Dr. Brian Gordon | Evolution of the Two-Handed Backhand: Part 1

[giancarlo]

Let’s get the discussion going on Dr. Brian Gordon’s new article.
I see this as a fundamental piece for understanding the ever-changing progression of top-level tennis. Specifically, grasping the three two-handed backhand types will be essential before Brian breaks down the Alcaraz and Agassi backhands in Part Two next month.

As for the one-handed backhand, in the past 25 years only five players have won a Grand Slam men’s singles title with it: Pete Sampras, Gast?n Gaudio, Roger Federer, Stanislas Wawrinka, and Dominic Thiem. All but one—Wawrinka—are now retired.

[seano]

What I love about Dr. Gordon's article/video is how applicable his 2 handed backhand thinking transfers seamlessly to his ATP Type 3 forehand. Backhand first, the full hook-loop backswing does strike me as rather large and time consuming. Zverev does have a beautiful backhand but my concerns are centered around timing and rhythm under extreme pressure. I love that Brian speaks so positive about the half-hook loop backswing where the upper arm is at a 45 degree angle and not parallel to the ground. Seems more like a wonderful option to me. Elbows in the backswing are slightly bent which will allow for fluidity as the hands pull/push forward.

Brian - 2 more questions -
1) Can the same be said about the ATP Type 3 forehand? Is the half-hook loop acceptable to the full hook loop? Forearm at a 45 degree angle to the ground, slight bend in the elbow in the backswing to allow for rhythm as the elbow straightens in the forward swing AFTER the flip.
2) How does the fluid, continuous hands of the Type 3 backswing, differ from the hand speed required in the backswing of the ATP classic groundstrokes, with a bent elbow at contact? Revised Type 3 = slight bend of elbows that allows for rhythm into the forward swing vs. hand speed required in the backswing to compensate for bent elbow at contact. Hope that question makes sense.

Sean O

[BrianGordon]

Hi Sean... it could be said but I wouldn't. The one arm structure of the forehand presents a lot more options than the more restrictive two arm configuration on the backhand (the second arm is both a curse and virtue). Some of these options are only accessible from the 90 degree unit turn position so that remains the set up of choice in my system.

Afraid I don't really understand what you are asking in the second question. My answer to the first part is that the hook loop is still positional - while a bit of residual motion entering the forward swing is helpful for reasons I discussed, the intent is NOT to contribute directly to the hand speed at contact.

That is not the case for the functional (shoulder driven) backswing in the classic forehand (now type 2) which directly relies on hand speed developed in the backswing for a significant portion of hand speed at contact. There is no viable corollary to the classic forehand on the two handed backhand by my definitions - constraints imposed by the second arm limit shoulder range of motion (and add complexity) making mimicking the classical forehand functional backswing awkward and not recommended (though still possible I suppose).

[seano]

Thank you, Brian for the clarification

Hi Brian,
I would love to See some analysis on the alcaraz forehand . His elbow straightening seems to be more Dynamic than Federer.

[giancarlo]

Hi Brian,
I would love to See some analysis on the alcaraz forehand . His elbow straightening seems to be more Dynamic than Federer.

Hi there. Here is a thread on Alcaraz' Forehand. Agree that we need Brian to provide additional insight.

[dimbleby69]

I love that Brian speaks so positive about the half-hook loop backswing where the upper arm is at a 45 degree angle and not parallel to the ground...

Brian - 2 more questions -
1) Can the same be said about the ATP Type 3 forehand? Is the half-hook loop acceptable to the full hook loop? Forearm at a 45 degree angle to the ground, slight bend in the elbow in the backswing to allow for rhythm as the elbow straightens in the forward swing AFTER the flip.

Sean O

Hi Sean,

I have a couple of questions about your exchange with BG, in particular in understanding the degree (or not) to which there is symmetry between the forehand and backhand type 3 backswings. In the first part quoted above you talk of how in the hybrid backand backswing "the upper arm is at a 45 degree angle" but in your 1st question about the forehand takeback this becomes "Foream at a 45 degree angle". Did you mean upper arm (on the forehand side)? If you don't then I'm lost...

If I understand BG's clarification then he is saying that the upper arm could be at many different angles and still be viable because of the increased number of options you have in hitting with just the one hand on the racket. He then says:

. "Some of these options are only accessible from the 90 degree unit turn position so that remains the set up of choice in my system."

I'm assuming that the 90 degree unit turn position is referring not to the movement of the shoulders but of the position of the upper arm when the unit turn is complete. Is that right? That would mean the upper arm is at 90 degrees away from the body at the completion of the unit turn. That's a position coaches talk about in preparing for high balls and it's a postion I suspect I get into habitually because I'm short (5'4"), but the arm is not exactly relaxed in that position. I think I've misunderstood somewhere, because I'm fairly sure I've read in previous exchanges you've taken part in that the aim is to find a relaxed position where the upper arm is 45 degrees or so away from the body.

regards
Rob

[seano]

Rob -

Thank you for the question. In re-reading my original post, I was wrong how I described it. I was referring to the forearm being at 45 degrees for the half-loop 2 handed backhand and if the forearm could start at 45 degrees for a ATP Type 3 forehand. For most people, the upper arm should be around 45 degrees from the torso for both backhands and forehands. The reason I was asking about the half loop backswing on the forehand with the forearm at 45 degrees, was because when I was teaching myself a type 3 forehand, I found it easier to start from the elbow extended position with the forearm at 45 degrees. It's still my "go to" position where It seems to come together for me. I certainly see how a person's height and the height of the contact point will influence what position the upper arm may be in.

Sean

[dimbleby69]

Hi Sean,

thanks for your reply. It clears things up.

So, when BG says, "Some of these options are only accessible from the 90 degree unit turn position so that remains the set up of choice in my system.", does that mean that - in his system - at the end of the unit turn (on a forehand) the lower arm is at 90 degrees to the upper arm (which in an ideal world is abducted 45 degrees or so from the body)?

Your experience with the type 3 is quite different to mine, it seems. The closer to straight I am at the unit turn the harder time I seem to have of making a successful swing. The detail of when the arm straighens in relation to the flip is crucial here. Put it this way, I am relieved to find that the arm only straightens after the flip...if I have understood correctly of course! The 17 mins of video (in Evolution of the Two-Handed Backhand: Part 1) turns out to have lots of important info but I've had to replay it several times to hear it all. I think I prefer the written format!

regards
Rob