He's a bit like Macci in this regard, though different in style.

Stotty

[johnyandell]

Louis has had great success in Canada and now in the UK. This one falls into the category of a coaching cue rather than a literal description. Racket head speed of course is at a maximum before impact--if for no other reason than the loss of speed through impact.