A New Teaching System: Forehand: Body Rotation

[bottle]

Or just use the following phrase to carry out this philosophy of
shot: "speed without force to the ball and big muscle groups
from the ball." And of course the force would continue forward
a short way past contact for short power. And what people
call "windshield wiper" would be seen as deceleration coming
after that.

But do the small muscle groups give up during the force-fed
part of the shot? No, I don't think so. I see topspin coming
from simultaneous push on the two ends of the racket, not
from the cranking of a Model T Ford, which again, comes
afterward.

You can Google Louis Cayer Technical Training? It depends. And watch the video

[stotty]

Cayer's video is from a 2016 ITF conference, his speech was titled; Technical Training? "It Depends".

'

Yes "it depends". It's catch phrase of his. A bit like Macci's use of the word "situational". They both mean the same thing.

I have never heard Cayer explain why he says the shot "starts at impact". I get it's a cue, but a cue for what exactly? If I attend one of his courses, I'll ask.

I am not sure how long full racket head speed is maintained after impact. One imagines it continues for at least a little while after.

Stotty

[seano]

Sorry, it was a 2016 LTA conference

[seano]

Cayer's video is from a 2016 ITF conference, his speech was titled; Technical Training? "It Depends".






















'

[curiosity]

The quote of Cayer really is interesting. Clearly a "coaching cue," (it couldn't be meant literally), I'd love to know what exactly was on his mind when he said it. Sometimes I think 60% of a good tennis stroke lies in avoiding deceleration during the swing, most of the rest being dependent on timing. In a technical sense, it means keeping the second derivative, rate of increase of the velocity, positive or zero but never negative. Or, to use Sampras' phrase, we need to "start slow to finish fast." Is that what Cayer is getting at? If we use up too much of our UB rotation or shoulder external rotation too soon, we inevitably decelerate well before contact, usually a bad thing leading to wobble and worse.

So many of the elements of the forehand seem designed with this deceleration avoidance in mind: the laid back wrist and external shoulder rotation obviate any yielding of the wrist or shoulder muscles during the swing, i.e. there is only one way these can intentionally go thereafter, to a flexed wrist and an internally rotated shoulder. The initiation of the forward swing by upper body rotation, too, assures that (if the rotation is carried far enough) any forward swing at the shoulder will only increase the RH velocity, since it is laid atop the UB rotation velocity/momentum which first boosted the arm into motion, additively. (This last providing a good reason not to stop UB rotation too soon.)

To borrow a phrase, the forehand (like the serve) has a simplicity which is found on the far side of complexity.

[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.

[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

[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.

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.