The Women's Modern Forehand

[cyberhound]

Cyberhound-

Congratulations, it looks like that thin skin just thickened. Your final comment implies the previous discussion was mostly a disagreement about terminology – wrong, it was a discussion about fact versus fiction. It is clear that you are unwilling to consider the complex and important process details that determine the stroke production you see on video. Instead, you dismiss them as mumbo jumbo and a waste of bandwidth. Fair enough, but it certainly makes further discussion a waste of time. I suspect our differing perspectives on detail reflect diversity in goals – mine is to understand every aspect of stroke mechanics – yours seems to be to hit a better forehand. I guess the readership will have to separate the wheat from the chaff in this discussion.

I am more than willing to consider the complex and important process details that determine stroke production. I'm about as open minded as they come. However, you seem to be constantly attacking and attributing things to me that I didn't say and don't beleive. Your statement above "It is clear that you are unwilling to consider the complex and important process details that determine the stroke production you see on video." is a case in point. And my goal is not to hit a better forehand. I'm happy with the technique I'm using, I could always execute better though. I am not the one that made this discussion about my technique. The thing about Tennis for the future was to illustrate how thinking has changed. The other factor is that the only tools, I have to work with are what can be seen in videos and how things feel when I try them. I don't have any fast fiber twitch meters to embed.

I am a design engineer by training so details and how things work very important to me. I'm more than willing to get into a discussion of linkage kinematics and dynamics complete with equations. However, in this discussion, I was using a term the term spring driven as opposed to weight driven for a type of clock and you leaped into discussion about building one and questioned whether I knew how to hob a gear. ( this is a metaphor of course). Anyway I agree that we are talking past each other and not communicating. All your details about eccentric contraction are fine in the appropriate context but just a distraction from the post in question.

The post in question's point was in swing type A the left arm is used for balance and moves moves forward and to the right start the swing which implies torque. In swing type B it is also used as a counter balance and the left hand pulls back toward the body as if one had grabbed a post and was pulling the body forward to start the swing which implies linear force. It could of course be argued that the arm motions are a reaction to a motion started elsewhere and I would certainly consider that point. F=ma and for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction, bodies at rest tend stay at rest. you know the drill.

I guess a must be a truly awful communicator to have started such a discussion about everything except the point I meant to make.

[BrianGordon]

Cyberhound-

Fair enough - sounds like we could have some interesting and really boring (to most) discussions - and attack was not my intention - so peace. By the way, I could arrange a fast twitch fiber typing (lidocaine optional) and EMG if you are ever in the midwest - kidding - carry on.

[cyberhound]

Sounds good to me Brian. If you are close enough to Cleveland, I'd go for the raw nerve lidocaine free version.

[CraigC]

I'm going to chime in because I come from a practical rather than an analytical stance. Developing players, I focus on getting the arm to drive through the ball as far as possible. Over the last ten years, due to racquet technology, I have added a bit lower finish and allowed my players to accelerate their forearms over the ball at the point of full extension. I ask for full extension, knowing that they'll not achieve it on every ball, due to pressure, power, or depth from the opponent. However, IMO, it is a great way to develop the fundamental stroke. Further, I like the concept of linear motion but seeing its result is very odd. I ask my "right handed" players to drive the ball and focus on getting their right hip into the line of the shot. They use the image of a discus thrower and drive legs, hip and right shoulder up and out towards the target. By doing this to complete extension and coming all the way through the ball, they end up facing the side fence, doing almost a complete 180 degree turn from their starting point. Thus, I'd say it looks like rotational motion. So here is my theory on this, and I have ZERO biomechanical background but a pretty good record of developing big forehands. The power is driven forward and allowed to rotate through the shot and around to a natural finish. The STROKE is through the ball towards the target, but the forearm pronation adds topspin and forces the arm to come across the body after the drive through the shot. THE BODY SPINS THE ARM INTO GOING STRAIGHT!!
I'm sure that sounds quite simplistic but, really, it's not all that tough to rip the crap out of a ball and make it go in. There are many guys ranked 1000 doing exactly that. I'd argue that it's mental, stategic, speed, and athleticism that play a larger role in victory.

CC

[mordredsjt]

THE BODY SPINS THE ARM INTO GOING STRAIGHT!!

That does sound simplistic...but it's also exactly how I have always thought about hitting groundstrokes...turn angular momentum into linear momentum and sling your arm/racket through the ball towards the target. The only reason your arm doesn't keep going in that direction for very long is that it happens to want to stay attached to you.

[BrianGordon]

I'm sure that sounds quite simplistic but, really, it's not all that tough to rip the crap out of a ball and make it go in. There are many guys ranked 1000 doing exactly that. I'd argue that it's mental, stategic, speed, and athleticism that play a larger role in victory.

CC

Craig-

Simplicity is the art of the science. It is a true gift of very few to be able to translate complicated technical (analytical or practical) knowledge of the coach into actionable instruction that produces the desired result in the protege - sounds like you must have the gift. And I agree the intangibles are critical - in fact, I see failure to produce mentally stable ATHLETES, rather than stroking robots, as one of the great short comings of recent trends in tennis player development.

[bottle]

Ball&Mace: Can Women and Old Males Do it?

About left arm: Who could be simpler than Roger Federer? Compare him with Tommy Haas? Both point at right fence with a straightened left arm; but, Haas then keeps the arm stiff longer as it starts on its trailblazing path around the body. Federer by contrast bends the arm right after he straightened it. This makes for an easy, natural catch of the racket (if one wants to try that).

About right arm: I read Brian Gordon's posts with real interest. I especially
enjoyed the distinction he makes between trying to "understand every aspect of stroke mechanics" vs. exploring one's own forehand. I'm in the latter group but become resistant when I feel that one of the more topical authorities is consciously trying to censor, quell or diminish my personal experience, which always starts from dropping balls and proceeds in deliberate steps to match play and finally to tournaments.

Developing imaginative, anti-robotic players, encouraging women and old men to speak out, not quelling anybody-- these are facets of the same badly needed enlightened attitude.

If professional educators don't encourage individual sensibility, though, why should we think that tennis teachers would do any better?

About CraigC's description of the sockdolager forehand he has successfully taught (#34): With so much body already revolving through the ball couldn't one sacrifice some linear arm travel in order to hammer-shear the ball for more spin?

If one starts with racket butt almost up against oncoming ball...and if one keeps the wrist back but accelerates the hand sideways always using big arm muscles (pec and biceps), the racket tip comes the 90 degrees forward to the ball fast and powerfully, with full leverage demonstrated before shearing up and across the ball.

I see "roll" whether from forearm or shoulder as the enemy of natural sideways uninhibitedness. It's also like trying to manipulate a hammer stroke, whether that stroke is overhead, horizontal, or an uppercut. When hammering, don't manipulate.

I like thinking about CraigC's "pure speed" forehand but wonder if maybe it isn't too fast. Still, I'd use it for a putaway except for one reason. Hitting it would be one less chance to hammer out the higher percentage, pulled arm action, spinnier and better leveraged shot.

Whoa, don't get mad. At the root of the peevishness that characterizes hyperspaceoid discussion of all tennis stroke mechanics is this fact: People seldom understand what the other person said.

The challenge of Babel is impossible, but still a few people try. Think of the Danny Kaye movie in which a ball&mace gets stuck in Danny's shield. Your racket head is the spiky ball.

So-- can women learn to operate a ball&mace? I wouldn't doubt it. Could a senior male, after losing 15 per cent of his strength through natural aging, wield a ball&mace? Yes.

Could a young buck in the prime of life do it? Not if he was too dumb to throw his hand sideways.

Remember: The pellet with the poison's/In the vessel with the pestle;/The chalice with the palace/Has the brew that is true.

No, the chalice with the palace got broken. The flagon with the dragon/Has the pellet with the poison;/The vessel with the pestle/Has the brew that is true.

[lukman41985]

Could a young buck in the prime of life do it? Not if he was too dumb to throw his hand sideways.

Remember: The pellet with the poison's/In the vessel with the pestle;/The chalice with the palace/Has the brew that is true.

No, the chalice with the palace got broken. The flagon with the dragon/Has the pellet with the poison;/The vessel with the pestle/Has the brew that is true.

Besides the bolded and the subsequent, you almost made a post that would have confirmed your purportedly honest declarations of wanting free and respectful discussions of stroke mechanics. FAILURE. AGAIN.

[CraigC]

Bottoms up!

Based on that last post, I'm just going to assume "bottle" refers to more than a screen name.

CC

[bottle]

Throw that Front Right Cloven Hoof Sideways

1. I don't teach in a university. I can say what I want. I know, you shouldn't deliver sleights if you want to convince the polarized of anything.

What about the SUBSTANCE of the statement, though? Young bucks in the woods get shot every day. In part, at least, it's because of their bad decisions. And what about advocacy journalism?

This country has grievously suffered from a weakness of same. So could it be that middling tennis suffers from weakness of advocacy instruction?

2. ad hominem (glug)

[vmiller]

Hi Brian,

Referring to the non racket arm during a swing, you said the following:

It is that simple, true for all one handed strokes, gender independent, and is an auto-response(2&3) given the global goal of increasing or slowing rotation (i.e. it does not have to coached but probably should be).

Any suggestions on how to coach it? My wife keeps her left arm basically glued down to her side during her forehand and is probably getting sick of me pointing it out. I've explained and demonstrated many times what the non racket arm is supposed to do. She understands it but can't seem to apply it with a racket in her hand. I've even had her do dance spins to teach her the feel of using your arm to help generate rotation. No luck.