where'd the bent arm come from anyway?

[mntlblok]

his most recent success was Bethanie Mattek...

Hey, you didn't tell us she got married and changed her name. . . (watching her match on ESPN2)

Kevin

[nabrug]

It is amusing to me as well when people denigrate the double bend because the double bend is actually the underlying foundation for some of the biggest and best forehands of all time.

Which people Jeff? You mean carrerakent?

[jeffreycounts]

Just got back from the Open yesterday, and had ringside seats to the Gonzo vs Massu match. Even as I sustained a slight case of whiplash, witnessed paint chipped from the baseline, and observed holes seared through the back fence. All I could think about, was how inefficient that stupid double-bend forehand is. And how these two hacks, could benefit from a lessson with Jason. I tried to call out to them after the match, to let them know the error of their double bend ways, but to no avail. Hopefully, they'll find their way on to this thread. God I hope so, for their sake.


Having spent the day watching the matches, I've decided that that the double bend is just not good enough for my lessons. There simply wasn't enough evidence yesterday, that a decent forehand could be hit with said structure.

So coaches out there beware, if you ever come across a 3.0 women's team, playing straight armed, with multiple cross-combinations (what I like to call F.U. 1 and F.U. 2), you'll know you're team is in for a "world of hurt".

Love it!

I was watching a doubles match last week in DC with Gonzalez and Robredo playing. Gonzalez pounded a forehand right into the opponent's chest that left a ball mark on his skin. He showed it to the crowd after the match.

It is amusing to me as well when people denigrate the double bend because the double bend is actually the underlying foundation for some of the biggest and best forehands of all time.

[airforce1]

So coaches out there beware, if you ever come across a 3.0 women's team, playing straight armed, with multiple cross-combinations (what I like to call F.U. 1 and F.U. 2), you'll know you're team is in for a "world of hurt".

Pretty funny!

[10splayer]

Just got back from the Open yesterday, and had ringside seats to the Gonzo vs Massu match. Even as I sustained a slight case of whiplash, witnessed paint chipped from the baseline, and observed holes seared through the back fence. All I could think about, was how inefficient that stupid double-bend forehand is. And how these two hacks, could benefit from a lessson with Jason. I tried to call out to them after the match, to let them know the error of their double bend ways, but to no avail. Hopefully, they'll find their way on to this thread. God I hope so, for their sake.


Having spent the day watching the matches, I've decided that that the double bend is just not good enough for my lessons. There simply wasn't enough evidence yesterday, that a decent forehand could be hit with said structure.

So coaches out there beware, if you ever come across a 3.0 women's team, playing straight armed, with multiple cross-combinations (what I like to call F.U. 1 and F.U. 2), you'll know your team is in for a "world of hurt".

[nabrug]

I think I know the difference now... this particular clip:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/high_speed_archive/pro_men/roger_federer/roger_federer_high_speed.html?FHShortFront-0023125-0001.mov

is showing FH1. The way I distinguish between the two is via racquet swing path. The FH1 swing path is more back to front, and there could be some obstruction to the follow through as the hitting arm folds over the pecs. FH2 is a freer, more unfettered swing, from inside to outside, and low to high. Imagine swinging your arms back and forth as if you were marching. There is no obstruction to the follow through. As a result, the kinetics (muscle usage) is different in FH1 and FH2 (I mentioned this in one of my earlier posts). Combinations of the two are also possible, and it looks like Federer frequently employs strokes that are in between.

Right, nabrug?

Again very clever observations by you. Please don't tell anybody else!

Nico.

[airforce1]

Good questions.

We are not allowed to know your name but Fatthorse I gave you my name.

"......besides, i've paid a couple of thousand dollars for what jason has taught me. why should i give it to you guys for free? many of you would just use it to try to find fault based upon your track records already..............".

Fatthorse?? what is that about?

fine, but I just hope you are a woman, because this is quite a tease you try to get going on this FH2 thing, LoL.

first it is "everyone look at what I know and you don't know"
then, "ok, i'll give you a hint and a peek"
then, "NO, i'll keep this for myself, cause you wouldn't understand"

Sorry, I thought you had an idea to share on the forum. Don't know where I got that idea. I thought if you got enough attention, that you would eventually drop the tease, but whatever...
I was hoping you had something interesting to say.
Reminds me of an infomercial- all sizzle and no Steak!

You and Jason enjoy your little secret.

[tennisplayer]

I am still wondering if you know the difference between FH1 and FH2. That is why I am very interested in seeing you and/or your coach hitting FH2. But for now is this clip showing a FH1 or a FH2?

Thanks, Nico.

I think I know the difference now... this particular clip:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/high_speed_archive/pro_men/roger_federer/roger_federer_high_speed.html?FHShortFront-0023125-0001.mov

is showing FH1. The way I distinguish between the two is via racquet swing path. The FH1 swing path is more back to front, and there could be some obstruction to the follow through as the hitting arm folds over the pecs. FH2 is a freer, more unfettered swing, from inside to outside, and low to high. Imagine swinging your arms back and forth as if you were marching. There is no obstruction to the follow through. As a result, the kinetics (muscle usage) is different in FH1 and FH2 (I mentioned this in one of my earlier posts). Combinations of the two are also possible, and it looks like Federer frequently employs strokes that are in between.

Right, nabrug?

[nabrug]

Narbug, what about this question?

Good questions.

We are not allowed to know your name but Fatthorse I gave you my name.

"......besides, i've paid a couple of thousand dollars for what jason has taught me. why should i give it to you guys for free? many of you would just use it to try to find fault based upon your track records already..............".

[airforce1]

Looked at the vids you suggested of Philipousis and Fed.
does the FH2 have to do with the shape of the swing and how Fed pulls back with his body, where Phil presses out to the ball?

Also, what is your simple drill for kids?

Narbug, what about this question?

[nabrug]

Nico,
I never really got an answer if I got it right in this post or not. Did I?
don

Oh sorry. I thought you gave the answer yourself (... or no, I don't got it!).

Sorry Don it is a really different technique.

[uspta990770809]

Nico, I never got a response for post #60 above

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

Nico,
I never really got an answer if I got it right in this post or not. Did I?
don

Looked at the vids you suggested of Philipousis and Fed.
does the FH2 have to do with the shape of the swing and how Fed pulls back with his body, where Phil presses out to the ball?

Also, what is your simple drill for kids?

airforce1, i don't think you were asking me, but i am certain federer is pulling his body back to maintain his extended arm contact. not as a technique of the stroke.

[airforce1]

As you could read I think of tennis as sending but a lot more in the reception of a ball. I have a very simple drill to let even have 4 year olds making an eye jump (saccade) while focussing. I can't say I let them look at the ball but I ask them to do what I think Federer and Nadal are doing.

Looked at the vids you suggested of Philipousis and Fed.
does the FH2 have to do with the shape of the swing and how Fed pulls back with his body, where Phil presses out to the ball?

Also, what is your simple drill for kids?

[nabrug]

i recall him talking about that few days with her and he was just focusing on getting her to look at the ball (which i'm guessing no one teaches because no one knows how to do it...i'm gonna get chastised for that) and recognize a different contact point and learning to get further from it.

Wrong again. (Is that a habit of yours?)

As you could read I think of tennis as sending but a lot more in the reception of a ball. I have a very simple drill to let even have 4 year olds making an eye jump (saccade) while focussing. I can't say I let them look at the ball but I ask them to do what I think Federer and Nadal are doing.