where'd the bent arm come from anyway?

You're a giver.
Any time you want to post videos so we can all see what you're talking about, I'm eager to be enlightened.

BTW, here's what I'll give... a link to a picture of my first Tae Kwon Do master doing a speed break of two bricks with a strike called an Inside Sudo Maki, which uses the closest thing to a forehand motion that you'll find in martial arts, striking with the meety part of the blade of the hand with the palm turned up. The bricks rest on the holder's hands, one behind the other with no support. So the speed of the strike must be so extreme that the bricks, which are unsupported, break before they have a chance to move.

And lookee there, at the configuration of the elbow and hand! Could that be...is it possible it's...no, it couldn't be the....d-d-d-d-d-d...

http://www.madisontkd.com/images/TKD31.jpg

Look at the focus of his eyes and the stillness of his head!...how the left hand has pulled across, how he's rotating through what would be called a square stance in tennis...

It's a shame he got his spacing wrong!

Mr. O. nope...looks to me he got his spacing just where he wanted it. he had a non moving object he set up where he wanted and executed. i used to break boards and bricks in martial arts too when i was in junior high and i would never have done it with a totally extended arm. so your point isn't lost...it's just that your master was not concerned with taking a moving object, reversing the spin and placing it exactly where he wanted in the court over and over without wasting tons of energy.

i've already said, you want video proof. look at federer videos. no one has ever hit so many forehand winners with such consistent pace, spin, and accuracy with so much ease. it looks effortless, doesn't it? does nadal look duplicatable and effortless. No way. That's my point, ease of effort, maximum return and accuracy...not generating maximum force that the body is capable of like you master.

Carrerakent,
I have tried to keep up in this thread, but it takes turns that surprise me each day. I don't mind your approach too much, as I'm more interested in learning. I want the hear what you are so fired up about, even if you are wrong, cause there still must be a lot gained from the exercise. I'm pretty sure you are not entirely wrong either. Some others must be too, or they wouldn't keep responding to you.

Can you remind me of your main reason for the idea that your FH is so much better?
It isn't sheer power is it, as Fed doesn't have the biggest FH in the game, even when compared to some of the double benders.
It isn't control is it, cause he has had quite a struggle with UEs on that pesky FH over the last year and a half.
Is it efficiency of some kind?
Is it more spin?
Is it more natural in some way?
Realize these are honest questions, not some kind of bait, as I appreciate your effort to try and share something you have found very exciting. You could have just kept it close if you were more selfish. I know how frustrating it can be to try and share your findings here at times. Several years ago when this site was very new, I tried to get an article on racket drop, delayed elbow extension, and launch position for the serve working, but didn't find much interest. I don't really blame anyone, but it was frustrating and still is as I see more and more of that technique become accepted and discussed. Just like the next one that I followed with on "position on the ball" and contact point. You can guess how I felt seeing that pop up here 5-6 yrs later.
I have a new one now on redefining depth and the transition game, but I don't think it will make this site. If anyone is interested, contact me for info.

Also if you understand Narbug's fh1 and fh2, will please explain it to those of us who want to know what the heck he is talking about? Cause I really am interested in that too.

AIRFORCE 1,

first, it's not my forehand that i think is so good. my personal one is a work in progress. i am trying to describe how to hit the federer forehand. that's my purpose in a nutshell.

secondly, yes, it is greater control of your target, spin and power through more efficient stroke production. As for Fed's recent problems...I keep trying to get my coach to call him. ha ha.. seriously. I don't think technique has anything to do with his current problems...or he wouldn't have the big 15. he seems lackadaisical in his movement and choices.

thirdly, yes, more natural for sure. definitely more spin. the loose action of the wrist coming through just before contact (not wrist flick nay sayers...stay down boys) but the natural kinetic chain or natural biomechanical extension of the body parts out to the hand creates immense spin and power. but note it is not generated via PULLING. that's why i see the double bend as the worst technique imaginable. it goes against all forms of what is "natural" in my mind and would be in the minds of anyone that has experienced true loose, fluid, in the zone release in throwing, hitting a tennis ball, whatever.

when federer was coming on the scene everyone was amazed at his duplication of that amazing forehand. everyone was scratching their heads. it was just his genius in everyones minds...that is all anyone could come up with. my coach studied federer tons and developed in his own game the same forehand. (when he gets here to florida to train with me in a few weeks i'm gonna ask him to let me post his forehand on you tube.)

my coach figured out how federer does it. now he teaches it. he took bethanie mattek from 150 or so to top 40 by making that and a few other changes. it must be said that she was not even a good student or good example of his teaching and see where it got her. she still doesn't do it like my coach taught her...but sometimes close.

i hired my coach because i saw him hitting the federer forehand warming bethanie up at a tournament. i had to find out how he does it since we know federer doesn't know how he does it himself and i couldn't ask him.

my coach spent 5 hours with me a few months later and blew my mind. in 5 hours he did not say one thing that i had ever heard. it was all cutting edge and breaking all of the molds. i didn't buy into it but he proved what he said in my own game immediately. with his teaching method i gained crazy accuracy, spin i had never had before, but it was the loopy kind nadal hits, it was the more penetrating kind Fed hits...which was my desire.

what i'm trying to get across on this site is an opening of the minds about all of the many factors that prevents all of us from hitting something similar to Federer. i'm trying to help coaches realize that they are teaching kids to NOT be able to hit a shot they all pretty much wish they could.

[oliensis]

Mr. O,

you are right, i could have just said don't get too close....etc. But, that proves that you do not understand where I am going.

...i've wasted way too much time trying to give,

You're a giver.
Any time you want to post videos so we can all see what you're talking about, I'm eager to be enlightened.

BTW, here's what I'll give... a link to a picture of my first Tae Kwon Do master doing a speed break of two bricks with a strike called an Inside Sudo Maki, which uses the closest thing to a forehand motion that you'll find in martial arts, striking with the meety part of the blade of the hand with the palm turned up. The bricks rest on the holder's hands, one behind the other with no support. So the speed of the strike must be so extreme that the bricks, which are unsupported, break before they have a chance to move.

And lookee there, at the configuration of the elbow and hand! Could that be...is it possible it's...no, it couldn't be the....d-d-d-d-d-d...

http://www.madisontkd.com/images/TKD31.jpg

Look at the focus of his eyes and the stillness of his head!...how the left hand has pulled across, how he's rotating through what would be called a square stance in tennis...

It's a shame he got his spacing wrong!

Good stuff here. My favorite analogy for the double bend is pushing open a door. When you push open a door your arm is in a perfect double bend with the wrist laid slightly back. This strong, leveraged position makes it easy to push open an extremely heavy door. It's your body naturally finding a leveraged position with a bent arm. Think also of pushing or shoving someone. The arms are bent on contact so you can get a good leveraged push. If your arms were straight, it would be hard to drive through the target.

Anyway, I agree that the straight arm and double bend are the two pro models, with the double bend being the one people naturally gravitate towards. There just aren't that many things we as humans do with perfectly straight arms. But when the straight arms is executed - ala Nadal/Verdasco - it's obviously pretty amazing.

The question remains, however, as to why so very, very few players are able to straighten the arm while the overwhelming majority naturally gravitate to the double bend. I would have to believe that when 5 year old kids (the typical age for future world class players to start tennis) pick up the sport they don't have the strength to drive the ball with a straight arm. And I don't think women do either which is why there has only been one female player to ever pull off the straight arm forehand (Henin), whereas on the men's side we have had at least three of four that were able to pull it off.

It would be really cool to see footage of Nadal or Verdasco playing at 5 or 6. Were they hitting forehands with a straight arm at that age, or did the stroke evolve?

Jeff, i like your analogy, but a tennis ball doesn't require a body to be "behind it" to generate all of the necessary force does it? racket head speed is what we are after as tennis players, right? less energy expenditure and greater accuracy is what we are after right? since i used to hit a single bend because all of my money got my elbow tucked into my side and now i hit extended and at age 45 and i know i hit twice as hard a ball this year as two years ago i just can't think of letting my son hit with a bent arm by design.

i used to teach to be firm behind your shots hit through it and all of the old methods of elbow in and you are so much stronger with your racket in closer to you...i think that is where the double bend came from. a misunderstanding of how to exhibit maximum racket head force. when people were starting to try to hit the cover off the ball, there weren't any physiologists, "famous coaches" standing there, God forbid, and biomechanical devices testing the best method. it was an evolution of kids trying to adapt and i think that is the answer to Mr. Yandell questions as to why is it so prevalent then...i think cause the experts and the most gifted athletes in the world weren't the one's evolving. it would only take one kid showing up at IMG or Saddlebrook hitting the ball harder than anyone else and within 6 months that is THE way to hit it. Regardless of whether or not it was the best way. Do you agree?

I'm trying to figure out a way to get everyone "pulling" off the extended forehand. If the coaches don't get it, the students never will.

Please call me Brian - I guess I'm biased but cause and effect is a very difficult to determine - obviously the body is composed of linked segments moved by muscle and joint force - all motor actions, including the ones you mention have different goals and therefore the segments are moved accordingly - call it the kinetic chain if you like - but I thought we were talking about the forehand.

Anyway, contrary to what Nabrug attributes my post to, I'm interested in hearing the details of your method, and based on referencing biomechanics figured you may have done some research to support your method.

But, I'll do it one better - as I recall you said you are in Florida - later this fall or early next year I'll be moving one of my measurement systems into S. Fla. - I'd be happy to help you investigate more in depth the theories behind your method - a serious offer - P.M. me if you are interested.

Brian, I've sent you a personal message and maybe we can test a pro player that has recently changed from the bent arm to the extended arm forehand. His ranking improvements and personal account will surely add to the study.

I do agree with your post above regarding cause and effect and the such being so difficult to determine. I think because I personally experienced enormous spin and power with virtually no effort at all during the first lesson with my coach, and i FELT the biomechnical feedback of less energy expenditure, greater balance, and an effortless feeling, which is possibly the most accurate test.

Thanks

Mr. O,

you are right, i could have just said don't get too close....etc. But, that proves that you do not understand where I am going. I have known that all along and that is why I have tried to "explain" things because some, not all of you guys, will not get your heads out of the sand box. It is not about distance alone and tensing muscles alone, those are probably not out of the ordinary responses considering the discussions and maybe i need to realize you just cannot describe (not explain for god's sake) some things.

when i asked if people experienced certain things to help me ascertain where i could take the information to the level of understanding people were at...not one person replied.
when i asked people if they had hit with fed's racket when we were talking about racket technology because if they had they would have a different perspective than most...no one replied.

i've wasted way too much time trying to give, even though most of the time i realize and admit was in frustration because of the expected responses. i would have bet a years salary that these discussions would go this way. why? because i started out frustrated at the tennis establishment and their close mindedness and because every teaching pro i've talked to about this stuff says the same things you guys have already said...but when i show them in person and they cannot dispute it they get quiet and go away with their tails between their legs.

i'm just being honest here. i don't mean to offend, but can we just stop hashing at issues and each other? there are actually some good questions going around and they deserve the attention and time.

[jeffreycounts]

You can find young Rafa on youtube. And to answer your q, he was hitting double bend at 13.

Wow that's awesome. Great find!!

[nabrug]

Please call me Brian - I guess I'm biased but cause and effect is a very difficult to determine - obviously the body is composed of linked segments moved by muscle and joint force - all motor actions, including the ones you mention have different goals and therefore the segments are moved accordingly - call it the kinetic chain if you like - but I thought we were talking about the forehand.

Anyway, contrary to what Nabrug attributes my post to, I'm interested in hearing the details of your method, and based on referencing biomechanics figured you may have done some research to support your method.

But, I'll do it one better - as I recall you said you are in Florida - later this fall or early next year I'll be moving one of my measurement systems into S. Fla. - I'd be happy to help you investigate more in depth the theories behind your method - a serious offer - P.M. me if you are interested.

Is there no easy way to measure the ball speed? FH1 vs. FH2.

[uspta990770809]

Difference between F1 and F2

Carrerakent,
...
Also if you understand Narbug's fh1 and fh2, will please explain it to those of us who want to know what the heck he is talking about? Cause I really am interested in that too.

I feel a little like Joe Pesci in Lethal Weapon II, III when he gets excited or maybe Ron Carey in High Anxiety: "I got it. I got it. I got it....I don't got it" Oh well, I'm dating myself, but here goes

I looked at Jeff's "Straight Arm Forehand - Part III" for the comparison of Philipousis and Federer (Tour Strokes) and if Nabrug is saying that is the difference between FH1 and FH2, then it is a straight arm wiper forehand, but with the difference that Federer gets so far inside and can release his wrist (I don't want to say snap, but that may be the case, explaining the inconsistency Air Force refers to) whereas Phillipousis keeps a more classical laid back wrist through the hit (the effect given by the SquareHit Wrist Assist endorsed by Brad Gilbert - I like that thing a lot). And as Jeff points out, Federer gets a lot more racket head speed as a result. And then finishes with the racket lower across his body and pointing down.

So, Nabrug, have I got it? have I got it? have I got it? ... or no, I don't got it!

don

[jperedo]

It would be really cool to see footage of Nadal or Verdasco playing at 5 or 6. Were they hitting forehands with a straight arm at that age, or did the stroke evolve?

You can find young Rafa on youtube. And to answer your q, he was hitting double bend at 13.

[tennisplayer]

I wanted to add one more thing...

I think the type of stroke a beginner naturally develops will depend largely on the cues that his/her coach provides. If the cue is "hit through the ball", I think the player will gravitate towards the double bend. If the cue is "hit up and across the ball" the player will tend to develop a straight arm forehand... just my hunch, I have no proof, obviously!

[oliensis]

OK, this is my last post on this, as I got other stuff to do.
Is Federer more graceful/efficient than Roddick? Is that your point? No argument there but if that's it, whew, we sure took the long way 'round.
Careful, Roddick is actually quite extended at contact sometimes.
You're creating a moving target. Do athletes TEND TOWARD extension at contact? Of course! No argument there. Had you made that simple claim, no-one would have argued with you. But you said some slop that much more aggressively negative toward others than that, and was much more certain of absolutes than that too--and that left little room for diversity of technique.

Of course sometimes you're too close to the ball...and sometimes you're too far away. Sometimes you bend your arms to hit the target that's too close. Duh!

If you had simply said, "Careful not to get too close to the ball, or you'll impede your ability to extend your arms as much as might be optimal." Everyone would have nodded and said, "Gee, tell us something we don't know!" But you didn't want to say something that trite, did you? You wanted to be more controversial, more down-putting.

Had you said, "Hey, I have some drills that can be constructive for helping students gauge optimal contact points better and adjust their footwork to give themselves better spacing." Everyone would have said, Great! Let's try those drills! But that wouldn't have been much of an event, and would have gotten only a fraction of the attention. Right?

OK, now here's the funny part, pasted from your quote below:
I read your responses and can't figure out for the life of me why you find it so necessary to prove me wrong on only the things you can find fault with. Not one of you bothers to challenge the things that have merit even in your own eyes. Do you?

You can't figure out why no-one challenges the things that have merit? But only the things we find fault with? Ummmmm...if something you say has merit, why would I challenge it? If something you say is faulty, it's the FAULT that inclines me toward challening it. (Did I really need to say that?????)

If you had said, Gee, I think it's better to learn to gauge distance to the ball better, and to set up better than it is to adjust by tightening up and muscling the ball, I think you might have gotten some disagreement, but no major challenges. And we could have discussed the relative merits of the different types of setups and different adjustments to different unexpected contact points. but, again, that would have all be constructive, would have sated no delusions of grandeur, and would have been more or less par for the course on these message boards.

You final comment is that you've been trying to explain things to us all for 4 days. You know what? As my kids will tell you, people don't like being explained to. It's condescending. It presumes that the explainer knows and that the rest of the plebes don't know.

We're all eager to share. And we'll all be happy to see your videos. But please get your butt off the mountain and join the rest of us here on the ground in thee Sinai.

Eager to see the videos posted, and to see what Brian Gordon and you can come up with in any endeavors you may conspire on .

Mr. O... I cannot find a single example of Fed hitting a double bend. Slight single bend yes, but not a sack of potatoes pulling the arm double bend like Roddick. Sorry. And, are you saying that these baseball players have arms more bent than when the swing started? And, did you determine that those bent arms are not a result of inside pitches? Be careful, if you admit either of those you will be admitting fault.

"only one optimal way." When you are comparing two things, to say that one is superior over the other surely doesn't suggest blind thinking that it is the only way. I read your responses and can't figure out for the life of me why you find it so necessary to prove me wrong on only the things you can find fault with. Not one of you bothers to challenge the things that have merit even in your own eyes. Do you?

As I've said over and over and for the last time...athletic desire to lengthen at contact or release instead of shorten. a knock out punch or driving a nail with a hammer even when the arm is bent still supports my argument. they all are going from more bent to less bent...i do believe that is called extending. for four days now i've trying to simply explain what already happens in every sport by every great athlete. that's all. i am too hard headed to realize that my efforts are in vain on some. sorry for my hard hardheadedness.

[airforce1]

Carrerakent,
I have tried to keep up in this thread, but it takes turns that surprise me each day. I don't mind your approach too much, as I'm more interested in learning. I want the hear what you are so fired up about, even if you are wrong, cause there still must be a lot gained from the exercise. I'm pretty sure you are not entirely wrong either. Some others must be too, or they wouldn't keep responding to you.

Can you remind me of your main reason for the idea that your FH is so much better?
It isn't sheer power is it, as Fed doesn't have the biggest FH in the game, even when compared to some of the double benders.
It isn't control is it, cause he has had quite a struggle with UEs on that pesky FH over the last year and a half.
Is it efficiency of some kind?
Is it more spin?
Is it more natural in some way?
Realize these are honest questions, not some kind of bait, as I appreciate your effort to try and share something you have found very exciting. You could have just kept it close if you were more selfish. I know how frustrating it can be to try and share your findings here at times. Several years ago when this site was very new, I tried to get an article on racket drop, delayed elbow extension, and launch position for the serve working, but didn't find much interest. I don't really blame anyone, but it was frustrating and still is as I see more and more of that technique become accepted and discussed. Just like the next one that I followed with on "position on the ball" and contact point. You can guess how I felt seeing that pop up here 5-6 yrs later.
I have a new one now on redefining depth and the transition game, but I don't think it will make this site. If anyone is interested, contact me for info.

Also if you understand Narbug's fh1 and fh2, will please explain it to those of us who want to know what the heck he is talking about? Cause I really am interested in that too.

Carrera,
I posted links to videos that show 4 of baseball's best hitters (Ortiz, Griffey et al) hitting power shots with bent front arms and bent rear arms. You dismissed those (as well as Federer's double-bend forehands) as abortive efforts to hit with straight arms.

Mr. O... I cannot find a single example of Fed hitting a double bend. Slight single bend yes, but not a sack of potatoes pulling the arm double bend like Roddick. Sorry. And, are you saying that these baseball players have arms more bent than when the swing started? And, did you determine that those bent arms are not a result of inside pitches? Be careful, if you admit either of those you will be admitting fault.

"only one optimal way." When you are comparing two things, to say that one is superior over the other surely doesn't suggest blind thinking that it is the only way. I read your responses and can't figure out for the life of me why you find it so necessary to prove me wrong on only the things you can find fault with. Not one of you bothers to challenge the things that have merit even in your own eyes. Do you?

As I've said over and over and for the last time...athletic desire to lengthen at contact or release instead of shorten. a knock out punch or driving a nail with a hammer even when the arm is bent still supports my argument. they all are going from more bent to less bent...i do believe that is called extending. for four days now i've trying to simply explain what already happens in every sport by every great athlete. that's all. i am too hard headed to realize that my efforts are in vain on some. sorry for my hard hardheadedness.

[jeffreycounts]

Carrera,
I posted links to videos that show 4 of baseball's best hitters (Ortiz, Griffey et al) hitting power shots with bent front arms and bent rear arms. You dismissed those (as well as Federer's double-bend forehands) as abortive efforts to hit with straight arms.

I also asked rhetorically if you hammer a nail using a straight arm. (If you do, I'd really enjoy seeing whatever you built that way. 8-))

If every bent-armed act is, in your eyes, merely an abortive effort to perform a straight-armed act, then what sort of thing could possibly be evidence that you are incorrect? And if the answer to that question is, "nothing," then you have failed the basic logical test for what constitutes a verifiable proposition. (A propostion is only verifiable if it can also be contradicted by some evidence.)

The logic you are using is the same logic as creationists (or intelligent design advocates) who claim that all the evidence that the Earth is older than about 5800 years old (as the Old Testament would literally reckon it) was simply placed here either by God or Satan in order to test our faith and in an effort to deceive us into thinking that universe is older than that.

That is, quite exactly, absurd. As is your presumption that every bent-armed athletic act (be it a homerun, a knockout punch, or a blistering double-bend forehand winner by Federer) is a failure of good technique.

Anyone (including you) who claims that there is only one optimal way to do anything is either very inexperienced, very infatuated (which I suspect is a group that numbers you among it, and is a corollary of the others), very gullible, very arrogant, very deluded, very lazy, very dogmatic, very narrow-minded, or some combination of these negative characteristics among others.

The inability to tolerate diversity and ambiguity is a shortcoming, not a virtue, as most crusaders would assert. Long live the double bend AND the staright-arm forehand!

Good stuff here. My favorite analogy for the double bend is pushing open a door. When you push open a door your arm is in a perfect double bend with the wrist laid slightly back. This strong, leveraged position makes it easy to push open an extremely heavy door. It's your body naturally finding a leveraged position with a bent arm. Think also of pushing or shoving someone. The arms are bent on contact so you can get a good leveraged push. If your arms were straight, it would be hard to drive through the target.

Anyway, I agree that the straight arm and double bend are the two pro models, with the double bend being the one people naturally gravitate towards. There just aren't that many things we as humans do with perfectly straight arms. But when the straight arms is executed - ala Nadal/Verdasco - it's obviously pretty amazing.

The question remains, however, as to why so very, very few players are able to straighten the arm while the overwhelming majority naturally gravitate to the double bend. I would have to believe that when 5 year old kids (the typical age for future world class players to start tennis) pick up the sport they don't have the strength to drive the ball with a straight arm. And I don't think women do either which is why there has only been one female player to ever pull off the straight arm forehand (Henin), whereas on the men's side we have had at least three of four that were able to pull it off.

It would be really cool to see footage of Nadal or Verdasco playing at 5 or 6. Were they hitting forehands with a straight arm at that age, or did the stroke evolve?