Backswings

[10splayer]

don budge: It is hard for me to think of a good topspin forehand on the pro circuit today. Dominika Cibulkova has a pretty good motion, but she needs to tighten up her backswing a lot. She needs to not get so sideways sometimes, in such an unnatural manner, so she does not have to fight against her body. She needs to learn to flow forward for short balls better. Even Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray have noticeable flaws in their topspin forehands.

Players do not track (line up) the ball well. They do not use the free hand at the throat of the racket, so that their racket arm tightens up, and they do not have proper control of the racket. Their "unit turn" causes backswings that are too big, which prevent players from attacking the ball enough out in front of their bodies. Their unit turn causes the players to let the ball come to them, as opposed to hitting the ball at the peak of the bounce or on the rise. Their unit-turn, gravity-method, backwards-emphasis topspin forehands cause players to stand ridiculously far behind the baseline. Their technique causes them to have poor court coverage, poor court movement, poor anticipation.

On their follow throughs, they often do not roll the ball forwards enough.....do not hit through the ball with topspin enough. Instead, they have a wild finish that causes mishits and causes the ball to travel far from the intended target. It is like a golf swing that has a finish but not a follow through. Djokovic used to make many errors on his forehand because he would have a wild finish without meeting the ball out in front enough and without rolling the ball towards the target enough....before his wild finish. He seems to have improved that aspect of his game a little, although his forehand is still far from perfect. Isner also tends to make a lot of wild errors on his topspin forehand because Isner has a wild finish often before he follows through, before he rolls the ball forward towards the target.

Tennis Chiro, players who line up the ball with the free hand at the throat of the racket actually do much better moving for short balls, comparing to players who prepare as Berdych does. I see many many points in today's pro tennis in which it is embarassing how poorly today's pros move forward.

Your reference to left-brain and right-brain flies in the face of the most up-to-date information about the human brain.

Most pro players, especially male pros, today have topspin forehands similar to Berdych's.

That is why today's forehands are so bad. That is why there are so many unforced errors, such short rallies, so many mishits, so many embarssing shots, so many balls that land closer to the net than to the service line. But that is the technique coaches today espouse, unfortunately

.

Let's talk about Berdych. He does not track the ball well with his strings. Instead, he prepares with that unit turn sideways, with his racket back early and his tip up, with his free hand off the racket, sideways to the ball.

Berdych's style makes it difficult to get his racket started again. It is like a service motion in which the player scratches his or her back too early, so then the racket must stop before it starts up again to contact point.

Berdych's swing takes up more room towards the back fence than it does flowing forwards towards the target.

In baseball and golf, the bat or club are taken back smoothly from the intended point of contact, but the unit turn such as Berdych's is not a smooth, natural take-back. Berdych must make considerable adjustments during his swing so that he can hit the ball well. It is too complicated of a motion.

Berdych gets sideways so much, take his racket back so far and so early, that sometimes he embarassingly misses short balls because he fights against his body, or because he almost whiffs short balls that he should get to easily.

TO BE CONTINUED IN MY NEXT POST

Well, this is just silly. Don't know what you've been watching in the last 10 years, but the level of shotmaking is simply amazing, and getting better by the year. These guys simply swing as hard as they can and don't miss. It's fortunate for Fed, Nadal, or anyone else on the tour, that you were not their coach.

[worldsbestcoach]

disagree....but I am happy to disagree with majority

Stotty, I respect your comments. I understand where you are coming from. But even commentators on the tennis tv matches often say that the topspin forehands break down for many of the players before the backhands do. Why? Because pro players' topspin backhands are often more sound than their topspin forehands are. (But of course their backhands are far from perfect, also.)

Sorry I do not blindly idolize and worship the pro players in this or any other era. I am sure that Federer would listen to and consider my ideas, however.

For example, Federer was asked why he does not serve and volley more at Wimbledon. His answer? He said perhaps when he learns to volley better, he will serve and volley more. He is right. He has flaws in both forehand and backhand volleys. At least he knows he needs to get better -- although by forcing himself to come to the net more frequently, recently, Fed is improving on his volleys.

There is great similarity between golf and tennis and baseball. There are common motions between tennis, other sports, and many everyday work and play motions. When teaching a student an athletic motion that the student is having trouble getting, it is important to show the student that the athletic motion is similar to a motion that the student can do in some other aspect of life. That is part of effective teaching of physical skills.

For the record, as a golfer hits the ball, the golfer should be rotating to face the target. Too many of today's pro tennis players stay too sideways as they hit forehands. Also, the great Hogan and all good golfers have kinda a collapse from the top of their swing that generates an even greater angle, more acute angle, between forearms and club.....as the club begins to move forward. Good tennis players do the same thing, but that is not related to the tip-up, gravity position of players like Federer and Berdych.

Think about baseball and golf. In those sports, at no time do good players sabotage the angle between forearm and hitting instrument (bat or club). But that is what Berdych and Federer do. Their unit turn, gravity motion preparation puts their hands & the angle between forearm and racket in a position that is awkward. Therefore, they must perform complicated adjustments during the stroke in order to hit the ball well. Usually, they somewhat succeed, but too often, they fail and hit bad shots.

Think of lifting a heavy box. Notice where your right elbow is, if you are right-handed. That is a special area for the elbow, not only for lifting, but also for contact point, impact point, in baseball, golf, and tennis. Unfortunately, the way Federer & Berdych prepare for topspin forehands, it is as though they purposely sabotage the connection between the elbow and that special contact area for the elbow. Again, those tennis players must make too many complicated adjustments to save their forehand swings.

As the baseball player practices his swing waiting for the pitcher, notice that there is a smooth flow from the position of the elbow at contact to the position of the elbow at the take back position of the baseball swing. Similarly, in golf, there is a smooth flow of the position of the elbow from set up position, to take back, to impact position. However, tennis players are taught to sabotage this elbow position, and to sabotage the smooth flow of the elbow throughout the tennis topspin forehand swing.

As I started learning tennis many decades ago, tennis was a poorly analyzed, poorly taught sport. Although details might have changed, it is still misanalyzed and mistaught. It is one of the most poorly taught sports, even by "certified" instructors. If people disagree with my insights, it just makes me happy that I have something to offer.

When John McEnroe started his tennis academy recently, he said something like "it's not as if the other academies are doing such great things." He is right about that, although I have no idea about the success of McEnroe's own academy. I watch some of the young players who have been trained by some of the alleged finest coaches, and I cringe.

[stotty]

Three lines

Very interesting the three lines concept. I went on a Spanish course held recently here in the UK. Spanish players are encouraged to work overtime with their feet to get into the three lines set-up. When players are backing up behind the baseline it's a given they will be able to achieve it; players simply turn and move diagonally backwards crab-like into position.

Much emphasis is placed on footwork in Spain...moving well....keeping balanced. Players have more freedom to self-develop than they do here in the UK. As a result great chunks of their game seem to be missing; they volley poorly, serves are merely popped in...yet their strengths are great...endurance...relentless rallying...patience...great forehands.

[don_budge]

How did it go...Glenn?

To World's Best Coach( WBC for future reference) thanks for the tip about thinking of the forehand as a powerful half volley --I'm playing both days this weekend ( if no rain) and I'm eager to experiment with the concept.

Cheers,

Glenn

gsheiner...how did it go this weekend? Did you play well? Any further thoughts on the "power half volley" experiment?

[don_budge]

My model is Driving this ball...to the Promised Land!

D_B,
the elegance and simplicity of your three parallel lines is beautiful, but is it really ideal. Why have you strayed so far from the stance Hogan advocates in both "5 Lessons" and "Power Golf". In "Power Golf", he explains that a closed to open stance, which he advocates as you move down from driver to wedge, varies from a purely square stance by only a 1/2 inch either side of that neutral square stance line. What you are advocating with your front foot 6" forward is literally 6 times that spread. On top of that, wouldn't we be better off comparing a tennis swing to a 5-iron where he advocates a purely square stance.

Now, I'm not advocating using Hogan as a source for teaching tennis, but if you are going to bring up that source, I would like to hear your justification for the discrepancy there.

I think the "ideal" stance should be more along the lines of a completely square to slightly open stance which facilitates rotatation of the hips into the shot. A closed stance will inhibit that. We can find plenty of video to justify anything from open to closed. We need to find some greater rational.

don

My teaching model:

https://www.tennisplayer.net/tp_player/roger-federer/

My comments and references to Mr. Hogan were with regard to the lower body movement to initiate the forward motion of the swing. Technically, I wasn't referencing him on stances. Here you have opened up another can of words...and I cherish the opportunity to address the little squigglies.

Take a look at my model forehand and you tell me if Federer's front foot is approximately 6 inches give or take some wiggle room...in front of his back foot. It certainly appears to be so to me. But your point is well taken, tennis_chiro. Stances do vary from shot to shot. Just as golfers hit shots on balls that are standing still that range from 300 meter drives with slightly closed stances to 1 meter putts with slightly open stances...tennis players shots are hit on moving, spinning balls and cover a broad spectrum also...therefore require subtle and not so subtle adjustments in stance and angles in the tilt of their racquet heads. While golfers are permitted to carry only 13 or 14 clubs in their bags they can probably hit three or four shots with every club...which leaves them with a lot of options and therefore a lot of different stances, tennis players carry at least as many clubs and options in their bags...at least I know that I do, and they too are required to hit from many different stances and with a variety of follow throughs.

Your preference for a slightly open to neutral stance is well founded. You will no doubt find many to back you up...personally I don't disagree with you. I can see the rational for such a teaching model. The one thing in Roger's teed up forehand that I would critisize is the angle of his planted front foot. Well...nobodies perfect. Well...except you know who. I would advise more of a 33 degree turn of his front foot rather than the 3.3555 degree he has chosen...so that his hips could rotate a bit more freely and his knee doesn't bear the brunt of the forward momentum. I think Hogan recommends 22.5 degrees, but I don't want to quibble with him. Hogan says, "Remember to turn the toes slightly out. This will aid you to keep your balance during the full swing and at the same time ensure full freedom for the body turn". (page 24 of Power Golf)

But as it looks...Federer didn't have any problem rotating through his shot or keeping his balance. And his knee was apparently ok after the shot. After the millions of shots as a matter of fact. But then again...he is Roger Federer. He knows how to compensate for all and any variables.

But if I need further rational to justify my using Roger Federer teeing off on a forehand as my model...please consult with my analyst...Dr. don_budge, Tennis and Golf Therapist.

[don_budge]

G. O. L. F.-Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden...or 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

I know nothing of golf other than a bloke stands sideways to belt the ball 300 yards up a fairway. In tennis, hitting off a sideways stance (closed stance) is not a good idea because the hips act as a block as the player rotates and follows thru. Relating tennis to golf ain't a great idea for those that know little about golf

However, I am intrigued about D_B's "three lines" because the Spanish teach this as a basic. I am just wondering, when rallying gets more hectic, how insistant a coach should be about maintaining the "three lines" ...and at what point it becomes more acceptable, from a coaches standpoint, to allow students to adopt more open stances.... should a player work overtime to get into the "three lines" position?...or should coaches be more relaxed about stances and allow players to play off any stance so long as they are on balance?

Well now at least you know what the word "golf" means. Perhaps it would be a good idea to give all tennis coaches a crash course in golf as well.

https://www.tennisplayer.net/tp_player/roger-federer/

Once again, here is my model. You must admit that I am consistent if nothing else. Roger is setting up to "tee off" on this ball. He is fully intent on knocking it into next week. He doesn't intend for his opponent to get another play on this ball. Judging from the response of the audience...he succeeds in his intentions.

As you can see, Federer has set up in the stance that I describe to a T. Crouched, feet planted firmly in the ground with the front foot "slightly ahead" of the back and if you use your mouse to take the video frame by frame I think you will be able to discern that he has approximately created the three lines or vectors that I describe for my beginning students. Even from his closed stance he has no problem rotating and following through...clearly his hips have not created any type of blocking mechanism. I have heard that argument before regarding the closed stance...but I don't buy it.

A closed stance, on the other hand, might eliminate wild finishes in forehand swings which would of been the subject of my next post to the little Dynamo before the thread was deleted.

https://www.tennisplayer.net/article/music-videos/

This is a post that was also concerning westcoast777's footwork...

In the music video "Forehand Not Gone", Roger Federer is hitting four forehands from less than perfect position. Notice though that he dutifully attempts to create perfect position at the moment of impact.

fh 1...backing up, left foot plants first and as he swings into the ball the right foot is backing up in line with the front

fh 2...moving to his right, right foot plants first and left comes swinging into line as he swings into the ball

fh 3...backing up, left foot plants first and right foot slides backwards into position as he swings into the ball

fh 4...backing up, left foot plants first and the right foot slides backwards into position as he swings into the ball

In the video Roger is swinging at four forehands and in three of them he is running around his backhand to his left. Since his momentum is carrying him to his left he plants his left foot first to assure himself that he has ample room to make his swing yet at the same time his right foot is backing up to bring himself into alignment with the ball. You see also that he must make a last moment adjustment by taking to the air to create just a bit more room to make his swing. Yet his head and body are perfectly still at the moment of impact.

In the single ball that he is moving to his right, at the last moment he plants his right foot a bit forward towards the net from his left foot as he tries to take the ball a bit earlier and at the same time his left foot is moving towards the ball so that at the moment of impact he is in as close to proper alignment with the ball as humanly possible.

The music video is simply a perfect example of how the forehand should be played when perfect position on the ball is not possible. Normally when I am watching Federer in a match, I like to watch just him without taking my eyes off him to watch the ball or his opponent. Coincidentally, I heard Rod Laver suggest the same thing. For instance, in the music video one can really appreciate the grace and perfect balance that Federer has when he is in the moment of truth...and that is when he has his body aligned to make his move on the ball from “get in position”. Even when he is actually in the air, off the ground, he is somehow able to achieve nearly perfect stability as he is swinging and this is evidenced with the still positioning of his head. He has the ability to achieve the Hoganesque lower body movement to the ball to initialize his swing...even with less than perfect position.

End of post.

Yes...it gets hectic. But it's no reason to cast all reason and technique to the wind. Simply adjust accordingly...and commensurably with the time constraints like Federer does. When there isn't enough time to get the front foot in position, make damn sure that you don't fail to turn your hips and shoulders as well. Like the Meatloaf song..."Two Out of Three Ain't Bad". If you don't have time to get the hips and shoulders turned, make doubly damn sure you get the racquet back so that at least you can try and sweep the racquet head through the ball...somehow.

The funny thing is, though, in tennis...there are different schools of thought. I subscribe to the School of Classic Tennis but I realize that it is not for everybody.

[don_budge]

Teaching in a vacuum...or the need for guidelines and models

3. Create the three lines with the feet, shoulders and the racquet

I assume this is just to "get in position"? As the torso would turn a little more as the racket is fully drawn back to the end of the backswing?

I have been working on these "three lines" with a student of mine. Works well when I feed balls in...gets far more difficult once more hectic rallying is applied.

Verbally to the student as I am feeding balls...it is simply put, something like this:

1. Push the racquet with your free hand and create the wrist position and forehand grip (with the initial turn towards the ball) strings pointing at the ball
2. Continue to turn and push the racquet back
3. Create the three lines with the feet, shoulders and the racquet
4. Initiate the swing with a "pull" of the hips and shoulders, then the racquet handle to the ball
5. Swing the "released" racquet head through the path of the ball

This is an approximation of what I am telling my student. Usually my students don't come to me with preconceived notions on how to swing a tennis racquet. I give students guidelines to start off with. I teach fundamentals.

When I talk about the three lines with young Swedish children, which is what I generally start off with, I have to keep my language pretty simple and general...which is probably a blessing. Along with these instructions they get plenty of demonstrations which also provides them with a visual aid in realizing the limitation of words and language. Of course it's not as simple as "5 easy instructions" and if I was coaching in a vacuum...I just might think that it was as simple as that.

Individuals are going to place their feet differently and they are going to twist their torso's to various degrees...they are going to set their racquets differently no matter what you tell them as you have pointed out. There is no holy grail when it comes to teaching tennis. Period.

Here is the model that I am working from...can you see the approximation of the three lines just before he starts to turn his hips back to the ball. Use your mouse to slow down the whirling dervish.

https://www.tennisplayer.net/tp_player/roger-federer/

This is a ball that Roger is set to "tee off" on and this is the footwork he has chosen. He could of played this ball from an open stance, but he didn't. I think it was because he wanted to set up to this ball to drive it and finish the point. Judging by the applause and the way he turns his back resolutely on his opponent...mission accomplished.

[stotty]

I know nothing of golf other than a bloke stands sideways to belt the ball 300 yards up a fairway. In tennis, hitting off a sideways stance (closed stance) is not a good idea because the hips act as a block as the player rotates and follows thru. Relating tennis to golf ain't a great idea for those that know little about golf

However, I am intrigued about D_B's "three lines" because the Spanish teach this as a basic. I am just wondering, when rallying gets more hectic, how insistant a coach should be about maintaining the "three lines" ...and at what point it becomes more acceptable, from a coaches standpoint, to allow students to adopt more open stances.... should a player work overtime to get into the "three lines" position?...or should coaches be more relaxed about stances and allow players to play off any stance so long as they are on balance?

[tennis_chiro]

Line #1

D_B,
the elegance and simplicity of your three parallel lines is beautiful, but is it really ideal. Why have you strayed so far from the stance Hogan advocates in both "5 Lessons" and "Power Golf". In "Power Golf", he explains that a closed to open stance, which he advocates as you move down from driver to wedge, varies from a purely square stance by only a 1/2 inch either side of that neutral square stance line. What you are advocating with your front foot 6" forward is literally 6 times that spread. On top of that, wouldn't we be better off comparing a tennis swing to a 5-iron where he advocates a purely square stance.

Now, I'm not advocating using Hogan as a source for teaching tennis, but if you are going to bring up that source, I would like to hear your justification for the discrepancy there.

I think the "ideal" stance should be more along the lines of a completely square to slightly open stance which facilitates rotatation of the hips into the shot. A closed stance will inhibit that. We can find plenty of video to justify anything from open to closed. We need to find some greater rational.

don

[stotty]

Three Lines

3. Create the three lines with the feet, shoulders and the racquet

I assume this is just to "get in position"? As the torso would turn a little more as the racket is fully drawn back to the end of the backswing?

I have been working on these "three lines" with a student of mine. Works well when I feed balls in...gets far more difficult once more hectic rallying is applied.

[tennis_chiro]

Two Parts vs Three Parts

D_B,
I agree completely that the initiation of the gravity drop or the second part of your three part breakdown is critical to a successful stroke. This part of the motion should be relaxed (perhaps less so on something like a return of serve) for the upper body "experiencing" the gravity drop as the lower body does its critical job of bringing the racket head into position where the arm can swing forward through the contact point.

The problem I have is eliminating the ever-present pause that my students seem to take at the bottom of the drop before the racket swings forward to the ball, especially if they came to me with an established stroke. I want the motion of the racket head to be more like a "J" (I call this part of the swing the "J stroke") and less like an "L" with a pause and a 90 degree turn of the racket head path towards the contact point. Accordingly, I call the 2nd and 3rd parts of your 3-part breakdown the 2nd part of my 2-part breakdown. You won't often see any pause in the stroke of someone like Federer, but you will see the sense of timing when they fire the stoke at the ball. The resultant smooth and graceful stroke is ideal; but, too often, I find I am fighting against a stroke which has no timing at all and is really geared to the rhythm of the bounce of the ball. I'm trying to push my students away from that.

WBC,
please give us some better examples: some players who were successful in the last 50 years that we have decent video on that can exemplify what you are saying. We are interested in hearing what you have to say, but simply describing everyone as deficient in the terms you are setting out as essentials for success doesn't really move us forward at all. Part of the beauty of this site is we try to back up what we are advocating with actual video evidence.

don

[don_budge]

The most important thing of the tennis swing to me...is the so called "gravity drop"

I posted this to westcoast777 as I was trying to address his footwork from the open stance to a more closed stance.

As the first part of the lesson and critique of your groundstrokes, I am going to pass along a very vital tip...from none other than Ben Hogan...the golfing icon. I have a tape of Ben Hogan and Sam Snead playing a match on an old TV series called “Shell’s Wonderful World of Golf”. These two golfing legends play a match at the Houston Country Club and afterwards both Snead and Gene Sarazan both exclaim that they have never seen a finer round of golf played than the one just completed by Hogan...he was flawless. At the conclusion of the match Sarazan asks both golfers for their comments on the most important part of the golf swing and this is what Hogan had to say.

“The most important thing of the golf swing to me, is the movement of the lower body from the top of the swing (“get in position” position). First of all, it starts down below with your knees and your hips. At the top of the swing you move the lower part of your body, not your shoulders...letting your shoulder, arms and hands bring you into position to hit. This is the first movement there (Hogan demonstrates that as he turns his hips from the top of his swing his hands come down into position without any movement from his hands) then you release at the bottom of the swing.”

After watching your video and reading my predecessor’s comments I felt compelled to comment on the importance of the action of the lower body in the swing...whether it be a tennis swing, a golf swing or swinging a baseball bat. There are certain fundamentals that one should be strongly advised to observe when transferring the weight of the body to most efficiently transfer the energy into the racquet head and subsequently into the ball. In order to make this most fundamental move to the ball...your feet must be in the proper position.

You must create a solid foundation from which to swing and to effectively use the lower body...like a good golfer does. I frequently say when comparing the two games that tennis is "golf on the run". When I first get a new student, the most important position that I begin to emphasize is the “get in position” position that you have seen me write about ad infinitum. This is the position which gives the swinger a solid and balanced platform to swing from. The position is created by three lines...one with the feet and the front foot is ideally placed six inches on a line in front of the back foot, the second line is with the hips and shoulders on the same line with the feet and the third line is with the racquet on the same line as the other two lines. If you can accomplish this on any given shot...consider yourself properly lined up. Also the tennis player is in a crouching position or “semi-sitting” position so that if I was to put my hand on your right shoulder from in front of you and instruct you to resist my push you should be able to hold your balance no matter how hard I am pushing...that is the solid foundation from which you would ideally swing. Remember that I said ideally...this isn’t possible all of the time, perhaps realistically only a small percentage of the time in a match situation.

https://www.tennisplayer.net/article/music-videos/

https://www.tennisplayer.net/tp_player/roger-federer/

“The most important thing of the golf swing to me, is the movement of the lower body from the top of the swing (“get in position” position). First of all, it starts down below with your knees and your hips. At the top of the swing you move the lower part of your body, not your shoulders...letting your shoulder, arms and hands bring you into position to hit. This is the first movement there (Hogan demonstrates that as he turns his hips from the top of his swing his hands come down into position without any movement from his hands) then you release at the bottom of the swing.”

This little pearl from Ben Hogan I believe contains the answer to the "gravity drop"...it's a beautiful and simple description of what actually happens.

Readers...go in front of a full length mirror and assume your ready position and simply take the racquet back as tennis_chiro has recommended as I quoted him in the previous post and get in position. Take a look at the "model" that I use in Roger Federer. As he has "completed" his backswing he is in beautiful position to go forward and he makes the move that Ben Hogan suggests is "the most important part of the golf swing". I suggest to you that this is the most important part of the tennis swing too. Ben Hogan says the most important part of the golf swing is the movement of the lower body from the top of the swing. He says that this movement starts with your knees and your hips. As you turn your hips from your "get in position" you will notice that your racquet hand will come down into position more or less of it's own volition and we have come to know this action as a "gravity drop"...technically this is not so much a factor of gravity as it is a factor of turning your hips.

Hogan definitely knew what he was talking about when he was discussing and writing about the golf swing and his little pearl about the movement of the lower body is as good an explanation of how the racquet hand drops down into position as I can think of. Notice how the hands of baseball players drop as they turn their hips to the ball when they are swinging a baseball bat.

The video of the neutral position of the Roger Federer forehand is a perfect example of backswing, initiation of the swing and the forward swing itself. His movement in the "Forehand Not Gone" video is poetry in motion, he's really dancing to the tune with such sweet footwork...see how he manages his lower body movement and all the while keeping his head in perfect position...even when he has less than perfect position on the ball. This particular swing is my teaching model. If Federer only read Dostoyevsky, Hamsun, Celine and Miller I would declare him my idol...providing he could demonstrate that he could walk on water. Oh well...nobody's perfect.

Verbally to the student...it is simply put, something like this:

1. Push the racquet with your free hand and create the wrist position and forehand grip (with the initial turn towards the ball) strings pointing at the ball
2. Continue to turn and push the racquet back
3. Create the three lines with the feet, shoulders and the racquet
4. Initiate the swing with a "pull" of the hips and shoulders, then the racquet handle to the ball
5. Swing the "released" racquet head through the path of the ball

Stotty....as a note to #3 and food for thought regards post 18. If the elbow is somewhat "connected to the hip" it will be a natural consequence of the turning hips (and shoulders) for the racquet handle to follow...it may at the same time restrict over ambitious backswings.

WBC...I will buy the catapult, the hard forehand topspin half volley I will take under advisement...I will take it on consignment as an integral part of the solution. Even Bruce Lee would need more than an inch to pound a forehand into next week. But I must reject your rejection of the "gravity drop"...unless our differences are semantic.

There definitely is a part of the swing that is not the back swing and not the forward swing. Hogan just so happened to think that this was the most important part of the swing...who am I to argue with "The Hawk".

[don_budge]

Backswing...ala tennis_chiro

For the record, the preferred backswing, if I can get it, is a "straight" backswing. That is, since the ready position puts the racket shaft at about 45 degrees with the racket head somewhere between the shoulders and the eyes, I want the racket head to move during the unit turn to a position just off the right shoulder with the tip of the racket head traveling to this position without going up or down. I teach the swing in two parts: unit turn and then the swing.

don

Yes...this is the model that I work with, with one small, minor detail. From the beginning, no matter how young...if they can walk and talk, I teach the swing in three parts.

The unit turn, initiating the forward motion and then the forward motion.

This business of initiating the swing is a whole separate issue (it's a "tweener") and the whole thing depends and rest on two distinct issues. Number one...get into position. Number two...initiate with a pull that is initiated with a turning of the hips. Don...you have said as much in so many different ways.

Let me explain...

[stotty]

Post 18 got somewhat buried...never mind...threads seem to find a life of their own...rightly so...

WBC, your criticism of the some of the world's best forehands is harsh to say the least. The game's forehands have never been better than they are today. Indeed, if you had to name one shot in the game that has improved markedly over the years, it would be the forehand.

My favourite forehand is Federer's. It has everything. He can hit it from any part of the court and is devastating in the mid-court. This he has over Nadal...who is less lethal in the midcourt. I think Federer's forehand motion is beautiful from start to finish...the ease and simplicity of the shot exceptional...seen live, it takes your breath away at times.

If I had to name the single greatest shot of all time it would be a tie between between Federer's forehand and Pancho's serve....Pancho's serve might just have it...but it would be a close call.

[worldsbestcoach]

my heart cries

My heart cries for so many players, even for the top players in the world.....because with better technique, they could be even so much better. My heart cries for players at all levels, because most of them have been given wrong information, and have been taught poorly.

For instance, the great Serena Williams has a topspin forehand that is too much like Berdych's. That is why Serena often goes through long stretches of hitting poor and embarassing forehands. My heart cries for her. She is only doing as she has been taught. Often, she must win matches with her heart, because her flawed technique is letting her down.