Tweet
Would love to hear your thoughts on "The Myth of the Recovery Step: Pro Backhands"
-
-
Destruction
"All this makes the idea of swinging the recovery foot around on the backhand a worse idea even than on the forehand. Why, because it is more disruptive of the proper sequence of the body rotation. Ironically, in the attempt to add "advanced" elements to your game you can actually end up destroying the core elements in your strokes." - John Yandell
Often times in search of the world class and modern techniques, players and coaches ignore what the body is trying to tell them by forcing and manufacturing an ideal position or movement. Often times, the body naturally sets itself in the right position, its the player or coach that second guesses it.
As for destroying core elements of a stroke in attempting to add advanced concepts...yeah, someone's forehand is dealing with that now.
Great article John. Any more Myth articles coming up? Love debunking these teaching and coaching cliches. Mythbusters: Tennis Version. I smell a new Discovery Channel show.
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton -
Kyle,
As I encounter them...Comment
-
Hey, think even I managed to get at least that right...
Comment
-
Mythology versus Sound Fundamentals...
Good timing with this article as there has been much discussion on the forum with regards to "tennis footwork and movement" lately.Originally posted by johnyandell View Post
The above was a comment that you made in April of 2013 on the thread below…which turned out to be one very interesting thread.Originally posted by johnyandell View Post
These two articles about the "recovery step" are quite possibly two of the greatest "debunkers" of modern coaching to date. The danger of accreditation is not only that it is dangerous to try and get everyone on the same page, which is sheer nonsense in the first place when trying to analyze and teach something as nebulous as tennis, but the real danger is also that the "thought police" will succeed in getting everyone on the same page and it turns out to be the wrong page.
It was fantastic to hear you expand your thoughts and analysis so thoughtfully with the appropriate video "evidence" and "examples" to evaporate this myth on this website. I wonder what it is going to take to make it go away on a larger scale. My guess is it will never go away completely now.
I have seen some very strange swings evolve from this concept. As you say…"once in a while a blind squirrel will find a nut" and make a great connection but by and large, on the whole it is one ugly mistake and violation of tennis fundamentals.
Comment
-
DB,
Yep. And agreed one of the dangers of accreditation is uniformity...Comment
-
Please help me out here!
I'm struggling with this one a little bit. I really like the emphasis on the recovery step coming after the completion of extension through the hitting zone and not really part of the actual hitting action. However, I thought there was a major difference between one-handed and most two-handed backhands (not all) in that the power comes predominantly from the rear shoulder and in turn from the rotation of the hips into the shot for the two-handed (opposite-forehand-like) backhand, whereas in the one-handed shot the power is drawn from the front shoulder and the shoulders and hips remain stationary in the classic one-handed backhand pose (not as true with heavy topspin like Wawrinka or Henin).
But the way I am reading this article is that you are identifying a 45 degree shoulder turn on the two-handed backhand (about half what we get for a normal forehand), but with almost no movement or rotation of the hips forward toward a net facing position. That is what is demonstrated by the clip of Murray's backhand. I've emphasized trying to get students whose rear foot was kicking back to try to use that foot to drive into the shot; if they were kicking that foot back, I felt they were not getting full power from their legs in their two-handed shot and were forced to power the shot almost entirely with their upper body.
Moreover, I THOUGHT I was successful in improving the shot when I got the student to drive off their left side (for rightys) and turn their hips into the shot finishing with almost their entire weight on their front/right foot. But the article is saying that kickback I was trying to discourage was actually a good thing that establishes balance for the player in executing the two-hander. Is it possible there is a significant difference between shots hit in the air and shots hit on the ground? Murray's shot looks great. But perhaps he needs that kickback because he is in the air and needs something to push against. All of the clips in the article are where the player doesn't have enough time to actually set up and move into the ball, but when you look at some neutral clips where they did have enough time, I find some difference:
Djokovic neutral stance from rear:
Murray neutral stance from front:
And one of my favorites:
Hating being wrong again!
don
And granted, to make a strong argument, I'm going to have to find some closed stance clips where the player has enough time to apply the drive I am advocating here. But this should be enough to at least further the discussion. As for the open stance 2-hander, that makes it even easier to use the power of the legs although the actual hip turn may be reduced because the shoulder turn load the power into the "x-factor" between the hips and the shoulders.Last edited by tennis_chiro; 12-10-2014, 12:53 AM.Comment
-
tennis_chiro and johnyandell…what about Gary Player
What do you guys think of this golf swing as an analogy to the recovery step. To me it's perfect. Look how GOLFPlayer sort of does the "Welby Van Horn" compensatory move with the back foot initially before he walks it on through.
But Gary Player is totally done with his swing before he makes this move and he isn't even worried about the ball coming back to him. He's going to stroll down the fairway to find the one he just hit.
I was curious as to how you would interpret this seeing as this is also a two handed stroke and some of the footwork and time constraint issues seem to be applicable here as well.
Comment
-
I do not agree with everything that is being taught in classes, workshops or accreditation. I get great value from the studying it, seeing it, trying it, playing around with it, and re-engineering it.
Tennis is hardly nebulous.
The same athletic, psychological and mental foundations you need to put in place to develop a hockey, baseball, basketball, soccer, sprinter, dancer, guitar player, drummer, piano player, businessman or whatever, are very transferable across a wide variety of sports.
In terms of coaching tennis is miles behind every other sport, and earlier I pointed out this is due to the fact no one has given people like John Yandell billions of dollars to pursue scientific study as it has been done in the world of hockey, baseball, basketball, sprinting, power lifting, personal fitness, neurology, psychology, music, business and all the rest.
Other sports are ahead because their is more money, and interest, in good data and research. Give John 20 researchers, access to every top 20 pro player in tennis, better video equipment, labs, assistance, analytics people, coaches from other sports, scientists and universities and it'd be a much different ball game.
In fact, NO ONE has done a study from top to bottom on a world number one tennis player! No one has invested say 50,000,000$ to study Federer.
Blind squirrels rarely find a nut. T Top players never just appear onto the scene from nowhere. It doesn't work that way.
And, ten years from now I really believe their will be a new breed of super players in the sport of tennis, and the technique will be radically different from what we are seeing today. Radically.Comment
-
That depends on the change in equipment: rackets, strings, balls, courts. Changes have come when equipment has changed, opening new possibilities.Originally posted by hockeyscout View PostComment
-
Yes, equipment will obviously get better, however, I think training and nutrition will improve meteorically with other training elements from other sports coming over to the world of tennis. Just a hunch.Originally posted by gzhpcu View PostComment
-
Don,
Yeah good questions. The answer is partly in the arm configuration. The more left handed the more open the shoulders. See the bh stance articles. But yeah the shoulders don't open all the way for the men on the two hander.
As for the one, the shoulders don't rotate past vertical but again with the closed stance there is significant rotation to get to vertical.
This is all my interpretation of the video, but I see the back leg as the governor of over rotation in both.Comment
-
Originally posted by tennis_chiro View PostI'm struggling with this one a little bit. I really like the emphasis on the recovery step coming after the completion of extension through the hitting zone and not really part of the actual hitting action. However, I thought there was a major difference between one-handed and most two-handed backhands (not all) in that the power comes predominantly from the rear shoulder and in turn from the rotation of the hips into the shot for the two-handed (opposite-forehand-like) backhand, whereas in the one-handed shot the power is drawn from the front shoulder and the shoulders and hips remain stationary in the classic one-handed backhand pose (not as true with heavy topspin like Wawrinka or Henin).
But the way I am reading this article is that you are identifying a 45 degree shoulder turn on the two-handed backhand (about half what we get for a normal forehand), but with almost no movement or rotation of the hips forward toward a net facing position. That is what is demonstrated by the clip of Murray's backhand. I've emphasized trying to get students whose rear foot was kicking back to try to use that foot to drive into the shot; if they were kicking that foot back, I felt they were not getting full power from their legs in their two-handed shot and were forced to power the shot almost entirely with their upper body.
Moreover, I THOUGHT I was successful in improving the shot when I got the student to drive off their left side (for rightys) and turn their hips into the shot finishing with almost their entire weight on their front/right foot. But the article is saying that kickback I was trying to discourage was actually a good thing that establishes balance for the player in executing the two-hander. Is it possible there is a significant difference between shots hit in the air and shots hit on the ground? Murray's shot looks great. But perhaps he needs that kickback because he is in the air and needs something to push against. All of the clips in the article are where the player doesn't have enough time to actually set up and move into the ball, but when you look at some neutral clips where they did have enough time, I find some difference:
Djokovic neutral stance from rear:
Murray neutral stance from front:
And one of my favorites:
Hating being wrong again!
don
And granted, to make a strong argument, I'm going to have to find some closed stance clips where the player has enough time to apply the drive I am advocating here. But this should be enough to at least further the discussion. As for the open stance 2-hander, that makes it even easier to use the power of the legs although the actual hip turn may be reduced because the shoulder turn load the power into the "x-factor" between the hips and the shoulders.
...IMHO, aside from the biomechanics, I believe that the recovery step on that backhand has a deeper and more psychologically impactful purpose. Much along the lines of Damien Lafont's article on a fixed head position, I feel the recovery step that happens too early is also a sign of rushing and pulling out of the shot too early, not staying with the ball and shot and instead focusing on the outcome and not the actual execution of the stroke. That recovery step lag and the fixed head position aid in keeping the player on top of the shot and staying with it entirely.
I like the clips you posted Don. Although I'm not in love with the 2hb like I am with serves and volleys, you happened to select one of the best in the archives in Marat Safin. What a beast.
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca RatonComment
-
If I may add...Perhaps a way to look at this is from impact positions (racquet and body lines) backwards..One of the terms i use with lessons is "posting up", essentially the torso lines at impact. With a forehand (as mentioned) the shoulder and hip line are roughly parallel to the baseline..with a one hander roughly perpendicular to the baseline (further with stronger grips) and a two hander, again, roughly in between....
Whats important to understand, is that with all strokes there is a rotation cycle UP TO, OR CLOSE TO IMPACT. (before the off leg is used to control over rotation) With the forehand it's easy to see as the rotational cycle is greater (in order to produce the back side hitting shoulder forward). The one hander is a bit deceptive in that the "post up" position is still sideways (more or less), which lead many to conclude that is "linear' or lacking rotation. Indeed, one of the reasons pro players close there stance off to such extremes is that it increases the rotational capabilities up to the post up position...
And the two hander is kinda of in between these two examples..All strokes rely on angular momentum as the chief supplier of RHS, the rotational cycles just occur in different degrees and are segmented differently. And the off leg, at some point (again at different times) starts to counter rotate or hold the line to transfer kinetic energy..
Not sure this addresses your question, but an attempt.
And yes DB, that Gary Player video is right on point. Many would conclude that GP swings his right leg around with the swing. The subtle nuance of his right foot "holding the line' would be missed by many. Unabated rotation is a bad thing.Last edited by 10splayer; 12-11-2014, 07:34 AM.Comment
-
rotation...rotation...rotation.
From the clips in the article, the examples of kick back on the two hander are on higher balls. Perhaps it's just a result of climbing up that kick back occurs in this situation. Or maybe kick back is simply all about killing rotation in given scenarios. I always thought it was more about balance...seems I was wrong. I have never really looked at the scenarios when kick back occurs. I will have to look in the archive.Originally posted by tennis_chiro View PostI'm struggling with this one a little bit. I really like the emphasis on the recovery step coming after the completion of extension through the hitting zone and not really part of the actual hitting action. However, I thought there was a major difference between one-handed and most two-handed backhands (not all) in that the power comes predominantly from the rear shoulder and in turn from the rotation of the hips into the shot for the two-handed (opposite-forehand-like) backhand, whereas in the one-handed shot the power is drawn from the front shoulder and the shoulders and hips remain stationary in the classic one-handed backhand pose (not as true with heavy topspin like Wawrinka or Henin).
But the way I am reading this article is that you are identifying a 45 degree shoulder turn on the two-handed backhand (about half what we get for a normal forehand), but with almost no movement or rotation of the hips forward toward a net facing position. That is what is demonstrated by the clip of Murray's backhand. I've emphasized trying to get students whose rear foot was kicking back to try to use that foot to drive into the shot; if they were kicking that foot back, I felt they were not getting full power from their legs in their two-handed shot and were forced to power the shot almost entirely with their upper body.
Moreover, I THOUGHT I was successful in improving the shot when I got the student to drive off their left side (for rightys) and turn their hips into the shot finishing with almost their entire weight on their front/right foot. But the article is saying that kickback I was trying to discourage was actually a good thing that establishes balance for the player in executing the two-hander. Is it possible there is a significant difference between shots hit in the air and shots hit on the ground? Murray's shot looks great. But perhaps he needs that kickback because he is in the air and needs something to push against. All of the clips in the article are where the player doesn't have enough time to actually set up and move into the ball, but when you look at some neutral clips where they did have enough time, I find some difference:
Djokovic neutral stance from rear:
Murray neutral stance from front:
And one of my favorites:
Hating being wrong again!
don
And granted, to make a strong argument, I'm going to have to find some closed stance clips where the player has enough time to apply the drive I am advocating here. But this should be enough to at least further the discussion. As for the open stance 2-hander, that makes it even easier to use the power of the legs although the actual hip turn may be reduced because the shoulder turn load the power into the "x-factor" between the hips and the shoulders.
I think the rear leg will obviously act as a block and stunt the shot if not allowed to rotate through in many some situations; wide balls, etc.
The neutral stance is an interesting one:
In the clips you posted, Murray has over stepped where he wants to be and simply backed up to play the stroke, which may explain that one.
In the Djokovic clip I suspect he has played for depth and not hit that hard, then chosen a less dramatic, more economical way to recover. I have seen him do this from a few rows back at Wimbledon. He doesn't always hit as hard as the TV screen will have you believe. A lot of his shots are three-quarter pace balls with the focus on length. If he was hitting harder, maybe he would have rotated the back leg on this one. When he does crack one, I can tell you it's a hell of a sight.
The Safin clip won't play at my end. I'll try tomorrow...may be it's a plugin problem.
Great post, don. More on this soon....
Last edited by stotty; 12-11-2014, 03:30 PM.StottyComment
Comment