Double-bend questions

[ochi]

Jeff Counts:

Your "Double Bend" in the May issue puts together all of the components that I've been reading about for a while in a sequential, very clear way.

What about those many of us who have it ingrained to use a closed stance? How can/should we adapt to your instructions? That is, is open stance necessary? The open stance has resulted in debilitating hip injuries -- most notably for Kuerten and Johannsson.

You say that this technique will reduce the likelihood of injuries (I assume you meant to the arm and rotator cuff), but why is that? Wristy forehands have resulted in injuries as long as I can remember. Tony Roche had a lot of trouble with it, I've read. Perhaps that was because of using a rolling motion, whereas pointing the butt forward entails a hinged action that is not injurious?

Thank you.

[jeffreycounts]

Jeff Counts:

Your "Double Bend" in the May issue puts together all of the components that I've been reading about for a while in a sequential, very clear way.

What about those many of us who have it ingrained to use a closed stance? How can/should we adapt to your instructions? That is, is open stance necessary? The open stance has resulted in debilitating hip injuries -- most notably for Kuerten and Johannsson.

You say that this technique will reduce the likelihood of injuries (I assume you meant to the arm and rotator cuff), but why is that? Wristy forehands have resulted in injuries as long as I can remember. Tony Roche had a lot of trouble with it, I've read. Perhaps that was because of using a rolling motion, whereas pointing the butt forward entails a hinged action that is not injurious?

Thank you.

Ochi,

Good questions. Many pros hit the double bend forehand in a neutral stance (where the front foot is parallel with the back foot). This is actually very common. It doesn't prevent you from coiling and uncoiling your torso into the ball.

As for injuries, Johannson suffered a shoulder injury and a hamstring injury. I don't think he had hip problems.

I think the double bend forehand reduces injuries because it keeps the elbow at a fixed angle into and through contact. The majority of club level players I see "snap" at the elbow coming into contact, which can lead to tennis elbow and definitely leads to ineffecient stroking. Also the wrist stays back through contact in pro forehands. Sometimes the wrist joint will hinge outwards coming into contact, but through contact, the wrist stays back as the double bend lifts up and drives through the ball.

The double bend forehand, driven by rotation from your torso, is (at least in my opinion) very biomechanically sound. It uses your larger muscle groups to
power the stroke and keeps your elbow and wrist joints stable. I believe that lower level players reverse this formula. They don't involve their core muscles (trunk rotation and legs) and instead rely on the moving and snapping of joints (elbow and wrist). That is why you see so many club level players all bandaged up. Their joints take a beating on every ball.

Jeff

[harpoon]

Jeff Counts:

Your "Double Bend" in the May issue puts together all of the components that I've been reading about for a while in a sequential, very clear way.

What about those many of us who have it ingrained to use a closed stance? How can/should we adapt to your instructions? That is, is open stance necessary? The open stance has resulted in debilitating hip injuries -- most notably for Kuerten and Johannsson.

You say that this technique will reduce the likelihood of injuries (I assume you meant to the arm and rotator cuff), but why is that? Wristy forehands have resulted in injuries as long as I can remember. Tony Roche had a lot of trouble with it, I've read. Perhaps that was because of using a rolling motion, whereas pointing the butt forward entails a hinged action that is not injurious?

Thank you.

Just the question I had asked in the previous thread... no reply....

[harpoon]

Ochi,

Good questions. Many pros hit the double bend forehand in a neutral stance (where the front foot is parallel with the back foot). This is actually very common. It doesn't prevent you from coiling and uncoiling your torso into the ball.

As for injuries, Johannson suffered a shoulder injury and a hamstring injury. I don't think he had hip problems.

I think the double bend forehand reduces injuries because it keeps the elbow at a fixed angle into and through contact. The majority of club level players I see "snap" at the elbow coming into contact, which can lead to tennis elbow and definitely leads to ineffecient stroking. Also the wrist stays back through contact in pro forehands. Sometimes the wrist joint will hinge outwards coming into contact, but through contact, the wrist stays back as the double bend lifts up and drives through the ball.

The double bend forehand, driven by rotation from your torso, is (at least in my opinion) very biomechanically sound. It uses your larger muscle groups to
power the stroke and keeps your elbow and wrist joints stable. I believe that lower level players reverse this formula. They don't involve their core muscles (trunk rotation and legs) and instead rely on the moving and snapping of joints (elbow and wrist). That is why you see so many club level players all bandaged up. Their joints take a beating on every ball.

Jeff

Hhhmm... but when you are in closed stance you obviously don't get that torso rotation to the same extent. So how to adapt ?

[jeffreycounts]

Hhhmm... but when you are in closed stance you obviously don't get that torso rotation to the same extent. So how to adapt ?

I think the answer is the "neutral stance". Stay away from the closed stance and go neutral. You can read about this from Nick's awesome article on the site here (taken from his Killer Forehand video).

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/famouscoach/nick_bollet/nick_bollet_killer_forehand_part2_images/nick_bollet_killer_forehand_part2.html

I have a feeling many people don't realize that Nicks' best stuff from his videos have been put on Tennisplayer.net under "Famous Coaches". It's one of the many "cool surprises" I think that people may not know about on this site.

The closed stance works for the older style of forehand where the racket goes straight back and finishes "out to the target". Keeping your body closed is actually advantageous for this type of forehand.

Today, however, the torso rotation and the wiper finish make a closed stance impossible. If the players at your club are hitting their forehands with the "racket back finish out to the target" style (which is perfectly fine by the way for many people), then the closed stance would be fine.

[johnyandell]

The other thing to note is that players like Federer sometimes rotate off the netural stance and can get full torso rotation even when the step in.

[BrianGordon]

The other thing to note is that players like Federer sometimes rotate off the netural stance and can get full torso rotation even when the step in.

Good point (Jeff too) - given decent spinal flexibility, "torso" rotation can be full with all but the most extreme closed stance assuming torso means the upper trunk or shoulders - the practical difference relates the ability to also rotate the lower trunk or hips which becomes more limited as the stance changes from open to closed - as hip rotation becomes more limited, the shoulder rotation becomes more muscularly demanding - Brian

[johnyandell]

In most cases the pro players rotate the feet and come off the ground, so the stance doesn't restrict them at least in terms of contact between the feet and court. David Bailey has isolated about 4 versions of how this happens which will be developing in his articles.

[BrianGordon]

Good observation - of course being off the ground is the ultimate restriction to the maintenance or increase of hip rotation speed, thereby potentially intensifying the discrepancy between hip and shoulder rotation and again increasing the muscular effort required - rotating the feet provides minimal impact on the large range of angular motion seen in the torso and that action produces contradictory effects.

That is not to say that going airborne is the wrong thing to do but the timing of the event relative to contact is critical, as are the rotational properties at that time - and it certainly introduces an interesting (and complicated) dynamic to the goal of trunk rotation - a dynamic, perhaps, David will illuminate in his articles - I look forward to seeing his work - Brian

[bottle]

Wrist back, Arm not yet bent, Racket Tip whipping under

I hate to rain on anyone else's parade of blog entries. I too was taught the double-bend position on forehands by a USPTA pro.

I think, however, that double-bend is a retreat for some players nowadays from their efforts to start from a straight arm like Federer or Nadal and then bend it later.

If one counts the clicks in the highest speed film strips of both Federer's forehand and backhand-- then retreats strategically from the analysis and simply watches the same sequence, letting it flow naturally from beginning to end, one may (possibly!) be in for a surprise.

The ground strokes of Roger Federer are quite slow both when he approaches the ball and when he departs from it.

These ground strokes are "swishy", something like a slap shot in hockey. All the racket head speed, succinct, is around contact.

[jeffreycounts]

I hate to rain on anyone else's parade of blog entries. I too was taught the double-bend position on forehands by a USPTA pro.

I think, however, that double-bend is a retreat for some players nowadays from their efforts to start from a straight arm like Federer or Nadal and then bend it later.

If one counts the clicks in the highest speed film strips of both Federer's forehand and backhand-- then retreats strategically from the analysis and simply watches the same sequence, letting it flow naturally from beginning to end, one may (possibly!) be in for a surprise.

The ground strokes of Roger Federer are quite slow both when he approaches the ball and when he departs from it.

I am not sure I follow your argument about the slowness in approach and departure, but not during? Is that even possible?

[johnyandell]

There is no doubt that a few players including Verdasco who we will be putting up next month hit with the arm straight. That's on virtually every ball. Nadal it's on most all balls. Federer it's about one third of his forehands.


One related point is that the straight arm forehands are also hit with extreme torso rotation. This may be one key to the evolution of this arm position.

Without the greater rotation it's difficult or impossible to make contact in front with the straight arm This is a potential pitfall for players at lower levels who might try to copy one pro element out of context.

[bottle]

Bending vs. Bent Arms

Mr. Counts, I'm sorry. You say you may not fully comprehend my "argument" and I find the new statement by you at #11 opaque.

Mr. Yandell, I'm glad you advanced different percentages of straight arm and bending arm forehands for Federer. This is helpful knowledge for all persons who have decided (wisely as it turns out) to hit a Federer-type forehand.
Implicitly, it offers encouragement and empowerment. Bending or straight will produce different angles, velocities and spin. These latter two methods are different but the one is not necessarily better than the other. Do both.
And roll a little from forearm and upper arm during the same micro-second. Be uninhibited. Thrive!

Both fellas: Huge body rotation is essential to this twenty-first century type of shot. It's dance-like, slow, graceful, powerful, liquid, and well-balanced. I can't impart aesthetic sense to anybody. You either see it or you don't. I'm just talking about the big body whirl. Roger feels with it, and he lands with it.
And he leaps with it, and he powers with it. The auto mechanic in me says this is first gear or maybe low low. The speed of it is fairly constant from take-off to landing. One could call it ballet or Tai Chi-- and I do.

Now I know that John-- and not in discussion with me either-- has argued against protracted analogy, saying that tennis technique is complicated enough by itself.

I'm not asking for point by point logical connection to another sport or discipline, however, but rather an overall look. I understand that when one slowly and powerfully whirls one's stick, one doesn't crash it into a slab of ice, which bends the blade backwards, whose elasticity releases immediately then on a hockey puck.

Something equivalent, though, does occur. The racket tip accelerates all around the ball-- at every part of the contact area-- a little before, a little afterward and during. This whole catharsis is succinct, maybe supersonic.

My "argument" is counter those methods that postulate a short acceleration phase followed by a hitting phase in which both ends of the racket move together at the same speed (during contact).

On my own forehand I occasionally have straight arm at contact but more often am BENDING the arm, using biceps for added pop. Flirting constantly with the difference can keep a person from spoiling alignment by bending the arm too soon. Of course Blake is one player who seems to do this, but he does it early enough that we could classify his forehand as "double-bend."

BENDING is not the same as BENT.

I used to hit with a bent arm. Peter Burwash's book and articles in Tennis Magazine back in the eighties convinced me. Now I'm equally sure that bending is better.

[bottle]

Paulette Goddard Demonstrates that the Reverse Forehand isn't for everyone

Hope this picture comes across.

[jeffreycounts]

Mr. Counts, I'm sorry. You say you may not fully comprehend my "argument" and I find the new statement by you at #11 opaque.

Mr. Yandell, I'm glad you advanced different percentages of straight arm and bending arm forehands for Federer. This is helpful knowledge for all persons who have decided (wisely as it turns out) to hit a Federer-type forehand.
Implicitly, it offers encouragement and empowerment. Bending or straight will produce different angles, velocities and spin. These latter two methods are different but the one is not necessarily better than the other. Do both.
And roll a little from forearm and upper arm during the same micro-second. Be uninhibited. Thrive!

Both fellas: Huge body rotation is essential to this twenty-first century type of shot. It's dance-like, slow, graceful, powerful, liquid, and well-balanced. I can't impart aesthetic sense to anybody. You either see it or you don't. I'm just talking about the big body whirl. Roger feels with it, and he lands with it.
And he leaps with it, and he powers with it. The auto mechanic in me says this is first gear or maybe low low. The speed of it is fairly constant from take-off to landing. One could call it ballet or Tai Chi-- and I do.

Now I know that John-- and not in discussion with me either-- has argued against protracted analogy, saying that tennis technique is complicated enough by itself.

I'm not asking for point by point logical connection to another sport or discipline, however, but rather an overall look. I understand that when one slowly and powerfully whirls one's stick, one doesn't crash it into a slab of ice, which bends the blade backwards, whose elasticity releases immediately then on a hockey puck.

Something equivalent, though, does occur. The racket tip accelerates all around the ball-- at every part of the contact area-- a little before, a little afterward and during. This whole catharsis is succinct, maybe supersonic.

My "argument" is counter those methods that postulate a short acceleration phase followed by a hitting phase in which both ends of the racket move together at the same speed (during contact).

On my own forehand I occasionally have straight arm at contact but more often am BENDING the arm, using biceps for added pop. Flirting constantly with the difference can keep a person from spoiling alignment by bending the arm too soon. Of course Blake is one player who seems to do this, but he does it early enough that we could classify his forehand as "double-bend."

BENDING is not the same as BENT.

I used to hit with a bent arm. Peter Burwash's book and articles in Tennis Magazine back in the eighties convinced me. Now I'm equally sure that bending is better.

Bottle,

Thanks for the clarification.

Jeff