where'd the bent arm come from anyway?

[tennisplayer]

Carrerakent, of course, one should never ever tell students what muscles to use - I agree whole heartedly. Hell, if I think about it while playing, my game will fall apart! Whatever the contributions of the different muscles, I agree the arm is there for the ride, and the contractions of the muscles in the sequence they fire is part of the kinetic chain that finally results in imparting racquet head speed.

All I was pointing out was that in one variation of the forearm, the double bend, there is more emphasis on the pecs, and in another variation which we are calling the straight arm (or extended arm) there is more emphasis on the anterior deltoids and biceps. I agree, all of these muscles will get used to some extent in both types of forehands, and I can visualize forehands that are a hybrid of these two extremes.

On top of this, there is the question of preparation, and the activation of the stretch-contraction reflex. One can start the forehand with the racquet head pointing towards the net during the backswing, resulting in a very late racquet head drop that maximizes the stretch-contraction contribution of the forearm; or one can take the backswing with the butt of the raquet pointing to the ball, where the stretch-contraction contribution of the forearm is not as much. It looks to me like Federer practices the former approach, and Agassi the latter. No matter, both are still great forehands!

With so many variations, I think the best way would be for each individual to find his or her own natural way, which the coach should recognize and nurture. Based on one's natural attributes - height, musculature, etc - each person will probably have their own optimal way of executing a stroke for obtaining the best results.

[BrianGordon]

Mr. Gordon, i really did have to chuckle at your request. The best biomechanical validation i can provide should also be to other's satisfaction that want video. The validation and video is already here. All of those videos of Federer. I am not sure how people on here get/got the idea that I'm describing something other than what he does. I only use his example at about every other paragraph.

After some thought I still scratch my head. If what I'm saying is not proven in every single sport where an object is hit or thrown, then how would any other evidence shed light for you guys? I am truly puzzled. I cannot help but answer you all with questions. And please Mr. Gordon, please do answer these for me so that I know whether or not I have a very messed up perception of biomechanics and muscle physiology...

why do nba three point shooters not shoot with a bent arm?
why do pro QBs go from a bent arm to a straight one?
why are golf clubs flexible?
why don't shot putters keep the ball tucked in to release?
the science is in your own answers to these questions. right?

do these questions not help shed some light on the kinetic chain that I keep talking about? do you really need some kind of scientific mumbo jumbo that cannot account for all of the mechanics Federer is actually pulling off. I doubt any physiologist, kinesiologist, or other can come close to describing all of those mechanisms and then come even close to describing the "feel" aspects of his stroke.

If Roger Federer did not exist, the skeptics on this site would tell me there is no evidence that an extended forehand like his is even remotely feasible. But, thank goodness he came along so that we can see things more out of the box.

I am just trying to describe what I have experienced that more closely resembles what Federer is doing and I am discounting some of the analysis of things that are no more than effects of the true causes.

Respectfully.

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.

[oliensis]

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!

Carerra,

That goes for you too. I am posting some new forum rules. Read them and observe.

John Yandell

where can one find these forum rules? i've looked and can't seem to locate them. do the rules apply to mr. counts and mr. yandell? just checking? Mr. Counts should have been singled out more than anyone. I think it is expressly unprofessional to single out people, especially since some of us are making a conscious effort to share our toys and get along. (this feels like grade school all over again) There is no evidence the Mr. Counts intends anything but harm.

tennisplayer,

after more thought and some experimentation today paying attention to the muscles involved, i have to correct my original reply about what muscles are involved. i was initially thinking that i didn't want to emphasize any musclular contraction because as soon as you do that all of the analytical thinkers run out and start conciously contracting muscles and there you have it, a double bender, or worse.

i did notice today that the pec muscle does contract shortly after or right at the shoulders torquing open, the bicep tendon feels some pull and maybe a little anterior deltoid, but they do not pull the arm through, they instead are helping initiate the arm whip (kinetic chain) that is occurring.

the interesting thing from my experiences is that i have not told a single student at any level to contract any muscles, their bodies figure that out as a result of good shoulder turn and then reversing that turn. by the body doing its thing correctly, the arm can just go along for the ride after it initially pops the proverbial clutch.

[johnyandell]

Carerra,

That goes for you too. I am posting some new forum rules. Read them and observe.

John Yandell

[johnyandell]

Nabrug,

You need to moderate your tone, now and in the future. I'm tired of the continuous personal attacks not only on myself. If you can't then you are going to be out. Stick to the issues. Period.

John Yandell

Carrerakent-

I agree that just because the pros do it does not necessarily make it right – clearly the evolution of technique in all sports is evidence of that - I, like you, like to think outside of the box – further, I appreciate innovative thinking and actually have quantitative evidence that there are clear benefits of “extending” the hitting arm into a straighter configuration for those that are capable of pulling it off.

I admit I’m a bit skeptical of your method because your rationale shares little in common with my data and the mechanical concepts you have put forth are foreign to my understanding. What you seem to be describing is a generalized theory (more physics than biomechanics) that is among the oldest I can recall in my training – no one I know would consider applying it to something as complex as a forehand – but I’m more than open to hearing a concise and complete description.

Therefore I have a suggestion - because you have mentioned many times that your method is validated in terms of the science of biomechanics, why don’t you send me your research data that provides the proof you mentioned and I will review it (I am experienced in reviewing biomechanical research). I will, in turn, provide an unbiased report to the readers – this should put to rest the skepticism I’ve read in this thread.

Mr. Gordon, i really did have to chuckle at your request. The best biomechanical validation i can provide should also be to other's satisfaction that want video. The validation and video is already here. All of those videos of Federer. I am not sure how people on here get/got the idea that I'm describing something other than what he does. I only use his example at about every other paragraph.

After some thought I still scratch my head. If what I'm saying is not proven in every single sport where an object is hit or thrown, then how would any other evidence shed light for you guys? I am truly puzzled. I cannot help but answer you all with questions. And please Mr. Gordon, please do answer these for me so that I know whether or not I have a very messed up perception of biomechanics and muscle physiology...

why do nba three point shooters not shoot with a bent arm?
why do pro QBs go from a bent arm to a straight one?
why are golf clubs flexible?
why don't shot putters keep the ball tucked in to release?
the science is in your own answers to these questions. right?

do these questions not help shed some light on the kinetic chain that I keep talking about? do you really need some kind of scientific mumbo jumbo that cannot account for all of the mechanics Federer is actually pulling off. I doubt any physiologist, kinesiologist, or other can come close to describing all of those mechanisms and then come even close to describing the "feel" aspects of his stroke.

If Roger Federer did not exist, the skeptics on this site would tell me there is no evidence that an extended forehand like his is even remotely feasible. But, thank goodness he came along so that we can see things more out of the box.

I am just trying to describe what I have experienced that more closely resembles what Federer is doing and I am discounting some of the analysis of things that are no more than effects of the true causes.

Respectfully.

[nabrug]

Carrerakent-

I agree that just because the pros do it does not necessarily make it right – clearly the evolution of technique in all sports is evidence of that - I, like you, like to think outside of the box – further, I appreciate innovative thinking and actually have quantitative evidence that there are clear benefits of “extending” the hitting arm into a straighter configuration for those that are capable of pulling it off.

I admit I’m a bit skeptical of your method because your rationale shares little in common with my data and the mechanical concepts you have put forth are foreign to my understanding. What you seem to be describing is a generalized theory (more physics than biomechanics) that is among the oldest I can recall in my training – no one I know would consider applying it to something as complex as a forehand – but I’m more than open to hearing a concise and complete description.

Therefore I have a suggestion - because you have mentioned many times that your method is validated in terms of the science of biomechanics, why don’t you send me your research data that provides the proof you mentioned and I will review it (I am experienced in reviewing biomechanical research). I will, in turn, provide an unbiased report to the readers – this should put to rest the skepticism I’ve read in this thread.

Nice try, but it is too obvious. The cynism I mean, or was it sarcasm? Oh I always mix them up.

Can't you just measure the ball speed of the different strokes? Than we can proove he is wrong. This ugly and mean man. As a biomechanist do you know if ego's can be hurt by somebody who really believes in what he is saying. I think that can only happen if you have doubts about your own work. Why bother it says sg. about him not about you.

Sorry that I react but I see a returning form of ego's clashing and not about the actual issue. Is there a difference in ball speed?

[BrianGordon]

Carrerakent-

I agree that just because the pros do it does not necessarily make it right – clearly the evolution of technique in all sports is evidence of that - I, like you, like to think outside of the box – further, I appreciate innovative thinking and actually have quantitative evidence that there are clear benefits of “extending” the hitting arm into a straighter configuration for those that are capable of pulling it off.

I admit I’m a bit skeptical of your method because your rationale shares little in common with my data and the mechanical concepts you have put forth are foreign to my understanding. What you seem to be describing is a generalized theory (more physics than biomechanics) that is among the oldest I can recall in my training – no one I know would consider applying it to something as complex as a forehand – but I’m more than open to hearing a concise and complete description.

Therefore I have a suggestion - because you have mentioned many times that your method is validated in terms of the science of biomechanics, why don’t you send me your research data that provides the proof you mentioned and I will review it (I am experienced in reviewing biomechanical research). I will, in turn, provide an unbiased report to the readers – this should put to rest the skepticism I’ve read in this thread.

[nabrug]

For others like me, not explicitly familiar with GBA, I just searched and came up with

http://www.gbatennis.com/

and
Louis Cayer.
I knew Grant and Glenn and Nestor as they were developing in the 90s, but I never got to know Cayer.

Interesting stuff.

GBA in 10 sentences. I was more thinking about:

http://acepreview.debo.webfactional.com/media/article_pdfs/Moving_to_a_Game-based_approach_.pdf

http://www.acecoach.com/

[nabrug]

Regarding feeling and strokes.

I believe kinesthetics and visuals are two halves of the same whole. The image or the position leads to the feeling. I've said that repeatedly and written it in my book.

Still waiting to see the two forehands. Seriously why don't you video yourself and send them in.

Do you really think so? I do not believe that. By the way if it is in a book it is not necessarily the truth. Is there also in the book that on every incoming ball and to every game situation you use the same stroke? If so than get rid of the book. There is not one ideal technique. Goodbye old school.

Mr. O. can show you the difference between an empty punch and one with his body behind it. You will not see the difference, but you will defenitely feel it. And so why are you and others here not able to do what Federer is doing. The caracteristics are on your website. My conclusions are only based on what I saw on your website. So we started from the same position. But it did not give me the stroke either. I had to look for what I call the essence(s) of the stroke. So what you say about kinesthetics and visuals is in that aspect total nonsense.

Look at Jeff Counts third article comparison Philipousis vs. Federer. FH1 versus FH2 with a straight arm. Voila the two forehands.

After what Jeff Counts, CarreraKent and others tell you and what you have put on your website yourself isn't it much more plausible that there are two techniques and that Federer mixes them up? Come on be a man and tell me that it is really much more plausible. I will be a man than as well and only tell it half of the world that you were wrong. Just kidding. By doing so we can at least silence that arrogant and abrasive mr. know all carrerakent.

Nabrug,

don't know where you got the federer work out session, but that's not what i was referring to.

i want to reply to some of your things later when i have time. i agree with the idea that Fed uses some of FH1 and FH2. i didn't mean to imply that he only uses FH2, but I do believe he intends to naturally because as i've said, as a three year old he hit the FH2 that i do not think any other humans besides my coach actually hit so freely. There are surely those out there, I just haven't seen them.

later...

[nabrug]

Narburg,
Just so you know, nobody here understands what you mean by your terminology: FH1, FH2 etc. Why? Because you have never clearly elucidated it.
Thanks for your sympathy regarding posterior pain. 8-)
As for martial arts: To the untrained or relatively untrained eye/mind, you can see open skill in fighting and closed skill in kata (hyung in Korean). To the very sophisticated eye/mind, both open and closed skills are visible in both free fighting and hyung.

As I've mentioned before, you can learn inside/out or outside/in. Form can follow function or function can follow form (as in classical eastern martial arts). Or, put differently, students of different martial arts are much more different than are masters of different martial arts. Students argue about the best way to the top of the mountain. Masters enjoy the view from the top of the mountain and enjoy their journeys along the various paths to it.

FH1 is where you talk about and FH2 is were carrerakent talks about. I do NOT understand you (plural) when you talk about straight arms because both techniques use them. So the distinction does not lie there. I just reread Jeff Counts articles concerning this. Jeff you placed so many question marks. You know that it is much more plausible that there are two techniques than Federer is using a variation of FH1.

You can bend it the way you pleases it to make your story complete. Be my guest. You say that you are the master. But you and I know that what I stated is in simple words the difference about fight and kata. And that somebody can punch you in the face with a -wrong- technique (like you mentioned).

And that inside out learning etc. being equal is nonsense concerning open skill learning. And I very doubt it is the same for martial arts. But I am not going to discuss that with somebody who showed no whatsoever knowledge about GBA.

[johnyandell]

Regarding feeling and strokes.

I believe kinesthetics and visuals are two halves of the same whole. The image or the position leads to the feeling. I've said that repeatedly and written it in my book.

Still waiting to see the two forehands. Seriously why don't you video yourself and send them in.