where'd the bent arm come from anyway?

[nabrug]

Nico,

I hadn't seen that article by Jeff. That is interesting. Philipousis hits what to me is more like a straight arm forehand and the Federer example is what I had only started calling an extended forehand on here because it seemed like people were lumping all forehands where the ball was contacted with a straight arm into the same basket. I will look at that series of articles more closely when I have time.

I am definitely an advocate of what you are calling the FH2 if we are only talking about these examples shown. Lots of folks on here want to call any stroke that has a bent elbow a double bend even when the wrist extends through just before to make an extended wrist at contact. At least that has been my take. An FH2 that gets just a little inside on you doesn't make it a double bend. Agree?

Yes. That is what I call cross combinations between two techniques. And these cross combinations make that certain people (f.i. mr. Y.) see 20-60 types of FH's with Federer.

No, I mean the girl in the clip. The hip action on the BH side is not at the same level as the FH yet.

oh. sorry. yeah, i agree. she only had a few hours with jason and still needed alot of work. he would have her doing so many things differently with her movement and hip alignment etc had she not lived 1000 miles away.

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.

if you want to see jason's finished product wait until artem sitak makes tv or if someone taped him kicking sampras' butt last december, then you can see movement as close to federer... but wasn't born with it...but taught it. he moves like a cat.

[nabrug]

Nico,

I think of hip action in terms of how much driving force do i want to generate and what my situation is based upon what the ball is doing coming at me and when i get to my setup position. not whether there is more on one side vs the other. on the backhand side we teach the back leg in a position just like the forehand....not the leg closer to the ball stepping across. (that's so inefficient.)

i think if you looked at a jason or kent backhand and forehand at hips only you likely shouldn't be able to see much difference.

i just had to do some shadow strokes in the office... my feet, legs, hips are identical on both forehand and backhand for the same height ball.

No, I mean the girl in the clip. The hip action on the BH side is not at the same level as the FH yet.

In the 3rd (?) Jeff Counts' article about the straight arm FH you can see the comparison between Federer and Philipousis. FH2 (Federer) vs FH1. The difference is that Federer can hit also like Philipousis but not vice versa.

Nico,

I hadn't seen that article by Jeff. That is interesting. Philipousis hits what to me is more like a straight arm forehand and the Federer example is what I had only started calling an extended forehand on here because it seemed like people were lumping all forehands where the ball was contacted with a straight arm into the same basket. I will look at that series of articles more closely when I have time.

I am definitely an advocate of what you are calling the FH2 if we are only talking about these examples shown. Lots of folks on here want to call any stroke that has a bent elbow a double bend even when the wrist extends through just before to make an extended wrist at contact. At least that has been my take. An FH2 that gets just a little inside on you doesn't make it a double bend. Agree?

If you look at the after clip of the pupil of Jason what is your opinion about the hip action of the FH compared to the BH. I think you like to see more hip action at the BH. Don't you?

Nico.

Nico,

I think of hip action in terms of how much driving force do i want to generate and what my situation is based upon what the ball is doing coming at me and when i get to my setup position. not whether there is more on one side vs the other. on the backhand side we teach the back leg in a position just like the forehand....not the leg closer to the ball stepping across. (that's so inefficient.)

i think if you looked at a jason or kent backhand and forehand at hips only you likely shouldn't be able to see much difference.

i just had to do some shadow strokes in the office... my feet, legs, hips are identical on both forehand and backhand for the same height ball.

[nabrug]

Nico,

I have to admit I do not know your definition of an FH1 vs FH2. I recall us discussing it but would have to go back and search to find your definition. This video clip is nothing more to me than a forehand hit on a downward plane where Fed obviously extends his hitting arm as always but bends the elbow maybe just slightly for a misjudged setup or an intended change of direction because he changed his mind during the forward swing. not even enough to talk about to me. not a technical change by any means

In the 3rd (?) Jeff Counts' article about the straight arm FH you can see the comparison between Federer and Philipousis. FH2 (Federer) vs FH1. The difference is that Federer can hit also like Philipousis but not vice versa.

If you look at the after clip of the pupil of Jason what is your opinion about the hip action of the FH compared to the BH. I think you like to see more hip action at the BH. Don't you?

The girl is only hitting FH1 like Federer in the clip above.

Nico.

Nico,

I have to admit I do not know your definition of an FH1 vs FH2. I recall us discussing it but would have to go back and search to find your definition. This video clip is nothing more to me than a forehand hit on a downward plane where Fed obviously extends his hitting arm as always but bends the elbow maybe just slightly for a misjudged setup or an intended change of direction because he changed his mind during the forward swing. not even enough to talk about to me. not a technical change by any means

[nabrug]

bottle, i love that video clip. i use it as an example to my kids to get up there and get that thing high and knock it down in the court.

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.

There is no question whatsoever that I'm handling low balls better with my Federfore than I did during my twenty years of double-bend. I love to golf those low, outside suckers even after a pretty fast run. Since I'm over 6' 4" I don't see many high balls, but when I do I'll know how to respond thanks to Carrera Kent. (Did Roger Federer himself go through a similar educational process on high balls? Maybe!) Here's a pretty high ball, shortened backswing as far as arm but very big shoulders turn:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...23125-0001.mov

bottle, i love that video clip. i use it as an example to my kids to get up there and get that thing high and knock it down in the court.

[bottle]

Ball Level Discussion

There is no question whatsoever that I'm handling low balls better with my Federfore than I did during my twenty years of double-bend. I love to golf those low, outside suckers even after a pretty fast run. Since I'm over 6' 4" I don't see many high balls, but when I do I'll know how to respond thanks to Carrera Kent. (Did Roger Federer himself go through a similar educational process on high balls? Maybe!) Here's a pretty high ball, shortened backswing as far as arm but very big shoulders turn:

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

The last few years I've taught a lot of good young players or at least tried. Previously, I worked primarily with much older players if not adults. But either way, one of the big problems these players have is dealing with high balls. Older recreational players can't handle the pushers and little kids are playing everything up over their heads. One of the key things I have to get them to understand to deal with those high balls (when they can't get in a better position to play it in their preferred power zone), is that they don't have to lift their arms or their elbows to the high ball, just the head of the racket. Oliensis's examples of Agassi's aggressive handling of high balls with a double bend shows a little of this idea. I try to get these players to see they only have to move their elbows about 6" to go from the lowest to the highest ball they will play with a forehand or 2-hander (a couple of inches more on a 1-handed backhand). This also speaks to the ability to maintain consistency and accuracy.

With a zero-bend (forget straight/extended) stroke, you have to get the elbow a lot higher. Isn't this a disadvantage? Not many players are as strong as a Nadal/Federer or Verdasco. Certainly not 10 year-olds.

don

don,

my first question is why does a 10 year old worry about hitting high balls? if the answer because of tournaments then i question who in their right mind would put a 10 year old in a tournament, but i know that is a losing battle with those parents that believe their kid is the next agassi or sharapova.

i personally have not had any problems with my kids hitting high balls, but i purposfully do not get the ball high on the kids under 12.

my wife is a usta official and when she officiates national juniors i see what you are talking about, but the first thing i recognize is that those kids are not using what i would try to employ to make up for weak shoulder muscles.

1. more shoulder turn but less back swing. i almost never see a kid use enough shoulder turn. increase shoulder turn they tend to take the arm way back, so i emphasize with all students the racket does not leave the path behind the ball...at least not in my presence. that way i cut out the big delayed power swings that the dog pat thread has been talking about on here.

2. all kids CAN hold their racket above shoulder height...or their racket is way to heavy for them. the idea that the same arm initiates the forward motion is one of the big mistakes...i'm sure you know that. so this goes back to step 1. make sure shoulders, hips, and legs start the motion. then the weak arm is not an issue in my experience.

3. in kids 12 and up, especially if they are athletes, i teach them to hit jump forehands and knock the ball down their opponents throats early on and they will stop that moon ball junk. (only on balls that they can make contact with inside the baseline. i have them wait for that one and then nail it).

i figure most people are saying, "what, teach jumping forehands to 12 year olds?" yep, works great because they have to use good leg explosion and shoulder turn and short backswings to make it work. waalaa, i just tricked them into hitting with good principles because they think it is so cool to hit huge forehands...and some of these 12 year olds hit huge forehands when they explode off the ground like that.

4. what you said about only getting the elbow up a few inches...i think it would be worth it to make them get the elbow higher so that you teach better mechanics for down the road. otherwise i think their mechanics suffer by having to always generate racket head speed with so much muscular effort.

with that said, i see much more racket head speed when people get the elbow higher than the majority of kids with these bent arm contraptions.

it just occurred to me that a week or so ago someone talked about the crazy grips cause kids are hitting such high balls... those crazy grips wouldn't exist if coaches taught players to get the right distance from the ball and get their elbows high. never thought of that before but it makes sense to me.

anxious for anyone's take on this that has tried higher elbows...

as for adults dealing with pushers...a 50+ guy came to me two weeks ago able to rip waist high balls and couldn't hit a high pushers ball except the abrupt windshield wiper brush up the back of the ball...usually resulting in a ball short in the court and not controllable.

i had him spend two days with me hitting hundreds of high forehands...i first got him further from the ball, made him hit with extension, lots more shoulder turn, push off the back leg AND especially get the straight prep arm very high relative to his desired contact point.

drove up the courts this weekend and there he was driving hard top spin balls into the court resulting in his nemesis hitting way late and making tons of errors. when the guy saw me he had a huge grin on his face.

so i think it is just teaching that the ball at the knees, waist, chest, shoulder, and above shoulders is the same stroke. just different contact points, therefore different backswing positions.

[uspta990770809]

Question about high balls!

one instance: http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...hortFront2.mov

2nd instance: http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...hortFront3.mov

3rd:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/andreagassi/aa_forehand/aa_fh_short/aa_fh_short.html?AAFHShortRear2.mov

4th:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/andreagassi/aa_forehand/aa_fh_short/aa_fh_short.html?AAFHShortNeutralStanceFront1.mov

5th:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/andreagassi/aa_forehand/aa_fh_short/aa_fh_short.html?AAFHShortCrossCourtRear2.mov

Double Bend on a high ball, hit offensively: http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...LevelSide1.mov

2nd high ball hit offensively w/ double bend:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/andreagassi/aa_forehand/aa_fh_short/aa_fh_short.html?AAFHShortCrossCourtFront2.mov

And a deep ball, hit shoulder high, offensively w/ double bend:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/andreagassi/aa_forehand/aa_fh_moves_back/aa_fh_moves_back.html?AAFHMovesBackCourtLevelSide6.mov

Poof goes the thesis of the quote at the top of this post.

Since, on the extended-arm forehand, the wrist must be laid back MORE than on the double bend, and the contact point is further forward, generally, I am actually unconvinced that the effective lever length is greater on the extended arm. It's just a different configuration with "hinges"/"fulcrums" in different locations (or more accurately, different emphasis on different fulcrums). The "jackhandle" is just a different shape, so that the torque is applied to the ball with a slightly different set of mechanics.

The last few years I've taught a lot of good young players or at least tried. Previously, I worked primarily with much older players if not adults. But either way, one of the big problems these players have is dealing with high balls. Older recreational players can't handle the pushers and little kids are playing everything up over their heads. One of the key things I have to get them to understand to deal with those high balls (when they can't get in a better position to play it in their preferred power zone), is that they don't have to lift their arms or their elbows to the high ball, just the head of the racket. Oliensis's examples of Agassi's aggressive handling of high balls with a double bend shows a little of this idea. I try to get these players to see they only have to move their elbows about 6" to go from the lowest to the highest ball they will play with a forehand or 2-hander (a couple of inches more on a 1-handed backhand). This also speaks to the ability to maintain consistency and accuracy.

With a zero-bend (forget straight/extended) stroke, you have to get the elbow a lot higher. Isn't this a disadvantage? Not many players are as strong as a Nadal/Federer or Verdasco. Certainly not 10 year-olds.

don

[airforce1]

They can't.

And sorry to be rude but that has never been your point. But I am glad you agree with MY theory. (Airforce tell him it is mine!)

I wish I knew what was your theory.

I'm wondering if it has something to do with the more across and vert. swing plane at contact, which could increase the reception area??

[bottle]

I don't buy it.

There's just a gulf of space between Roger's body and his racket head when
he hits one of his straight-armers. The other half of the time, where he's scissoring the arm, his contact is closer. For people trying to learn this I recommend the scissoring version unless they are geniuses at far-out setup.
Bowl the racket head out there actively and then sling it in the same direction passively through opposite body pull. The racket head passively unfurls. It passively makes a clean, upward incision in the air that you'd have to say was beautifully straight if the huge body spiral weren't at the same time bringing those strings around.

A fair question would be, "How do you know this, Bottle-- this stuff about passivity?" Answer: I don't know NUTHIN. Except that it's working for me and I therefore am excited and developing the same phenomenon on the backhand side.

I loved the picture of my car jack handle by the way and had a double-bend
forehand for twenty years. I loved the article by Peter Burwash on double-bend in Tennis Magazine where he explained its adjustability, that you could
bring in the racket or extend it out more at the last second. And I certainly
must have cranked my car jack out on the court for nine years. But doesn't this close the racket head too fast for you? I was better at cross-courts than DTL's. But I don't know your grip. More under the handle, no? Twisting elbow can take strings off the ball much too fast and send them immediately toward the left fence if you are a right-hander. Cranking forearm can change pitch or not but cranking whole arm changes it big-time and turns the stroke into liability as far as I'm concerned.

The two strokes are really different. Ray Brown, using Andre as model most often, had all these educational materials up about elbow knifing and sliding past the stomach ("elbow greases past the stomach," my USPTA instructor Jim Kacian may have said although he is very literate). But Ray drew a big distinction, even made lists of different famous pros whose body swings the elbow around to the outside instead.

One distinction that people don't seem to be making is between double bend
and scissoring arm. They are two different animals. Best regards.

Poof goes the thesis of the quote at the top of this post.

Mr. O, not so quick buckaroo. I am glad that we are both in agreement that it is possible to hit a very low ball and a high ball with a bent elbow, although neither of us doubted that to begin with. I'll take my 45 year old man's high ball penetration in the court over Agassi's when he was 22 any day. (oh that should get some hair neck raising)

I think in all of your examples of Agassi except one the ball is twice as high as in your Federer example and Agassi is moving forward which i figure gives him more leverage than if he were moving wide like the Fed example.

Nonetheless, from experience since i used to hit with a bent elbow know first hand that Agassi spent twice as much or more energy on those shots and I bet they still were as good a shot...that we won't know and it doesn't matter.

Now...before you throw more mud on my "thesis" please note that only on the balls that Agassi gets way too close to does he use a double bend. Look at his wrist extension on most of those shots. (what have I been trying to advocate? EXTENSION!)

This is where I scratch my head because so many of you guys post links to videos of guys making contact with a bent elbow and an extended wrist, siting "double bend". Since I don't really care anything about a double bend or single bend, it's not a big deal, but surely you guys are aware of the huge differences in a single bend with wrist extension (or whatever you want to call it) and a true double bend with no wrist extension...the requires tons of pec, bicep, etc muscles contraction to even think of any racket head speed.

And something noone has talked about...the masses with arm problems...why do so many of them have arm braces on? it's not because they were taught to hit with natural extension and efficient usage of what God gave them.

They were either taught to use bent mechanics or they did it on their own. What causes arm problems...muscular imbalances (both strength and flexibility) and the over usage of the wrong muscles (small muscles or muscle groups being required to perform an unnatural act in place of a large muscle group...or antagonistically in conjunction with larger muscles.)

so if you can teach someone to hit a target more often, improve movement, use less energy, have more rapid improvement, and have fewer strokes to have to perfect, and eliminate the chance of any arm problems...you tell me that you'd still have this argument if it weren't just so much fun? That is why we are doing this debate right? for fun?