Hewitt backhand?

[roartt]

I understand that it's his weaker side, but how good is it compared to other pro BH's?

[uspta2756694861]

Hewitt's Backhand

I understand that it's his weaker side, but how good is it compared to other pro BH's?

It is relatively ineffective because he has the same basic biomechanical flaw that Roddick has which is a non-dominant arm which is straight or "locked out" at the completion of the backwswing. This reduces his racquet head speed and results in a significant "power drain." Another major player who suffered from this same problem was Michael Chang.

[BrianGordon]

It is relatively ineffective because he has the same basic biomechanical flaw that Roddick has which is a non-dominant arm which is straight or "locked out" at the completion of the backwswing. This reduces his racquet head speed and results in a significant "power drain." Another major player who suffered from this same problem was Michael Chang.

It must just be me due to the lack of response, but I don't understand why it is a Biomechanical flaw, nor why it would reduce racquet head speed (at contact?) - please enlighten.

[uspta146749877]

BACKHAND of NABALDIAN

It must just be me due to the lack of response, but I don't understand why it is a Biomechanical flaw, nor why it would reduce racquet head speed (at contact?) - please enlighten.

A bit related issue:
I was trying to see
https://www.tennisplayer.net/tp_play...id-nalbandian/
for Nabaldian
but clicking overthere does NOT bring pictures.
Trying to bring Hewitt strokes does NOT work either
please click
https://www.tennisplayer.net/tp_player/lleyton-hewitt/

[uspta146749877]

Please compare with Nabaldian

It is relatively ineffective because he has the same basic biomechanical flaw that Roddick has which is a non-dominant arm which is straight or "locked out" at the completion of the backwswing. This reduces his racquet head speed and results in a significant "power drain." Another major player who suffered from this same problem was Michael Chang.

Please drop a line comparing with Nabaldian

[uspta146749877]

Please see Nabaldian-Archive Strokes

I understand that it's his weaker side, but how good is it compared to other pro BH's?

Please see Nabaldian-probably the best -see the Master Series two years
ago vs Federer

[John Yandell]

Both the above links are working fine.

Roddick's lower or right hand grip is the weakness and the relative lack of an inside out swing. Hewitt is stronger with the grip. Doubt the straight arm Hewitt talk back is relevant. His swing pattern forward is great and he is straight/bent.

At some point it's ability not technique. Nalbandian has some of that.

[uspta146749877]

a lower hand grip of Hewitt

It is relatively ineffective because he has the same basic biomechanical flaw that Roddick has which is a non-dominant arm which is straight or "locked out" at the completion of the backwswing. This reduces his racquet head speed and results in a significant "power drain." Another major player who suffered from this same problem was Michael Chang.

Do you see what is a lower hand grip of Hewitt?
Is it continental?
See John Yandell above about Roddick as well.

[roartt]

thank you guys for pointing out things around this topic. It just seems to me as if Hewitts backhand is a little idle. It looks like a big struggle and never gets any good pace or angles.

[brett701]

It must just be me due to the lack of response, but I don't understand why it is a Biomechanical flaw, nor why it would reduce racquet head speed (at contact?) - please enlighten.

I believe locked out right arm on the 2 hander requires much better timing and allows for less power.

[brett701]

Both the above links are working fine.

Roddick's lower or right hand grip is the weakness and the relative lack of an inside out swing. Hewitt is stronger with the grip. Doubt the straight arm Hewitt talk back is relevant. His swing pattern forward is great and he is straight/bent.

At some point it's ability not technique. Nalbandian has some of that.

I think the straight arm take back is relevant. I agree with everything else you've stated.

[BrianGordon]

I believe locked out right arm on the 2 hander requires much better timing

If we assume this is true, it does not seem to rise to the level of a Biomechanical flaw.

and allows for less power.

This is what the poster said - my question was why?

[uspta146749877]

Aerodynamics?

If we assume this is true, it does not seem to rise to the level of a Biomechanical flaw.



This is what the poster said - my question was why?

Does anyone consider a possible reasoning that
one is more "aerodynamical" than another?

[brett701]

If we assume this is true, it does not seem to rise to the level of a Biomechanical flaw.



This is what the poster said - my question was why?

I believe that it allows for the arms to move faster when bent. Think about it this way. When sprinters race they dont start with their legs stiff-- they bend them because it will be faster/easier to accelerate. Also i think it gives you more variety for timing the ball if you are slightly late or slightly early. What do you think?

[BrianGordon]

I guess I’m not clear based on your analogy whether you are making an inertia argument (the swing leg of the sprinter) or a range of motion argument (the driving leg of the sprinter) – while radically different, either could work in the right circumstance as part of the answer.

As to whether the straight bottom arm is a net advantage to racquet speed (power) or not, the contact configuration needs to be taken into account. Based on my experience and logic the straight position at the start of the forward swing would have the following effect based on contact organization:

Straight/Bent: net benefit to contact racquet speed.
Bent/Bent: net detriment to contact racquet speed.
Straight/Straight: could go either way.

Because these different configurations significantly alter the way the joint rotation components contribute to racquet speed, some (so) targeted thought may shed light on this summary. The related issues of joint range of motion, muscle conditions, muscle development and type, etc. need also to be considered in this context.

In other words, full explanation would require a full article with quantitative information, pretty pictures, and so on – an article I hope to do in the not too distant future. At that point you can decide if my conclusions are valid or bunk.

Until then, I like the direction of your thinking (at least what I think you are saying).