The Position of the Elbow on takeback

[paul pearce]

I thought the series of articles on building the modern forehand were fascinating though would be interested to hear your thoughts as to the position of the elbow relative to the shoulder on takeback. The footage of a 9 year old Sampras shows the elbow position to be low relative to the shoulder. At his peak the takeback puts the elbow at shoulder height. The same is similar for say Agassi. The benefit I believe is leverage. When combined with an eastern or semi western grip the leverage enables players to power through the ball generating a flatter shot which skids of the court. The leverage is less important with a more extreme grip for the ball is more likely to bounce up and be easier to return.



Combine the incremental leverage generated by a high elbow with the footwork of say Federer where he effectively leaps into the ball as well and you are close to finding the holy grail.



I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this issue. Also is Mr Welby Horn going to be elaborating on his ideas for training. I would love to hear his thoughts on balance and footwork and how they should be trained from the outset

[johnyandell]

Paul,

Good to hear from you. Not sure I have an opinion about the elbow. There has been some discussion here about it and some strong claims. I actually went back and looked at the backswings of a few players again. Some have high elbows relative to the hands, some it's even, and some, the hands are higher--like Federer. His forehand is pretty good. Again if this was really the key you'd see all the players do it. You see them do other more important things virtually identically.

I think if there is any advantage at all--and I'm not sure there is at all--it would be at most incremental. I think the greatest fool's paradise in the quest for the forehand is obsessing about the backswing when the other elements that are much more important are ignored. Big loop = racket head speed. That is so common but completely overlooks the unit turn, the full turn, the hitting arm position, and the extension. Your loop could reach to the moon and if you didn't have those elements your forehand would still be terrible.
Welby Part 2 is coming up in June!!

[paul pearce]

Position of the elbow on takeback

John

I note your comments though feel that you may have missed the point in that the position of the elbow on takeback is like everything else to do with the swing - completely determined by the grip. You make reference to Federer whom, I believe has a western grip. To bring the elbow up to the height of the shoulder with a western grip creates a convoluted and extreme swing plain such as that adopted by Roddick.

The high elbow, I believe , when adopted by players such as Sampras and Agassi with Eastern and Semi Western grips will provide more leverage. When combined with the elbow being tuckked into the body during the swing
it also delivers control.

Fedrerer by contrast endeavours to create his leverage by the elbow being distant from the hip during the swing.

The difference in the two strokes is dramatic. One is more akin to swinging a baseball bat the other more like a tightly contolled punch delivered by a boxer. The Federer stroke in energy terms would also seem to require a lot more energy which over he course of 3 plus hours must be demanding.

It seems to me that Agassi's ability to play into his mid thirties at the highest conceivable level is partly due to the fact that he can deliver powerful energy efficient strokes which on the forehand side are possibly determined by the height of his elbow on takeback.

I would welcome your thoughts to this suggestion.

[johnyandell]

Paul,

I have to disagree about the relationship between the grip and the backswing. Federer is an interesting case. In the article set for May I'll go into his forehand in detail, but probably the biggest misconception about his forehand is that he has an extreme grip. He doesn't. Look closely in the Stroke Archives. He's between Pete and Agassi and probably closer to Pete. I'll be writing more on why I think this confusion is so wide spread even among teaching pros and knowledgable observers.

I don't want to seem closed minded, because I learn something everyday--see Lukman's post about Federer's serving stance for example. But I think that there is a fascination that borders on obsession with the differences in the backswings that is generally misguided. I learned something about this from Nick Saviano. It's not the things that players do that are different that matter (flair) it's the things they do that are the same (fundamentals).

Observers are all looking for the magic insight that explains a stroke and the ONE THING that would make them hit the ball like Agassi. They hit on the backswing because that is the ONE THING that is most unique. Don't get me wrong I think that's fine and it's fun and creative and should be an individual choice, but I certainly wouldn't want to confuse it with what makes a good forehand. If you look closely at Roddick for example, you'll see that the inverted racket backswing is actually quite compact. It also keeps his racket well on his right side. I think it's very sound actually.

Again we will (I hope) eventually be able to measure all this quantitatively in the pros, but the real acceleration is in the last few frames before contact. The elbow position at the top of the backswing doesn't directly effect that because the arm position is totally different when that acceleration starts. Whether there may be some incremental additional contribution to racket head speed from one shape or the other remains to be completely determined--or determined if it can be determined... But again you can compare Sampras, Agassi and Federer and see 3 GREAT forehands where the major difference is the backswing and everything else is in common. By the way I also disagree about the efficiency in Federer's motion--more on that in the article as well.

AND I'll conclude by saying Agassi's backswing is a great one to copy--very simple and relaxed--you couldn't go wrong there...

[JullietteRogers]

So are you saying the backswing just doesn't matter? i read in your book all about the straight backswing--but I don't see any pros using that...?

[courbie]

Elbow

So are you saying the backswing just doesn't matter? i read in your book all about the straight backswing--but I don't see any pros using that...?

The backswing is important, but I beleive what John is saying is that it's second to other aspects of the swing. When looking at most pros, when not rushed, you will see an elbow that is near shoulder height when the shoulders are rotated during the takeback. I believe the main reason behind this "new" takeback is the increase of spin in the game. The ball comes much higher off the bounce than what it once did. More topspin pushes the ball higher off of the ground. A higher elbow on the take back allows a player to handle balls which are chest height and over. If the players racket goes straight down, the tendency is to swing up to much on a ball that is high, which leads to inconsistencies in the hit. I try to follow the 'kiss' principle, keep it simple, then once the students are firm in the fundamentals, let them add their own flair to the swing.
The difference in most players take back is stylistic, but the commonalities, include elbow close to shoulder height and good body rotation, using the left arm to assist the unit turn of the body, movement and balance. The strokes the pros use are so ingrained that even when pushed out of position or rushed they will ofter go through the entire motion of a swing, even when a shortened motion would be more effective.

Hope this helps,

James