Understanding Professional Forehands Part 1 and 2

[stroke]

Brian, that was a superb and super informative article on the 2 different type of back swings, positional and functional. I have always felt Roger's and Raphael's forehands are eerily similar, and I loved your take on it. I suppose now we will see a lot of new youtube presentations using your back swing lingo, positional and functional ha. Very informative also using Sock and Nick on the modern(somewhat) forehands. How would you define someone like Khachanov, who seems to me to have a positional backswing, pretty straight arm, and that downward tilt? I guess he is closest to modern?

[seano]

This month has over an hour of Brian's videos, incredible. Brian you have outdone yourself.

[stroke]

This month has over an hour of Brian's videos, incredible. Brian you have outdone yourself.

And there is so much there, it is definitely worthy of way more than one viewing.

[BrianGordon]

Thanks guys - I'd classify Khachanov as more classical. I don't see much muscling. The positions in his take back makes it look like he is setting up modern but it ends up just being an idiosyncrasy to me.

[morespin]

I really like Dr. Brian's explanations of the different types of forehands.

I have a question: why do the different types of forehands exist?

Did Federer's, Nadal's, and Verdaso's childhood coaches teach them to use a straight arm? Why aren't more young players using straight arms? Roger and Rafa have been at the top of the game for so long that coaches could have taught young players to swing like them and those kids would now be old enough to be on tour.

Even though the straight arm forehand is better biomechanically very few players use it. Certainly some high level players (or their coaches) have said, "let's try a straight arm forehand and see if I can hit the ball like Fed or Rafa."
Or, during practices a player just finds the straight arm forehand and begins to use it.
.
There must be a reason why so few players use it. You see way more forehands (of the various types) that aren't straight arm.

Why are we seeing more Sock and Kyrgios style?

I'm so baffled. My brain hurts

[BrianGordon]

Hi morespin - great question(s) and something I've dealt with for a very long time. I have no basis for an explanation other than speculation and experience - here is what I've determined in the school of hard knocks.

The straight arm is physically and/or technically much more difficult to hit - very few people can do it well and juniors struggle mightily lacking the strength but more importantly the coordination and discipline necessary.

Those that can, seem to have a natural affinity for it. With a new student I start with a 10 hand fed ball test and the simple instruction to keep their arm straight - most can't come close so I know it will be a painful multi year project (if ever) to get them straight - not worth it.

That said, I have created straight arms from players that failed the 10 ball test but it was a very long journey. So long that now I'll just search for the straightest arm they can implement comfortably and go from there - if that elbow angle is reasonably close to straight I'll work in that direction over time without obsession.

Most junior players I've run across with an existing straight arm don't even know they do it - seem confused when I ask where they learned it. I suspect the great pro straight arms started in much this same way - more naturally evolved rather than explicitly coached.

The trend toward the modern style is related to the "flashiness" of the stroke I believe. Kids see it on t.v. and in their training environments and try to emulate it. This is very unfortunate for an entire generation of players in my opinion.

Teaching this stroke I've felt the same confusion and pain you seem to have. I'm now comfortable accepting most can't do it and building the best non-straight solution possible. This while always looking for the rare talent making the straight arm feasible.

[stroke]

Brian one more quick question. Mannarino has a very unusual minamilist looking forehand. I read a story one time he completely reworked his forehand(as you know very unusual for a pro) because of pain he could not get rid of. It looks kind of like a type 3 with a bent arm, maybe within your 165 degree minimum.

[BrianGordon]

Stroke - I'd classify it as classical with a more positional backswing - minimalist indeed.

[stroke]

Stroke - I'd classify it as classical with a more positional backswing - minimalist indeed.

thanks Brian

[morespin]

Brian,

Thanks for your insight. It seems to me that the straight arm "just" appeared one day. No one tried to create it.

I don't even try to teach it. I'm like you. I want a pretty straight arm. Type II is the model I use.

I've had some luck lately asking my students to reach really far forward and hit the ball low and hard. That definitely creates a somewhat straight arm. That stroke only works in the appropriate situation though.

Reaching forward and swinging through the ball seems to almost cause a straight arm forehand.

Maybe the straight arm is an anomaly and the Type II is the "normal" one?

[seano]

Brian -

If I'm understanding this correctly, the forward swing is the primary determinate of a Type 3/ATP swing? A lot of analysis can be discussed about the different back-swings but at the end of the day, it's the forward swing that's the determining factor? Your ATP classical designation of both Khachanov & Mannarino, who have completely different looking swings, leads me to believe it's about the forward swing.

FORWARD SWING -
Type 3 - straight arm, fractionation of body segments w/ significant independent arm movement, most amount of racquet lag, more linear hand path, vertical racquet head speed caused by shoulder external/internal coupling w/ coupling caused by the "flip", contact point furthest in front.
ATP Classical - bent elbow, less fractionation w/ less independent arm movement, less racquet lag, less linear hand path, vertical racquet head speed has more forearm involvement, hand moving more vertically, altered shoulder external/internal coupling, contact point closer to body.
ATP Modern - very bent elbow, even less fractionation w/ more of a unit swing, Racquet head "flip" goes up, less linear hand path, muscled shoulder external/internal coupling, contact point closest to body, hand moving more vertically.

BACK SWING -
Type 3 - Positional, elbow driven, mass of racquet/hand further from shoulder, no hand speed needed.
ATP Classical - Functional, shoulder driven, mass of racquet/hand closer to shoulder, hand speed started w/ shoulder drop.
ATP Modern - Positional, elbow driven, mass of racquet/hand extreme distance from shoulder, muscled movement.

Let me know your thoughts.

Sean

[johnyandell]

More Spin,
Laver had a straight arm. When we started doing high speed filming I was confused that Philippoussis had one too... didn't know what to make of it...

[BrianGordon]

Hi Sean - I guess my first thought is I commend you for making it through the seemingly endless droning of this wide ranging article(s). Your synopsis seems pretty accurate - could have saved people a lot of time by just posting that lol.

Yes, it is my contention that the forward swing defines the types. In the final analysis the exact type is not that significant though - the shots produced are. The classifications are but my own way to compile a vast array of movement schemes into palatable bites - general approaches to produce those shots based on core mechanics and independent of individual "artistry".

The goal is, and always has been, for me to understand the implications of very different approaches in order to construct credible stroke solutions for each of the players I coach - players of diverse body type, gender, skill and talent. To the extent that this process may assist others... all the better.

[glacierguy]

Hi Brian, thanks very much for this series of articles and videos on ATP forehands. They have helped me realise that my objective on every stroke, forehand, backhand and serve, should be to experiment with joint angles until I find the moment of inertia of the arm/racquet system that permits my muscles to develop maximum force for the maximum time. And that if I succeed in doing so, I will produce the maximum change in angular momentum of the racquet/arm system and hence maximum racquet speed. What was not obvious to me before studying your articles is the (slightly counterintuitive) fact that muscles produce their maximum force when contracting slowly, so increasing the moment inertia of the arm/racquet system is a good thing (up to a point). I find the benefit of this approach most clearly on serve, where I now try to keep good separation between the racquet and the shoulder joint (elbow angle near right angle). And small changes can have quite an impact, because moment of inertia is equal to mass*radius squared. (It was your mentioning of throwing a baseball vs. throwing a ping pong ball that made this concept click for me.)

[stroke]

The independent arm movement, exclusive to the model type 3. is a real eye opener to me. I like all of us on this board love the effortless efficiency of the model type 3, the holy grail of forehands. But as Brian so well said, it is just about the shot produced no matter the technique. Grigor lost in 5 with his model type 3, but he sure looked great technique wise.