A New Teaching System: Forehand: Body Rotation

[johnyandell]

Would love to discuss my latest article, "A New Teaching System: Forehand: Body Rotation"

[seano]

Great subject matter and I'm sure up for lots of debate. My feeling is that if you are trying to generate pace, you need a rotational movement where you rotate your core around the axis of your spine. This movement is initiated by the knee and hip and travels up the kinetic chain. I love phrases to quote. Tim Mayotte , describes "the key element in the "modern game" is the separation of power sections of the kinetic chain", producing incredible power.
You need to lead with the opening of the rear hip to help produces torque, tension and lag through out the kinetic chain to create all this effortless power. The rear hip leads and everything follows after, using opposing forces. If you're hitting defensively or neutral, not looking to add pace, you don't need a full rotational swing, a more linear motion is fine.

[johnyandell]

Agreed! BUT the question is how does this happen? What I have seen time and time over a couple of decades is the conscious effort to "fire" the hips has the exact effect intended--it throws the uncoiling of the chain completely out of sync.

[stotty]

I think it's like a lot of things in coaching. If you execute x and y correctly then z just happens on its own.

I have always taken a leaf out of Bruce Elliot's book:

So if you are a teaching pro reading this article, do you need to tell your students any of this? Please don't. You'll create absolute havoc. This is information that you store in your head that enables you to know how to teach people, that enables you how to notice what is happening and to look for errors. - Bruce Elliot

What interests me when comparing players from the classic era to today's players, is, is it the equipment facilitating the modern forehand or is it the game progressing? Are the techniques employed today possible with a wooden racket? Could players rotate as much, hurl themselves, and flip forehands?

Looking at the clips in the article, it is amazing how much players do rotate and drive upwards. I am so conditioned to having my feet firmly planted that I simply cannot do what they do.

Stotty

[don_budge]

Engineering versus Evolution...

I think it's like a lot of things in coaching. If you execute x and y correctly then z just happens on its own.

I have always taken a leaf out of Bruce Elliot's book:


"So if you are a teaching pro reading this article, do you need to tell your students any of this? Please don't. You'll create absolute havoc. This is information that you store in your head that enables you to know how to teach people, that enables you how to notice what is happening and to look for errors."

- Bruce Elliot



What interests me when comparing players from the classic era to today's players, is, is it the equipment facilitating the modern forehand or is it the game progressing? Are the techniques employed today possible with a wooden racket? Could players rotate as much, hurl themselves, and flip forehands?

Looking at the clips in the article, it is amazing how much players do rotate and drive upwards. I am so conditioned to having my feet firmly planted that I simply cannot do what they do.

Stotty

I watched the video a couple of times. In the past I have made transcripts in order to draw as much meaning as I can from the audio. But here it isn't necessary except to highlight this quote by John Yandell which is either a slip of the tongue or a poor choice of words. It is Stotty's questions that necessitates pointing this out.

Of course it is only the equipment that allows these "rodeo" swings of the racquet on the forehand. It is the equipment that has engineered finesse and the finery completely out of the game. It is only the equipment...human beings have not evolved at all in the past forty years or so. If anything...they have surely devolved.

John says in the video..."this evolution has effectively doubled the (torso) rotation compared to the old classical forehands."

This line I find offensive as well as misleading. When I say offensive I don't mean personally but perhaps in a common sense sense. First of all...the classical forehands of the past are not old. They have only been relegated to the dust bin and the object of our scorn because of brain washing and social engineering. The introduction of over-sized graphite racquet frames change everything including the physics of what is possible in swinging a tennis racquet at a moving tennis ball. Any arguments out there that the 100% plus area in the racquet face allows for more margin of error and therefore more contortion of the actual body movements? What a bad joke. These guys struggle to find the sweet spot and I would kill to see a high speed video study as to where these guys are meeting the racquet face with the ball on a statistical basis. You see in nearly all of these video shots that the balls are meeting the racquet face just about anywhere. Have you ever hit a topspin forehand near the frame of a Dunlop Maxply or a Jack Kramer Autograph? I have.

There isn't any evolution going on here. It's engineering and only engineering. Plus the usual social programming. The answer to the question of "could players rotate as much, hurl themselves, and flip forehands?" is...can monkeys fly out of your butt?

The video itself is great. It really captures the object of the lesson. There is an old golf rule of thumb that says..."don't try to make shots that you don't know you can make." It is only new equipment that gives the tennis player this new lease on how to swing a racquet. If anything the swings were better in the "old classical" way with respect to efficiency and effectiveness...given the difference in the size of the racquet. Novak was given a wooden racquet to play with and he couldn't find the face of the strings with his forehand. I would love to see him under attack by a John McEnroe in his prime trying to play his little game of mousey defense. McEnroe would eat him alive...with much less body rotation.

[johnyandell]

I am just making statements of fact. Even as recently as Sampras you can see rotation of about 90 degrees in the forward swing with the shoulders finishing parallel more or less to the net--about half the pro forehands in the article. There is a confluence of factors that has led to the elevation of contact and increased rotation of current players. Again just a fact.
But most players even at quite high club and NTRP levels are staying or should be staying mostly on the ground and that's why this particular pro factor isn't a good model element.

https://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/petesampras/ps_forehand/ps_fh_center/ps_fh_center.html?PSFHCenterFront1.mov

[10splayer]

Interesting article. I have rarely got my undies in a bunch about the overall amount of rotation a student exhibits, except in the sense of position of the hips and shoulders AT IMPACT. I have found very few examples (across grips, stance, etc) where great players DO NOT have their hips and shoulders more or less parallel (to the baseline/shot line) at contact. (its what I call "posting up") On the flip side, with club players, the hips are "closed", and/or "overrotated" at impact.

[stotty]

Engineering versus Evolution...

The introduction of over-sized graphite racquet frames change everything including the physics of what is possible in swinging a tennis racquet at a moving tennis ball. Any arguments out there that the 100% plus area in the racquet face allows for more margin of error and therefore more contortion of the actual body movements?

I personally think equipment is responsible for many technical changes. My theory is that players used milder forehand grips back in the days of wood not just because grass court tennis with its lower bounce was more prevalent, but maybe also because keeping the racket on edge during the swing gave you a better chance of middling the ball. You would think hitting a forehand like Federer does with a wooden racket, even for Federer, might produce a lot of shanks...though I would love to see him try.

Even as recently as Sampras you can see rotation of about 90 degrees in the forward swing with the shoulders finishing parallel more or less to the net--about half the pro forehands in the article. There is a confluence of factors that has led to the elevation of contact and increased rotation of current players.

Yes there is a stark difference in rotation between eras but then once a player is hitting with velocity while in the air, rotation through contact cannot be stopped, can it?

We can see Rod Laver leaving the ground in the archive. He leaves the ground as he is striking the ball while Federer leaves the ground sometimes well when striking higher balls. I would love to see more footage of Laver striking chest high balls to make a better comparison.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7240/7...02a878f5_b.jpg

And who says a classic players cannot leave the ground, buddy!

http://www.bizbash.com/content/editorial/StoryPhoto/big/e21540the_tie-break.jpg

Interesting article. I have rarely got my undies in a bunch about the overall amount of rotation a student exhibits, except in the sense of position of the hips and shoulders AT IMPACT. I have found very few examples (across grips, stance, etc) where great players DO NOT have their hips and shoulders more or less parallel (to the baseline/shot line) at contact. (its what I call "posting up") On the flip side, with club players, the hips are "closed", and/or "overrotated" at impact.

Nice post, 10splayer. It's great to see you making a post again. We've missed you.


Stotty

[pvchen]

Hi Stotty,

Interesting your comment about keeping your feet on the ground. I'm working with a coach who has encouraged me to keep my back foot on the ground when hitting a neutral stance forehand stepping in with the left foot, only lifting the heel of the right foot at the end of the forehand, which allows the hip freedom to rotate forward at the end of the stroke. This seems to help keep me upright, with contact in front, and more balanced.

I've also noticed that when moving wide to hit a more semi-open forehand, it seems to help to keep my right foot on the ground and push off the toe.

What do you teach for the 4.5 level forehand?

Peter

[seano]

My understanding of elastic energy and the stretch-shortening cycle, along with Brian Gordon's research. The firing of the hips (or separation) is a more subtle movement, which initiates the lag effect. This subtle lag creates torque and everything that follows is set into motion and intensifies. Once the shoulders are square to the net, their job is done (for the most part). If you've done the Type 3 forehand correctly, the final 90% of rotation is caused by the independent movement of the arm (a key element in Brian's research). That finishes with the right shoulder pointing towards the target. If you watch some of Federer's forehand in super slow-mo, it's incredible how the body quiets once the shoulders are facing the net and the arm accelerates to complete the rotation, a thing of beauty.

[don_budge]

Welby Van Horn...Balance Checkpoints

Hi Stotty,

Interesting your comment about keeping your feet on the ground. I'm working with a coach who has encouraged me to keep my back foot on the ground when hitting a neutral stance forehand stepping in with the left foot, only lifting the heel of the right foot at the end of the forehand, which allows the hip freedom to rotate forward at the end of the stroke. This seems to help keep me upright, with contact in front, and more balanced.

I've also noticed that when moving wide to hit a more semi-open forehand, it seems to help to keep my right foot on the ground and push off the toe.

What do you teach for the 4.5 level forehand?

Peter

That's a great comment by Stotty and from what you say about your coach...great stuff. Something like this pvchen?

https://www.tennisplayer.net/members/teaching_systems/welby_vanhorn/true_master_forehand_balance_checkpoints/

[Guest]

Sometimes its useful to look over the fence and analyse the body rotation of a good discus thrower, which is quite similar to the tennis forehand rotation. As a former pretty good discus thrower I know what I am talking about. Let the kinetic chaine work and it is always foot,knee,hip,shoulder arm and in the end the racket. No question, the contact point will be different with different grips but you will see always hip first and then shoulder.

[stotty]

Hi Stotty,

Interesting your comment about keeping your feet on the ground. I'm working with a coach who has encouraged me to keep my back foot on the ground when hitting a neutral stance forehand stepping in with the left foot, only lifting the heel of the right foot at the end of the forehand, which allows the hip freedom to rotate forward at the end of the stroke. This seems to help keep me upright, with contact in front, and more balanced.

I've also noticed that when moving wide to hit a more semi-open forehand, it seems to help to keep my right foot on the ground and push off the toe.

What do you teach for the 4.5 level forehand?

Peter

You won't go too far wrong following the advice of your coach, pvchen.

Forgive me, but being a Brit, I have no idea what level a 4.5 is. We have an entirely different rating system over here.

Getting back on thread with John's article about body rotation, John Yandell's comment that players are freer to rotate when in the air does make absolutely sense, doesn't it? Watching Federer do it in slow motion is quite beautiful to watch.

But I cannot do it...

Staying grounded and balanced was very much the thing in my day (I am now 53). I still think it remains the case today, actually. Roger doesn't try to leave the ground. He just does so as a by-product of a series of events that went before. And there are many cases where he doesn't leave the ground at all, but they don't make for good photos so you don't see them as much.

I doubt I ever left the ground even when I was younger. In my time it was very much about control and balance and keeping form and posture. For me balance was absolutely everything.

Balance is everything these days of course but leaving the ground is really only for top flight players...in my view.

Players like you and me are better keeping our feet planted. It gives us a far greater chance of success.

John Lloyd's father, when I was a kid, told me "keep your feet on the ground"..."that's what I always told my boys". Oddly enough no player ever left the ground as much as John Lloyd did back in the 70s. I swear he started it!

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/...5306?s=594x594

Stotty

[hockeyscout]

Engineering versus Evolution...



I watched the video a couple of times. In the past I have made transcripts in order to draw as much meaning as I can from the audio. But here it isn't necessary except to highlight this quote by John Yandell which is either a slip of the tongue or a poor choice of words. It is Stotty's questions that necessitates pointing this out.

Of course it is only the equipment that allows these "rodeo" swings of the racquet on the forehand. It is the equipment that has engineered finesse and the finery completely out of the game. It is only the equipment...human beings have not evolved at all in the past forty years or so. If anything...they have surely devolved.

John says in the video..."this evolution has effectively doubled the (torso) rotation compared to the old classical forehands."

This line I find offensive as well as misleading. When I say offensive I don't mean personally but perhaps in a common sense sense. First of all...the classical forehands of the past are not old. They have only been relegated to the dust bin and the object of our scorn because of brain washing and social engineering. The introduction of over-sized graphite racquet frames change everything including the physics of what is possible in swinging a tennis racquet at a moving tennis ball. Any arguments out there that the 100% plus area in the racquet face allows for more margin of error and therefore more contortion of the actual body movements? What a bad joke. These guys struggle to find the sweet spot and I would kill to see a high speed video study as to where these guys are meeting the racquet face with the ball on a statistical basis. You see in nearly all of these video shots that the balls are meeting the racquet face just about anywhere. Have you ever hit a topspin forehand near the frame of a Dunlop Maxply or a Jack Kramer Autograph? I have.

There isn't any evolution going on here. It's engineering and only engineering. Plus the usual social programming. The answer to the question of "could players rotate as much, hurl themselves, and flip forehands?" is...can monkeys fly out of your butt?

The video itself is great. It really captures the object of the lesson. There is an old golf rule of thumb that says..."don't try to make shots that you don't know you can make." It is only new equipment that gives the tennis player this new lease on how to swing a racquet. If anything the swings were better in the "old classical" way with respect to efficiency and effectiveness...given the difference in the size of the racquet. Novak was given a wooden racquet to play with and he couldn't find the face of the strings with his forehand. I would love to see him under attack by a John McEnroe in his prime trying to play his little game of mousey defense. McEnroe would eat him alive...with much less body rotation.

Why kill to see the video don_budge?

You're an old timer like me, just sit back, close your eyes and listen.

I'd bet you could chart the whole match, and determine within a few percentage points where the ball was striking on the racket face.

Don_Budge is a golfer (and a baseball man), so he understands what I mean by clean sounding work.

With these new rackets, it's hard for coaches - players to understand clean work, unless they have played - coached sports like hockey, MMA, baseball or golf.

A hockey puck being shot is exact, a golf shot is ever more so, and in baseball the good players emit vibrations that tell you a lot.

A blind man could walk into a boxing gym and pick out the best boxers.

The best thing that ever happened to me was watching this old 80-year-old man in Russia instruct and hit balls once. His balls were heavy, and he fed balls like George Foreman hit a punching bag. It was partly (a) great focus, (b) old man power and, (c) he grew up learning to hit the hard way with the heavy racket. But, the sound. Beautiful. And, the guy as I understood it was a hell of a player in the 1950's. I rarely hear the pop I like at tennis courts. That's a big goal of mine as a coach, that sound. You know you are onto something when you hear it, and you know you have a prospect with upside when you get it. In any sport.

It's part of the brilliance of Robert Lansdorp - his kids get better because he hits them old man balls that are stronger than what players face in games. The guy is probably the best pure ball feeding coach every to coach. And, it made a difference. If you face crazy balls for years in practice, of course you are going to become good. It's not rocket science. Budge is right in a lot of cases, nothing new under the sun.

Ed Weiss was sure a nice ball feeder - effortless, and consistently on the mark. That guy was a pleasure to watch feed. Put ten guys like him on the court at an academy and tell them to feed like bastards and you'd see terrific players develop if they were willing to put up with the onslaught for hour after hour. A lot of players don't want to deal with crazy feeds psychologically, and want to work in a comfort zone rallying the ball down the center of the court, and developing their "feel."

Ed once did a piece here on ball feeding that should be a main article on the site I think. Be nice if someone found it, and sent it to John for publication as it was brilliant.

The best article that could ever be posted to this site - Lansdorp feeding balls to a top ATP or WTA player. That would tell coaches so much about how to deliver a ball properly, and if he had a player who was mentally in tune enough to hit cleanly - improvement wouldn't be much of an issue.

[Guest]

So are we saying that it's good to 'square up' to the net (or to the direction of the shot) for contact on the forehand?
And would that be true for high balls, low balls, wide balls, reverse finishes?

Thanks for the thoughts on staying on the ground, Stotty!