where'd the bent arm come from anyway?

[jeffreycounts]

Dude, chill out. I'm not sure I have time to bring you up to speed. So far just about every guy on this site that tries to bash me just shows their elementary understanding...but i will take partial responsibility because i haven't always been as good at explaining things as i want and these threads are so fragmented.

If you don't like what I write, don't read it. I guess the numerous guys that have emailed me telling me how what I'm saying is starting to make sense and they are seeing how they can improve with it are delirious too. And those same guys talking about how unless you are a "famous coach" or agree with you guys on here, then I don't stand a chance. Ha ha...geez, that hasn't been my experience. I'm just saying what people on this site are telling me personally.

Anyway, one interesting thing you ask is why is Murray gunning for #1 instead of Verdasco? Please help me here. Did I ever allude to the fact that only straight arm hitters will be at the top? Or that that one factor will make them the top? Why would Fed and Nadal choose the kind of extension I'm talking about if it was a bunch of bunk? You can answer that for yourself...I already know the answer.

I am sorry that you do not have a high enough level of comprehension of muscular and structural biomechanics and physiology to understand my reasons for the comparisons. I didn't expect very many people to get it. But those that did, are laughing at you, not me.

No, I don't have a personal line with Fed. I got to spend a day on court with him while my coach and one of his players worked out with Fed. I felt like being that close and watching him groove and not seeing a single contact in over an hour with his right arm bent at contact pretty much solidified what I was already experiencing in my game and ALL of my students games.

Let's agree to not read each other's posts. That way you don't waste my time and I don't waste yours. I'm gonna take some new students.. video them before their first lesson with me and then after just one lesson. Give me a little time to do that and then you can watch the videos and keep your truck drivin' on the road where it belongs. cheers

My point isn't really about the straight armed forehand or the bent armed forehand. It's your ATTITUDE. You come on here saying that everyone gets it wrong, you are the genius, and if people (including elite athletes like Tsonga) just listened to you the world would be a better place. None of the writers on this site have that kind of an attitude, so to get it from some no-name poster on the forum is particularly irritating. The fact that you chose to dismantle John Yandell's seminal discovery of the double bend hitting structure makes it that much more annoying considering this entire site is his brainchild and you are posting on it.

Is the straight armed forehand - as specifically executed by Nadal and Verdasco - an amazing shot? There is no denying it. But to say that straightening the arm leads to tennis nirvana is just stupid considering the fact that Djokovic, Hewitt, Tsonga, Coria, Agassi, Murray, Roddick, etc all hit the ball with all the power they could ever possibly need with a bent arm, makes your exaggerated arguments look silly.

[jeffreycounts]

Someone once told me, look at what the majority do and figure out why you should not do the same, because the majority is never exceptional.

John, for two years now, and I have already given these examples on here, I have taken beginner 10 year olds, 80 + year olds, and every where in between and sent their forehands to levels pretty amazing for their abilities, etc by simply teaching them how to reach full natural extension by first reading the optimum contact point, getting to that point, and using the full torso, shoulder rotation thing to get their racket to the contact relaxed, traveling faster than ever, and far more consistently than the ever changing degrees of bent.

My point really is that the technique I am talking about is not advanced, it is just more natural. I am currently testing players and teaching pros in the area to formulate a theory as to what causes players all over the world to guide and force a tennis ball. So far my research is pointing to the fact that they are never taught the most critical fundamentals of the tennis stroke.

Players start out being taught around stage 4 or 5...maybe even 6. They never learn the first stages because the teaching pros and coaches don't know them. At least I have not found one that does. I'm sure some do...but where the heck are they? It's not genius or the lack thereof...it's just over sight, I think.

Can you really doubt that all of the guys you mention with big forehands would not have had bigger more accurate ones if they had more natural biomechanics? No players level ever reached their potential, so how can we state that what they did is optimum and what we should seek? Makes no sense to me...

And yes, I think it is right to ask questions of the entire tennis community to expand our collective thinking. What I think is wrong is the overwhelming assumptions that because most top players do something it makes it right. You know as well as anyone how many things over course of time in the tennis world have been thought to be the best way possible only to learn a few years later how silly all of the top guys were performing. Without asking questions that relate across sports and physics and natural body mechanics how can we as tennis teachers, players, etc. expect to not stay one step behind?

BTW, Federer has never hit a double bend forehand because it was his first choice. Go ask him. I was on court with him for workout sessions with a friend. He NEVER hits anything except fully extended and relaxed when he has the chance.

Your arguments are riddled with holes so big I could drive a truck through them. You say don't look at what the majority do because they aren't exceptional. I hate to tell you, but John's stroke archive consists of the smallest segment of elite tennis players in the world. If you consider the under 1% of the tennis population that has made it to not only the pro tour, but at the TOP of the pro tour to be the "majority" of tennis players you are confused beyond help. The majority of tennis players out there have NO hitting structure, let alone the pro double bend structure we see at the top of the game.

We have about 2 or 3 players at the elite level hitting with a fully straight arm. Everyone else has a bent elbow. The numbers here are so overwhelming that it's just ridiculous. And if your argument is true, why is it MURRAY and not Verdasco gunning for the number one position in the world. Why was Philippousis and Srichiphan never the number one player?

Please post a video of your amazing straight arm forehand - that would be more valuable than your nonsensical and deceptive arguments (posting a picture of a baseball player's arm AFTER throwing to say that a forehand should therefore be hit with a straight arm - are you freaking kidding me???)

Your claims are also just laughable. You taught an 80+ year old a great straight armed forehand!! You have personal access to Roger Federer??

Despite what I think about your ideas and your crazy claims, you serve no purpose coming onto John's site, ranting about how you know everything, and expressing your stupification that other's don't see it your way. It's a waste of time - both yours and ours.

After watching a lot of videos, and trying some experiments, I think I understand the differences between the double bend way and the straight arm way of hitting.

The fundamental difference is that the double bend utilizes the pecs and the straight arm uses more of the deltoids and biceps.

The double bend uses an open stance, so that at the time contact is made, the chest is roughly parallel to the net. How should the arm be positioned to get the best leverage? Definitely not by holding it extended straight out, when one is using the pecs to push it forward! By holding the elbow closer to the body, and using body rotation, one gets more stability and leverage.

In the so called straight arm method (I say so called because the arm need not always be straight), the motion is more like an upper cut, using the deltoids and biceps, with the chest facing the ball rather than the net. Sometimes the ball appears to be almost at the side of the player. This motion, made with a supinated arm, with a good distance between the player and the ball, will tend to straighten the arm. However, if the ball is too close, the arm need not be completely straight - yet by virtue of being all arm, it is still different from the classic double bend stroke. There is definitely less body rotation in this technique.

In short, I do see these as being two fundamentally different strokes, employing different body kinetics. Whether one is superior to the other or not is not for me to say... I could settle for either of Federer's or Sampras' forehands.

i appreciate your effort, but i wonder if you adjusted your contact point much further from your body to hit "straight arm". if you didn't then that explains your observations and comments.

the extended forehand (as you are calling "straight arm") does not employ either the deltoids or the tripceps. that is where the difference in an "extended forehand" like federer's is different than what is perceived to be a "straight arm" forehand.

i have gone away from saying straight arm because i realized that until a person is understanding the torque and balance as it should be, they will tend to use muscles to get the arm out straight which is not what federer or anyone that hits a truly naturally extending forehand is doing.

i disagree with the stability and rotation thing. because one has to have better movement and better balance and better awareness of where they should be, they automatically have more stability. how much "stability" is required? NONE if you are balanced. Look at Federer hit balls completely in the air and have a total separation of his upper shoulder structure from his hips. he still has complete rotation etc.

most people do not know that the shoulder structure is independent of the ribs and it should be able to float on top of the torso. so if someone is rigid in their shoulders and especially torso rotation at the waist, then they will feel a need to rotate more and do other stuff to make up for their lack of structural integrity and flexibility.

everyone that doesn't have a fused lower spine or such should be able to get ample shoulder and torso rotation to hit an extended forehand.

absolutely NOT on the shoulders facing the ball. rotation is the same on either double bend or extended, if not more rotated towards net because of the freedom of torque release (as I calll it) rather than the units working separate of one another. just look at verdasco, nadal, and federer when they are extended to the ball. where are they facing?

Tennisplayer you said there is less rotation with the straight arm, but if you watch Yandell's videos on the straight arm he emphasizes it requires MORE body rotation which is why it might be too extreme for a regular player.

What Mr. Yandell is saying is true only because people that use the double bend are often using so many wrong muscles to hit the stroke that they can get away with not rotating "properly". But rotation is something we see in most male pros. (i just can't get myself to talk about female pros)

More rotation is a key element that almost every one could use to improve. I often can give a lesson to a new student and only change his/her amount of rotation and it will fix many other things at the same time. I am glad you guys are talking about rotation because that is one of the few key elements that sets players apart between the professional and amateur ranks. Movement, rotation, and ball recognition. Difference in a pro and not being a pro. (whew, that should get some feedback). I'm trying to generalize, but those key elements are the foundation in my opinion.

[tsonga]

Tennisplayer you said there is less rotation with the straight arm, but if you watch Yandell's videos on the straight arm he emphasizes it requires MORE body rotation which is why it might be too extreme for a regular player.

[tennisplayer]

After watching a lot of videos, and trying some experiments, I think I understand the differences between the double bend way and the straight arm way of hitting.

The fundamental difference is that the double bend utilizes the pecs and the straight arm uses more of the deltoids and biceps.

The double bend uses an open stance, so that at the time contact is made, the chest is roughly parallel to the net. How should the arm be positioned to get the best leverage? Definitely not by holding it extended straight out, when one is using the pecs to push it forward! By holding the elbow closer to the body, and using body rotation, one gets more stability and leverage.

In the so called straight arm method (I say so called because the arm need not always be straight), the motion is more like an upper cut, using the deltoids and biceps, with the chest facing the ball rather than the net. Sometimes the ball appears to be almost at the side of the player. This motion, made with a supinated arm, with a good distance between the player and the ball, will tend to straighten the arm. However, if the ball is too close, the arm need not be completely straight - yet by virtue of being all arm, it is still different from the classic double bend stroke. There is definitely less body rotation in this technique.

In short, I do see these as being two fundamentally different strokes, employing different body kinetics. Whether one is superior to the other or not is not for me to say... I could settle for either of Federer's or Sampras' forehands.

[johnyandell]

Uh, so is the arm straight or not? And evolution is different than damnation. You are quite convinced but if you want to make impact you have to demonstrate this to the larger world in a way that convinces them.

don,

i've started replies to your post several times and can't seem to get finished before having to run off to something. you raise some good points that deserve discussion, etc.

i guess the place to start is in the long lever/fulcrum, whatever we want to call it. i don't think "long" is the answer, thus no i don't think longer rackets would be the answer. i think the whole meaning revolves around relaxed extension which results in the longest for the individuals anatomy.

there is a right brain - left brain thing that ties in to this that would take these discussion to another level, but in one other post i emphasize how much longer the extended forehand is over the double bend...up to 15 inches for me. if i am in my right brain and muscles are relaxed and set up to the ball properly (balanced, etc) and time the stroke properly, my relaxed extended racket will produce so much more racket head speed with such a minimal amount of force that i can focus my attention upon hitting my target and not trying (TRY being the optimum word as a left brain function) to hit the cover off of it like Gonzo and others.

So, if i can relax, swing much faster with less effort, hit my target more often because i understand proper alignment (because it is more required now), and i have basically one set up to every forehand with adjustment to height of contact point, then i will produce a shot that is more duplicatable and more of a nightmare for my opponents.

I agree with you that bent arm makes for easier adjustment...that is why it is so prevalent. Regardless of the level of play, players tend to move well, or not well in proportion to the challenge. I think that is why we see NTRP 3.0 players doing the same thing to adjust to the ball as Agassi did all the time...bend the arm.

To me, Federer's genius is in his body, kinesthetic awareness and ability to adapt with his hips, etc without conscious thought. John Yandell seems to question whether we should teach to that level of complexity. I contest that it is not complex, but the teaching methods of today and especially in the past do not allow for proper adjustments...IF the player is inclined. Because it is so easy to get away with tightening the muscles and slowing the racket head down to not make a mistake, then people take that approach. Human nature.

So if we can get players seeing better movement and better reading of the ball as the fix instead of just bending the arm and having as many arm configurations as there are ball reading screw ups, then all tennis players will be better than they are. They have to be...wouldn't you agree?

I don't care how good someone was or is...they could have been better with better movement and better set up to balls. the result of that is simply a result of better biomechanics around/thru the axis.

Most importantly maybe...is the contact zone! The common belief is as you say it that players have such a short period of time that the racket is actually in "alignment" with the ball and their target. I've been posting and trying to emphasize sweet spot behind the ball much much earlier in the take back and especially forward swing.

My coach's forehand, which is the only forehand I've ever seen that rivals federers in natural motion, extension and seemingly effortless power and spin, could make contact maybe 12-18 inches "late" behind the intended contact point and still the ball will go to the intended target because his sweet spot is in alignment with the ball almost from the instant it begins the forward motion. (i am working on that kind of position currently and notice that when the back of my back swing is behind the ball and not out and beside me, i hit so much harder and more accurately.)

That early position behind the ball becomes a very rigid straight arm forehand (that understandably has most people skeptical) when the proper elongation all the way from the shoulder out to the hands is not achieved. This elongation goes completely against what is required to hit a double bend forehand, therefore i am not surprised that everyone is having heart burn over this.

What you say about doing like Fed or Nadal is too challenging for us mortals is only true when accompanied by traditional biomechanics and left brain desire to hit hard and guide the ball with the arm and eyes.

I apologize is this is somewhat jumbled as I've been writing it in pieces.

Look forward to discussion.

jperedo,

you are probably right.

[johnyandell]

Again, I'm in Cincinnati right now. I'm happy to meet your coach and you guys can submit an article if you can find the right voice and make a good presentation.

[johnyandell]

Carerra,

I appreciate that the tone of your arguments has dropped down and become somewhat more focused on the issues. Like I said all along if the straight arm forehand is the wave of the future I'll gladly go along. I've revised my views on many technical issues over the years. I'd rather evolve than be consistent. It's a waste of time to defend for the sake of defending.

I'm just not at all persuaded by what I've seen that this applies to every player at every level or should. It's funny that you have attacked the double bend concept so vociferously, because one of the things I've been talking about for a while with people like Brian Gordon was trying to figure out what the relative pluses and minuses are.

I think you undermine yourself by damning all other options as if you simply can't produce a great forehand except with your method. Also by trying to associate it with unnatural manipulations of the hand and arm, guiding the ball etc. Pete Sampras had one of the loosest forehand swings ever and blasted people off the court with his forehand. Since we can't clone him and repeat his career with a straight arm there is no way to determine if it could be even better.

I'm the who said coaches follow players and I believe it. It cannot be terrible that hundreds of elite players have intuitively found this structure. I didn't invent it! I discovered it in studying video--as well as seeing the straight arm.
So advocate for what you believe and be a pioneer and maybe you'll change things but please stop disparaging and dismissing everything else. Like I said it undermines you. We need to recapture civility in this forum, myself included, and I'll take whatever steps required.

[jperedo]

Would you provide a link to a video from a stroke archive
which supports your conjecture?
julian mielniczuk
usptapro 27873

Look at any of the videos from the players i listed (particularly short balls), where you can see the ball landing. The arm is far from straight until the ball bounces and the hips/torso rotates. Considering how fast the balls are kicking up at the pro level, they must have a good reason to make it this hard on themselves.

[uspta146749877]

A video to support

imo, the purpose of the arm extension goes beyond creating the extra leverage. My theory is it aids the hip with passive external rotation of the upper arm. Watch the timing, especially on short balls.

Fed, Verdasco, Nadal all wait until the hip rotation is already initiated before fully straightening the arm. Usually extension is initiated at around the bounce of the ball. If it was strictly a leverage aiding mechanism, it make would make way more sense from a timing perspective to just run around with their arms fully extended.

Would you provide a link to a video from a stroke archive
which supports your conjecture?
julian mielniczuk
usptapro 27873

[jperedo]

leverage

imo, the purpose of the arm extension goes beyond creating the extra leverage. My theory is it aids the hip with passive external rotation of the upper arm. Watch the timing, especially on short balls.

Fed, Verdasco, Nadal all wait until the hip rotation is already initiated before fully straightening the arm. Usually extension is initiated at around the bounce of the ball. If it was strictly a leverage aiding mechanism, it make would make way more sense from a timing perspective to just run around with their arms fully extended.

Mr. O,

BTW, many of those baseball batter's in the video are yanking their elbows in to make up for a ball that's inside on them. But still, I see the desire of extension in the rear arm in every example except where they are pulling into hope for contact with the meat of the bat.

Don,
Well put.
There are fulcrums and complexities in the kinetic chain that make it complex as hell.

Would the longest whip give you the biggest snap? (Some towels are too big to snap effectively.)

Do you hammer a nail with a straight arm? Why not?
Why is a 9 iron shorter than a driver?
Why don't pros play with 29" rackets if a longer lever is optimal?
Why don't baseball players hit with 41" bats and stand as far from home plate as possible?

Here's Federer hitting a mid-court forehand where he clearly had plenty of time to set up, move to the ball (several steps) and rip it with whatever stroke he wanted:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/rogerfederer/rogerfederer_forehand/rogerfederer_fh_short/rogerfederer_fh_short.html?FedererFHShortSide1.mov

Looks like a modest double bend. Why not straight arm? Maybe because, given that he's rolling the racket over the ball and driving either inside in or a little bit cross court, he's using the elbow as a fulcrum, to some extent, from which he is rolling the stroke over in order to generate the particular direction and spin he's going for.

Of course, you want to use the longest lever you can within the parameters of the shot you're trying to hit, but, only up to a point....Watch this video:

The commentator is talking about similar issues for baseball swings. He's discussing the lead arm. But look at the rear arm. A lot of damn good hitters are hitting the baseball (which swing putatively should have extended arms) with double bend structure in rear arm (analagous to forehand).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS3HTHXspmk&feature=related

The difference in the length of the lever between a straight-arm and double-bend forehand may be between 1 and 3 inches. That difference is not inconsequential, but is often outweighed by numerous other factors in reality.

Of course, setting up for the ball with good distance, and keen awareness of a good contact point are very important...probably more important than the specifics of stroke mechanics in many ways.

Mr. O, I love it. You gave me a video example of exactly what I needed. First of all if you call that a double bent then you are on drugs and seeing things, secondly, notice how his right leg and hip drop back...why? because at the last second he realizes he is too close to the ball and if he had kept his hip flowing through as usual he would have had to bend the arm considerably to make good contact like all of the other pros do. This is an example of Federers genius...he's far superior than all of the other players in history of his body, the ball, and how to adapt at the last second to maximize his potential. In your example, I agree he rolls the forearm hand at the last second...again, i believe this is because of less than optimum setup.

As for double bend vs. "extended" not straight arm measurement: I just got up against the wall and measured the tip of my racket during an extreme double bend and the fully relaxed "extended arm. the difference for me, a short 5'8" in. dude is 15 3/4 inches. (that would be max) If 1 to 3 inches is worthy of your consideration, what about 12-15? How much less force does one have to exert to hit the same power or spin? Now that force being reduced equals what: GREATER CONTROL! wallah, we are getting somewhere!

The fully loose and free extension I talk about begins at the shoulder and ends with the hand. Look at Agassi hit a double bend with his elbow tucked in and compare to Federer's extended forehand. Probably more than my 15 inches difference! Many of you guys are stuck inside the box in your understanding of the extended arm because you keep thinking about and referring to a straight arm forehand. My guess is that none of you have ever hit a Federer like forehand. Until you are able to make the transition to that kind of extension and "whip", you likely will keep assuming that just straightening out the arm is the sum of the differences I am talking about. At least that is what I have no choice but to assume based on Yandell's and your and other's responses.

For the life of me I keep trying to explain that loose natural extension is my method of madness. Sure lots of baseball players have a bent arm in back...my point is in that all of those athletic examples, the athlete is attempting to fully extend all the way to contact. On the other hand, all of the double bend forehand hitters I know of shorten their arm as soon as it starts forward and it often continues to shorten until contact.

Your questions seem to be good ones regarding longer objects and distances, but your examples are about something (towel, whip, arms) that get longer until contact...not shorter. right? Sure there is a point of diminishing returns on longer rackets, bats, etc. but again that isn't the point. the point is BEING FAR ENOUGH FROM THE BALL TO ALLOW NATURAL MUSCULAR ELONGATION SO THAT THE KINETIC CHAIN ISN'T DIMINISHED AND RACKET HEAD SPEED SLOWED...plus, it's much harder to duplicate multiples of degrees of bent compared to full extension resulting in "straight".

Thanks for your discussion.