Understanding Professional
Forehands: Part 1

Dr. Brian Gordon

My previous article described the Four Pillars of the Type III ATP forehand. (Click Here.)

These pillars are exclusively defined by attributes of the forward swing – that is, they are independent of the backswing and follow through. The Four Pillars are:

The Type III forehand is an ATP forehand model based on biomechanical research, neuromuscular theory and experimentation on the court. Models explicitly filter individual outlier characteristics to arrive at a technical composite indicating what optimal technique might look like from a biomechanical perspective.

For this reason, it would be expected that few forehands would exactly fulfill all the model attributes. At the same time, it would be expected that most world-class forehands would fulfill at least some of the model attributes. The interesting question is at what point is a forehand close enough to the model to be classified as Type III? And if not Type III, what?

This is the question I'm most often subjected to regarding a myriad of male and female professional players. The Type III forehand model was created primarily as a template to teach the forehand to (my) developing players but also to serve as an empirical baseline to analyze and understand technique across a broad spectrum of forehands.

Prerequisites: Backswing Types

This two part article series will address a variety of forehand options from both professional tours in the context of the Type III model attributes. Toward that end it is necessary to review concepts not explicitly linked to the Type III definition but important to the discussion. Specifically, these concepts are the implications to the forward swing of backswing types and different elbow angles.

The diversity of backswings in pro tennis is extensive. To discuss this diversity as it relates to the forward swing requires a universal definition of what separates the backswing from the forward swing. My definition is this: the forward swing begins at the first instant the hitting hand acquires BOTH forward and lateral (to the contact side) velocity.

The similarity across backswing types is the preparation of the lower limb and the torso for the forward swing. For a given stance this means setting proper joint/segment angles and optimizing muscular contractile conditions. Lower limb and torso preparation vary by stance but are not fundamentally different based on backswing type for a given stance.

The diversity across backswing types is in the preparation of the hitting arm segments and racquet throughout the backswing. In a macro sense, the primary distinction is based on whether the hitting arm backswing mechanics are primarily "Positional" for entry into the forward swing or the mechanics are mostly "Functional." Functional means that the motion produced (primarily hand speed) is important to the forward swing. Positional means not.

Positional oriented backswings are predominantly elbow driven. In an elbow driven backswing the shoulder joint is stabilized. The motion of the hitting hand is a function of extending or straightening the elbow. The goal is to optimize the hitting arm position for entry into the forward swing. This backswing type is most often seen for forward swings with straighter elbows.

Functional oriented backswings are predominantly shoulder driven. In a shoulder driven backswing the elbow joint may or may not extend. Either way, the primary source of hand motion is derived from motion of the shoulder joint. The goal is to build hand speed entering the forward swing (and perhaps externally rotate the shoulder). This backswing type is seen most often for forward swings with bent elbows.

Elbow Angle

In the article defining the four pillars of the Type III swing I stated that a straight arm (or close to it) was an important requirement for the forward swing. The reality is that most forehands on both professional tours are hit with a bent elbow. The amount of bend is diverse and has implications to forward swing mechanics.

Horizontal Implications

One implication of a bent elbow configuration relates to the process of accelerating the hitting arm through the torso rotation (Pillar 2). A bent elbow reduces the inertia of the arm plus racquet system.

The reduced inertia hampers the ability to produce the muscular benefits and forces needed to independently accelerate the arm. This mechanical concept applies to the initiation of hitting arm motion as well as to the acceleration of the hitting arm through the torso.

The hitting arm acceleration consequence of the bent arm configurations is the primary reason the associated backswing must be functional. That is, these configurations must rely on hand speed built during the backswing.

But the enhanced acceleration benefit of the straight arm allows the backswing to be predominantly positional. That is, hand speed developed during the backswing is not needed and probably is contraindicated.

Ultimately the goal of the independent arm motion (Pillar 2) is to produce forward hand speed. A bent elbow is less efficient in this regard. The hand speed produced by non-twisting shoulder rotation is a function of the velocity of that joint rotation and the distance between the shoulder and the hand--a distance greater for a straighter arm.

Vertical Implications

The Type III pillars article (Pillar 4) explained that a straight arm enhanced the shoulder internal rotator pre-tension (stretch-shorten mechanism) during the "flip" and optimized vertical racquet head speed development from shoulder internal rotation in the "roll". This implies a bent elbow complicates these mechanisms to some extent.

During the flip of a straight arm swing the arm segments (forearm and upper arm) are aligned. This creates a direct link between the rotating racquet and the shoulder (external rotation) with the forearm simply being a transmission segment.

A bent elbow removes the direct link as the flip tends to rotate the forearm independent of the upper arm. This forearm orientation facilitates the inertia of the forearm and rotating racquet to cause external shoulder rotation.

During the roll a bent elbow complicates the relationship between internal rotation and vertical racquet head speed development. Internal rotation with bent elbows (below 165 degrees) creates vertical racquet head at the expense of forward hand speed (Pillar 1) and linearization (Pillar 3). Very bent elbows (around 90 degrees) negate vertical contribution from shoulder internal rotation completely.

So that's it for (most) of the hard core biomechanical theory. In the second article, also in this issue, we will turn to the analysis of specific players including Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sock, Dominic Thiem, Garbine Mugurusa, and Simona Halep. (Click Here.)