Interactive Forum: Extension

[lukman41985]

What about extension on the backhand?

Federer hitting deep and crosscourt:

Federer hitting a short angle:

Kiefer hitting deep and down the middle:

Kiefer hitting a short angle:

It doesn't matter if you use one hand or two hands, to hit deep off the backhand wing you must extend; to hit short, you reduce the amount of extension.

[gzhpcu]

The difference I see on the forehand examples is that IMHO, Federer uses more pronator stretch and the bottom of the backswing, whereas Paradorn uses more of a flexor stretch. This is what we discussed with Eric in another thread.

Also Roger really closes his racket face after impact, whereas Paradorn does so much less. So it seems to me that Roger pronates his forearm a lot more, and accentuates this with the SSC by supinating at the bottom of the swing.

[stroke]

Jeff,

Thanks so much for responding to my original question about the straight arm of Fed and Nadal, and Nadal's shoulder action and how it relates to his forehand. I really like your explanation of leverage, and how the hitting hand has no where else to go from their staight arm contact point, except lift the hand and arm up and turn the wrist over. I do not think I have heard such a solid explanation of what Fed and Nadal are doing before. Your stiff arm football analogy was really good I think. I also like your real world take on how this straight arm technique may or may NOT apply to our own games. It would be interesting to hear from you the pitfalls, in your experiance, of folks trying to implement this straight arm forehand technique. You mentioned a couple of pro players who use the straight arm technique without the extreme arm/hand action used by Fed and Nadal, and their forehands are clearly not as brutally heavy as Fed and Nadal.

[lukman41985]

What I find fascinating about the straight arm forehands is that it mirrors the one handed backhand where the arm is a locked, straight, lever. The difference, however, is that on the forehand the hand can quickly turn the racket and arm over, giving you tons of torque on the ball. The onehander, with the way the hand is oriented, doesn't allow this kind of turning motion.

Although most one handers can't get that kind of turning motion, I'd argue that Roger can:

[mntlblok]

Windshield Wiper article

>>>>Now compare the full shape of the rainbow arc that David Nalbandian and Mariano Zabaleta generate to the shape of the young player below. Look how the tip of the racket hinges across his body, like a door closing shut? Why is his racket path moving across his body, whereas the pros above get a full rainbow arc? Why does he finish with his arm and racket pressed tight against his chest, while the pros finish with the full "box" finish? The answer lies in how the shoulder is used (or not used) to drive the forehand.<<<<

In the description above of the differences between the pros and the young player's follow through, I'm not sure that I quite follow the explanation. I love the article and I really like the description of the "rainbow arc". I also *really* like the point made that the racket face is continuing to face the net (or target) through this section of the follow through.

While the young player doesn't extend as well as the pros, it does look like he at least keeps his elbow in like the pros do, and has at least "some" extension (better than most of us, I would bet). What jumps out at me as the main difference is that the racket face is "closed" or facing the ground somewhat after ball contact with the pro swings, and that it is "on edge" with the young player's.

It strikes me that this "closing" (from pronation?) must be necessary in order to keep the racket face facing the net (or target). I have no idea whether this means that the racket face is more likely to be on line for the full four milliseconds that the ball is on the strings, but there must be something really "good" about it, as all those great forehands seem to do it. Maybe it's more related to imparting spin. I wonder how bad the young player's finish would have looked if he had merely turned the face over (pronated?) in the follow through in the manner that the pros do.

I would be curious to know what the rainbow looks like in the reverse forehand finish (as far as the closed racket face goes), since it seems that shot is often hit with a different contact point (later?), and with a more vertical follow through and swing path, and it seems that the nice rainbow finish is dependent on a nice "out front" contact point and more horizontal follow through. I wonder if that "rainbow" would be more "on edge" in the reverse forehand - since, with the more vertical finish, it could still be facing the net for much of the follow through.

The other thing that I don't quite follow is the part about seeing what the shoulder does differently. I don't really see (visually) what the shoulder "does" in the article. I *do* see that the elbow, in addition to staying close to the body, is really driven both forward and upward - unlike most that I see (and use). It's common to see the elbow fly *out* from the body, rather than forward among us amateurs. To me, the elbow (and hand) is the "extension" that I want to try to learn to incorporate into my forehand.

Kevin
Savannah

[lukman41985]

Incredible slow-motion video of Federer's forehand

Click here

[gsheiner]

Just a couple of thoughts on the straight arm versus the double bend forehand.

1. Because the arm is straight on the approach does this allow for a more powerful use of the biceps and pectoral muscles as the elbow is viciously bent during the swing?

Then, would the straight arm forehand preserve all the power sources of the double bend and add or accentuate the biceps/pecs power source?

2. Is there more disguise with the straight arm? The biceps contraction will cause the racket to go from right to left and because it happens so late, and with so much speed, is there less time for visual cuing?

3. Are there tactical considerations? Can more hook be applied to the ball by adding the biceps/pecs contraction? Is it a function of arm leverage with the straight arm?

More hook would seem to make the approach to the forehand from midcourt
much more lethal by having the ball hook away from the defender ( sort of like a great slice serve tails away).

Also cross court forehands, inside in forehands, short forehands, would all probably be more effective with this increased hook used correctly.

[airforce1]

Looks to me like Nadal and Federer use more a hybrid of the 2 forehands. Federer looks to me to have a slight bend in the elbow, which he gives up right before contact in the kinetic chain. When I use this type of forehand, it allows me to do 2 things that work well against big hitters. First it allows me to start my swing earlier, but slower, to get ahead against a hard hit ball. This helps me to not end up late and allows me to accelerate into the shot upon gaining timing and alignment. 2ond it allows me the sense of holding my shot on the racket longer, without giving up directional intentions.
Looks to me that Federer gets both of these benefits while hitting this type of forehand as well.

[jeffreycounts]

Conservative grips, straight hitting arms, what's the differnece

Look at their finishes. Phillipousis and Scrichiphan look identical. Federer looks totally different. Phil and Scrich extend through and then rotate over, just like the double bend forehands. Federer, however, seems to generate more of a whip like motion with the wrist release and the finish.

[lukman41985]

Jeff,
Thanks for the great explanation! You were right that Paradon and Flipper definitely look different than Roger, but I just couldn't explain it in words. I hope you checked out the video of Roger in the link I posted at the top of this page. What do you think of it?

[BrianGordon]

this discussion

Interesting discussion folks (and nice visuals). It is a topic we've researched extensively at our 3-D center in Cincinnati. In the process I have defined most of the pros and cons of a "double bend" vs. "straight arm" approach from a mechanical perspective. Many have danced around the periphery of a few of our findings. I would suggest however that the post by gsheiner (especially point #1) provides a template for thinking that will produce the answers you seek. While the specifics of his post are not completely accurate (he does pose them as a question), his implicit direction in considering the way each technique alters the dynamic interactions among the body segments and racquet will yield the answers to the benefits and detriments of each. Have fun - Brian

[airforce1]

finishes

The main difference I see in those finishes is where the left hand catches the racket. Because Fed catches around the grip, the racket head is free to rotate further around. The other 2 block this rotation by catching at the throat.

[EricMatuszewski]

In case anyone missed this.

Two methods have been introduced as to how to use the elbow joint during the forehand.

One, the "double bend" method. Would prescribe that the player have the elbow bent and then "extend" the elbow joint near contact thus causing a punching action to add hand speed. This would be accomplished by tricep action.

Two, the "straight approach to flexion" method would prescribe that the player do the opposite, that is approach the ball with a straight arm and then flex the elbow thru contact. This would happen from bicep action.

Is this an accurate synopsis of the two ideas so far?

[lukman41985]

In case anyone missed this.

Two methods have been introduced as to how to use the elbow joint during the forehand.

One, the "double bend" method. Would prescribe that the player have the elbow bent and then "extend" the elbow joint near contact thus causing a punching action to add hand speed. This would be accomplished by tricep action.

Two, the "straight approach to flexion" method would prescribe that the player do the opposite, that is approach the ball with a straight arm and then flex the elbow thru contact. This would happen from bicep action.

Is this an accurate synopsis of the two ideas so far?

With regard to the double bend, I don't think the elbow would extend through contact, rather, the shoulder is the driving force of the motion. The triceps would also be helping.

I think your synopsis of the straight arm approach is correct.

Jeff Counts has written three fantastic articles in the Tour Strokes section on the double bend, and here again, is his take on the straight-arm forehand:

The way I see it is that Federer and Nadal can do what they do for one big reason. Leverage. Take a look at Nadal's contact point in this picture.

Because his arm is completely straight, he can't push through the ball at all. There is literally no room for movement forward, unlike with the double bend. But the extreme leverage is getting massive spring off the strings based on the contact point alone. It's like a stiff arm in football where the running back sticks a straight arm out and the leverage will knock the opponent over....

There are two things you can do at this point though. You can lift the arm up. And you can turn the hand over. This is what Federer and Nadal do. They get this massive leverage which gets "free" power, and then they add lift from the arm and torque from the hand. Nadal's reverse forehand relies on a rapid and extreme lift of the arm upward. Federer uses the hand turn primarily...

What I find fascinating about the straight arm forehands is that it mirrors the one handed backhand where the arm is a locked, straight, lever. The difference, however, is that on the forehand the hand can quickly turn the racket and arm over, giving you tons of torque on the ball. The onehander, with the way the hand is oriented, doesn't allow this kind of turning motion.

[BrianGordon]

In case anyone missed this.

Two methods have been introduced as to how to use the elbow joint during the forehand.

One, the "double bend" method. Would prescribe that the player have the elbow bent and then "extend" the elbow joint near contact thus causing a punching action to add hand speed. This would be accomplished by tricep action.

Two, the "straight approach to flexion" method would prescribe that the player do the opposite, that is approach the ball with a straight arm and then flex the elbow thru contact. This would happen from bicep action.

Is this an accurate synopsis of the two ideas so far?

Wow! Thanks for describing what is meant by double bend and straight arm Eric. These are by no means how I referenced them in my post earlier. Bent by my definition means at contact as does straight – positions that remain essentially (with some minor alteration) constant from the transition between the linear and angular components of the forward swing (what John refers to as the power tuck I believe) to contact. Never (that I can think of) have I measured or observed either technique described by Eric as a realistic technique to generate racquet speed in any direction. It is common for bent oriented folks to generate upward racquet speed through elbow flexion near contact, which I consider inefficient, and a technical flaw. In short then, you’ll have to forgive my ignorance – my earlier statement about understanding the differences assumes my definition because I did not realize the others existed.