The Myth of the Recovery Step: Pro Backhands

[10splayer]

Thanks Don for your thoughts, as always very provocative. It's fun to theorize about these complex series of moves, but in the end it's just that. (unless Gordon came on and clarified)

Unlike some on this forum, I believe great players have figured out the best way to go about their business. Especially when one sees the same thing across the board. Yandell has a knack for finding universal commonalities, and this is one. I tend to believe, (as i mentioned) there is some kinetic chain reason for it, but, again, at the end of the day, it's all speculation.

Not sure it really matters "why" for both player and coach when so universal.

[stotty]

To tackle the bonus points first. Yes, sure, off the bounce with both players standing at the back the element of risk would make the jump not worth it. Plus, stationing yourself under a bounce smash is a better option because it would take split second timing to jump for a bounce smash...risky.

Taking a smash in the air is entirely different. I had a decent overhead in my athletic days and there was nothing I liked more than back peddling and jumping for overheads, and I could hit a ball far harder when forced to jump for a smash than if I planted underneath and left the ground as a consequence of driving upwards.

I think a crouch smash or one where a player roots himself requires very fast racket speed to get power...with the body acting primarily as a post. You can hit jump smash with power and hardly know you’ve hit it. A well synchronised jump seems to work wonders in the energy stakes.

From a more radical standpoint jumping for SOME shots maybe something we see of in the future, certainly on dead ball forehands. Doing this off a two-handed backhand would present a different set of problems not so easy to overcome but doubtless someone will find a way.

Why do you think a two-hander derives most of his power from the rear shoulder when the rear shoulder is the non-dominant side? I tend to look at it the arms and shoulders working together fairly equally. Many players with good two-handers who have I spoken to often say their arms are exerting equal force. I have spoken to others who say it depends what phrase the stroke is in as to what which arm/shoulder is doing the most work. It seems to vary from player to player.

This does not change the fact that the left toe should be acting like an anchor holding you back after the hitting action is completed and as the followthrough is completed; but just before that contact point, the left foot should be exerting force to get the hips to turn.

Is it "holding the line" or pushing?...or pushing then holding the line? I am going for the latter.

I think 10splayer (and don_budge in previous posts) summed up the kinetic chain wonderfully...each link dissipating as the next commences. The Gary Player clip shows this also. I learnt a lot there. Holding the line with the rear foot also sums well what is going on. It’s tough to add to this on top of what the article already covers.

Enough said...be interesting to see what others think.

[tennis_chiro]

More Food for thought

4)Finally, we get to my over-the-top example. Sometimes, I like to take measures to their extremes to try to get a better understanding of underlying principles. This is why I like to use things like my weighted rackets to make players feel what is happening with the racket head and also to experience how their muscles are working in their swing. So here goes, imagine the carnival booth where you try to hit the bell with a mallet to make the marker to up indicating how strong you are. Well, we are going to change that a little bit. We are going to make the bell a piston at waist height and instead of swinging down on top of the bell, you are going to have to drive the piston horizontally. It won't be enough to just hit the piston, you are going to have to make the mallet drive the piston in a straight line until it hits another gage which will measure how much force went in the right direction. (A little imagination and poetic license here, please!) Oh, and that mallet, it's going to be a sledgehammer, a heavy sledgehammer. Now would you rather swing that sledgehammer with your foot pushing on the ground or just hanging there off of your left hip? I might have that left foot off the ground by the time the sledgehammer contacts its target, but not only would I want to have my foot on the ground as I was beginning the swing, I would want good shoes that I could grip the ground with and I would be trying to get the sledgehammer moving with my legs and hips before my arms started to move, especially overcoming the initial static inertia of that heavy hammer. Of course, a tennis racket is much lighter and goes through the air much faster, but the ultimate goal would be the same: I would want to generate as much momentum = speed in the right direction times weight whether I'm swinging the light tennis racket or the heavy sledgehammer. Imagine a flat metal weight strung into the center of the stringbed of a racket. If the sledgehammer is too heavy, you could probably generate more momentum with the lighter tennis racket swung at a much higher speed. But for an optimum strike, I still want my foot solidly pushing on the ground.

For bonus points:
You are hitting a bounce overhead off a high lob 10' infront of the baseline in the middle of the court. The ball was high enough to give you plenty of time to move into position and it is actually going to bounce about 13 or 14 feet into the air so that you could hit a jump overhead if you felt it was advantageous. And it is going almost straight up and down at this point. Your opponents are back in position so there is no advantage gained by hitting it earlier. Would you try to jump or would you get set up with both feet on the ground and hit it without jumping?... that's what I thought... just saying, for all you jumping fools who think being 6'4" tall and making 65% first serves is great serving...

looking forward to everyone's comments,

don

[tennis_chiro]

Some food for thought!

Okay. Now we have a deeper discussion started. I don't know if I can get my thoughts down in the correct order, but there are definitely a couple of points I wanted to highlight. They may not be in the correct order of hierarchy, but I'm going to try to get them out.

My main points:
1). I like the separation of the recovery step from the actual hitting action, but there is more to understanding that comparison to the Gary Player step-through.
2). I love 10sPlayer's emphasis on the staging of the different pieces of the kinetic chain. There is a fundamental conservation of force or momentum or whatever in play here. But that the fact that one stage stops to transfer its' energy to the next link in the kinetic chain, necessarily implies that that first stage fired in the first place.
3). There should be some fundamental difference between a two-handed backhand and an opposite hand forehand; after all, we are doing something with that second hand.
4). Finally, I have a ridiculous, over-the-top analogy to try and make my point about the use of the hips to power the maximum power 2hbh.

So, first the separation of the recovery step. One of the big, underemphasized advantages of open-stance strokes is the fact that you are closer to the center of the court and have a shorter recovery to make because you didn't take that last step to close the stance; but even there, the recovery movement happens after the completion of the real hitting action of the stroke. And it's a big mistake, when you do assume that closed stance (which we are recognizing happens most of the time on the pro bh, one or two-handed) to try to execute the recovery before you complete the hitting action. I think KLACR made the point about pulling out of the shot too soon. I see this all the time. It's really important to complete the shot and get the weight all the way to the front side. This is what Gary Player's step-through is all about. The non-golfers here may not be as familiar, but one of the most common faults in a hacker's golf swing is a "reverse pivot". The classic golf swing is supposed to rock the weight from front to back on the backswing loading the hips and shoulders with the "x-factor" and then unwind that force leading from the bottom up with the legs moving the weight to the front leg where all the weight is on the front leg by contact and moreover settles there in the classic golf follow-through. In the "reverse pivot", the hacker ends up loading from front to back and all the way to the middle or the front on the backswing and ends up going from front to back as he swings the club down to the ball. One of the other classic hacker's faults (and single digit golfer's faults as well) is swinging from the top or going over the top. This means, basically, that they are starting the downward swing with their hands and arms instead of with their legs and hips; yeah, we are talking kinetic chain again. A lot of golfers really have a terrible time overcoming that "reverse pivot". Perhaps at some time in his career or development, Gary Player had a similar problem. His solution was to be sure that he could step forward down the fairway immediately after his swing was completed and the result is the signature GP "step through follow through". Obviously, it would be very hard to do if you had finished your swing with your weight on your back foot. You'd have to transfer the weight off that rear foot before you could make the step forward. This seems pretty obvious and simple, but I can't tell you how many golfers I've seen struggling to overcome that reverse pivot. It probably happens less now with all the video we have available on our phones, but it is still a major problem for a lot of golfers. To a certain extent, there is a "reverse pivot" in the 2hbh (as Kyle pointed out) when the weight transfer is not completed and held until the end of the hitting action if not the full followthrough. I insist on until the full followthrough because if the player comes out of the shot too early it is going to impact the quality of the transfer of momentum to the ball.
2) 10sPlayer and don_budge (with his rocket ship) both make great points about the transfer of energy from one link in the kinetic chain to the next. But if that link wasn't really moving in the first place, it wouldn't have any energy to contribute to the process. We also get back to that equal and opposite reaction business. (Remember Vic Braden telling Roscoe about the amount of force on the ground when he hit that serve. Of course, if we start to travel down that avenue of discussion we will get sidetracked on the whole business of how much energy went into the ball and how much went into just lifting the player into the air - ever think about that!?) If that left leg and hip is actually contributing any force to the 2hbh, then there has to be some force on the ground at the left foot; it can only contribute some portion of the force with which it is pushing on the ground. If that foot is sliding back away from the ''stance line", it can't be exerting any real force on the ground. If you are in the air, as Murray is in the clip, the left leg can't push on the ground and the left leg has to kick back to counter balance and create opposite momentum that enables the upper body to have something to swing against; this is a little like the kick we execute when we make a jump overhead, especially moving backwards (boy, did I used to love hitting those! If I tried to make that kick now, I would just end up in a heap on the ground with I don't know what muscles pulled!). Maybe the hips don't turn all the way to the front like they do on a forehand, but there should be significant hip rotation, and not just from closed at 135 degrees to 90 degrees(perpendicular to the net), at least to 45 degrees if not all the way forward like in a forehand. This does not change the fact that the left toe should be acting like an anchor holding you back after the hitting action is completed and as the followthrough is completed; but just before that contact point, the left foot should be exerting force to get the hips to turn. Certainly, it is possible to use your right side exclusively to turn the hips even as your left foot is off the ground, but that would not be ideal and it certainly would not be the most powerful hip turn. (more on that in my example below). Remember, I am talking about the ideal way to hit the biggest, baddest, best possible 2hbh.
My first guess about how can I hit a bigger forehand on a sitter, in the air ala Federer "not gone" video or solidly on the ground would be in the air, but it doesn't make sense to me. On the other hand, for the 2hbh or even 1hbh, I feel like you could hit it bigger with your feet on the ground. You might leave the ground as you hit it, but you would not want to jump into the air as the players often do to get purchase on a higher ball. Certainly food for thought.
3) A 2hbh is not like an opposite forehand even if we do derive the majority of our power for this shot from the rear shoulder. That front shoulder is pulling and contributing something. It makes sense that this pulling interaction between front and rear shoulders could contribute to inhibiting the rotation of the shoulders all the way to the front as in a forehand. After all, when we hit the one-hander, the hips stay almost completely perpendicular to the net as we run our power around the pivot point through the front shoulder. And we all know some players use a lot more of the dominant hand in their 2hbh's than others. I believe most 2hbh's derive most of their power from the rear shoulder (and in turn rear hip), but I don't know that. This could explain the reduced hip rotation we see in the 2hbh, but I don't buy that the optimum shot would finish with the hips still perpendicular to the net. On the other hand, that might very much be the case when both feet are off the ground and the player is trying to use the scissor kick of his legs to stabilize the pelvis as a platform for the shoulders to work off.

continued below

[stotty]

When you watch clips in real time, it looks for all the world the recovery step is very much part of the stroke. Without John's high speed videos it's likely many of us would be none the wiser. You can easily understand how coaches misunderstand the concept and teach it incorrectly.

I just love the Gary Player clip. He's like a corkscrew, and his arms seem really tucked in to his body on the point of contact...more than I would have imagined. Looks an interesting game.

[don_budge]

Kinetic Chain…and Rocket Science

This is just my opinion, and is not based on absolute fact. But i think we are making this a little more complicated then it needs to be. The theoretic kinetic chain is pretty straight forward. For a segment to increase it's rotational speed, the previous link needs to decrease, or slow..

hahaha…I made the comment recently….somewhere…that the kinetic components were like the stages of a multi-stage rocket falling away as they were used up. This comment, like every other comment I have made in my 2,328 posts and counting is not based on absolute fact either.

[don_budge]

Tennis is Golf on the Run...

Yes that right leg is the last thing to come thru..."eventually his right foot cannot grip any longer".

Tons of rotation in golf I see....

I played golf just once with my father around ten years ago. I hit the air on the first couple of balls before I got the hang of it. After some coaching from my father, I stuck one good shot that went dead straight about 150 yards down the fairway. It was a great feeling that. I hardly touched it compared to my earlier attempts where I tried to whack it. That's the only time I ever played. My father played off scratch, as did his uncle. When I retire from tennis, I will take up golf.

And yes DB, that Gary Player video is right on point. Many would conclude that GP swings his right leg around with the swing. The subtle nuance of his right foot "holding the line' would be missed by many. Unabated rotation is a bad thing.

Thanks tennis_chiro in further engaging this thread with some erstwhile discussion about this all important topic of "recovery steps", footwork and weight shift or transfer. I think the ensuing comments are really informative and important information for tennis coaches. I might add once more that it is a super article by johnyandell.

So Stotty, you have golf in your genes…don't wait until you retire then. Go and get a couple of lessons from a good pro and do a little work on the range in advance of your retirement.

I learned more about tennis from playing and teaching golf than I ever learned from tennis. You are dead on the money about the rotation thing…in golf if you want to generate more distance (power) you turn the shoulders and hips more. There is also the danger of over rotation in golf as well. These remarks are very appropriate for this discussion about recovery steps, balance and the like.

I know that both tennis_chiro and 10splayer are excellent golfers and it really is telling in their analysis and attention for detail. I have always recognized this. They also are intimately familiar with the "natural" kinetic chain of the swing. Attention klacr…I believe that much of my forehand progress was made after I "returned" to tennis from golf. In fact I know that it did. Go and seek the same advise that I gave Stotty just now if you have the time. This business about Ben Hogan and the lower body initiating the chain of events in the swing…Gary Player and his "recovery step"…after the swing. All good topics of conversation that are more than adequately illustrated by fundamental golf mechanics, principles and technique.

"Tennis is Golf on the run…" -don_budge

[stotty]

What do you guys think of this golf swing as an analogy to the recovery step. To me it's perfect. Look how GOLFPlayer sort of does the "Welby Van Horn" compensatory move with the back foot initially before he walks it on through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o_cMVg4uEg

But Gary Player is totally done with his swing before he makes this move and he isn't even worried about the ball coming back to him. He's going to stroll down the fairway to find the one he just hit.

I was curious as to how you would interpret this seeing as this is also a two handed stroke and some of the footwork and time constraint issues seem to be applicable here as well.

Yes that right leg is the last thing to come thru..."eventually his right foot cannot grip any longer".

Tons of rotation in golf I see....

I played golf just once with my father around ten years ago. I hit the air on the first couple of balls before I got the hang of it. After some coaching from my father, I stuck one good shot that went dead straight about 150 yards down the fairway. It was a great feeling that. I hardly touched it compared to my earlier attempts where I tried to whack it. That's the only time I ever played. My father played off scratch, as did his uncle. When I retire from tennis, I will take up golf.

[10splayer]

This is just my opinion, and is not based on absolute fact. But i think we are making this a little more complicated then it needs to be. The theoretic kinetic chain is pretty straight forward. For a segment to increase it's rotational speed, the previous link needs to decrease, or slow..

At some stage in the backswing, the hips are going to fire, and if not acted on by an external force, that rate would remain constant. When the off leg "holds its line", or "kicks back", it slows hip rotation and transfers kinetic energy to the next segment in a more efficient way. (the torso)

Also, as mentioned by many, over rotation would have a negative impact on the swing path as well...

[stotty]

rotation...rotation...rotation.

I'm struggling with this one a little bit. I really like the emphasis on the recovery step coming after the completion of extension through the hitting zone and not really part of the actual hitting action. However, I thought there was a major difference between one-handed and most two-handed backhands (not all) in that the power comes predominantly from the rear shoulder and in turn from the rotation of the hips into the shot for the two-handed (opposite-forehand-like) backhand, whereas in the one-handed shot the power is drawn from the front shoulder and the shoulders and hips remain stationary in the classic one-handed backhand pose (not as true with heavy topspin like Wawrinka or Henin).

But the way I am reading this article is that you are identifying a 45 degree shoulder turn on the two-handed backhand (about half what we get for a normal forehand), but with almost no movement or rotation of the hips forward toward a net facing position. That is what is demonstrated by the clip of Murray's backhand. I've emphasized trying to get students whose rear foot was kicking back to try to use that foot to drive into the shot; if they were kicking that foot back, I felt they were not getting full power from their legs in their two-handed shot and were forced to power the shot almost entirely with their upper body.

Moreover, I THOUGHT I was successful in improving the shot when I got the student to drive off their left side (for rightys) and turn their hips into the shot finishing with almost their entire weight on their front/right foot. But the article is saying that kickback I was trying to discourage was actually a good thing that establishes balance for the player in executing the two-hander. Is it possible there is a significant difference between shots hit in the air and shots hit on the ground? Murray's shot looks great. But perhaps he needs that kickback because he is in the air and needs something to push against. All of the clips in the article are where the player doesn't have enough time to actually set up and move into the ball, but when you look at some neutral clips where they did have enough time, I find some difference:

Djokovic neutral stance from rear:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/high_speed_archive/phantom/Novak_Djokovic_HD_HS/index.html?dir=Backhand/ND_BH_Center&stroke=ND%20BH%20Center%20NeutralStance%20Rear1%20250fps.mp4

Murray neutral stance from front:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/high_speed_archive/phantom/Andy_Murray_HD_HS/index.html?dir=Backhand/AM_BH_Center&stroke=AM%20BH%20Center%20NeutralStance%20Front1%20500fps.mp4

And one of my favorites:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/high_speed/High_Speed.html?MaratSafinBackhand.mov

Hating being wrong again!
don

And granted, to make a strong argument, I'm going to have to find some closed stance clips where the player has enough time to apply the drive I am advocating here. But this should be enough to at least further the discussion. As for the open stance 2-hander, that makes it even easier to use the power of the legs although the actual hip turn may be reduced because the shoulder turn load the power into the "x-factor" between the hips and the shoulders.

From the clips in the article, the examples of kick back on the two hander are on higher balls. Perhaps it's just a result of climbing up that kick back occurs in this situation. Or maybe kick back is simply all about killing rotation in given scenarios. I always thought it was more about balance...seems I was wrong. I have never really looked at the scenarios when kick back occurs. I will have to look in the archive.

I think the rear leg will obviously act as a block and stunt the shot if not allowed to rotate through in many some situations; wide balls, etc.

The neutral stance is an interesting one:

In the clips you posted, Murray has over stepped where he wants to be and simply backed up to play the stroke, which may explain that one.

In the Djokovic clip I suspect he has played for depth and not hit that hard, then chosen a less dramatic, more economical way to recover. I have seen him do this from a few rows back at Wimbledon. He doesn't always hit as hard as the TV screen will have you believe. A lot of his shots are three-quarter pace balls with the focus on length. If he was hitting harder, maybe he would have rotated the back leg on this one. When he does crack one, I can tell you it's a hell of a sight.

The Safin clip won't play at my end. I'll try tomorrow...may be it's a plugin problem.


Great post, don. More on this soon....

[10splayer]

If I may add...Perhaps a way to look at this is from impact positions (racquet and body lines) backwards..One of the terms i use with lessons is "posting up", essentially the torso lines at impact. With a forehand (as mentioned) the shoulder and hip line are roughly parallel to the baseline..with a one hander roughly perpendicular to the baseline (further with stronger grips) and a two hander, again, roughly in between....

Whats important to understand, is that with all strokes there is a rotation cycle UP TO, OR CLOSE TO IMPACT. (before the off leg is used to control over rotation) With the forehand it's easy to see as the rotational cycle is greater (in order to produce the back side hitting shoulder forward). The one hander is a bit deceptive in that the "post up" position is still sideways (more or less), which lead many to conclude that is "linear' or lacking rotation. Indeed, one of the reasons pro players close there stance off to such extremes is that it increases the rotational capabilities up to the post up position...

And the two hander is kinda of in between these two examples..All strokes rely on angular momentum as the chief supplier of RHS, the rotational cycles just occur in different degrees and are segmented differently. And the off leg, at some point (again at different times) starts to counter rotate or hold the line to transfer kinetic energy..

Not sure this addresses your question, but an attempt.

And yes DB, that Gary Player video is right on point. Many would conclude that GP swings his right leg around with the swing. The subtle nuance of his right foot "holding the line' would be missed by many. Unabated rotation is a bad thing.

[klacr]

I'm struggling with this one a little bit. I really like the emphasis on the recovery step coming after the completion of extension through the hitting zone and not really part of the actual hitting action. However, I thought there was a major difference between one-handed and most two-handed backhands (not all) in that the power comes predominantly from the rear shoulder and in turn from the rotation of the hips into the shot for the two-handed (opposite-forehand-like) backhand, whereas in the one-handed shot the power is drawn from the front shoulder and the shoulders and hips remain stationary in the classic one-handed backhand pose (not as true with heavy topspin like Wawrinka or Henin).

But the way I am reading this article is that you are identifying a 45 degree shoulder turn on the two-handed backhand (about half what we get for a normal forehand), but with almost no movement or rotation of the hips forward toward a net facing position. That is what is demonstrated by the clip of Murray's backhand. I've emphasized trying to get students whose rear foot was kicking back to try to use that foot to drive into the shot; if they were kicking that foot back, I felt they were not getting full power from their legs in their two-handed shot and were forced to power the shot almost entirely with their upper body.

Moreover, I THOUGHT I was successful in improving the shot when I got the student to drive off their left side (for rightys) and turn their hips into the shot finishing with almost their entire weight on their front/right foot. But the article is saying that kickback I was trying to discourage was actually a good thing that establishes balance for the player in executing the two-hander. Is it possible there is a significant difference between shots hit in the air and shots hit on the ground? Murray's shot looks great. But perhaps he needs that kickback because he is in the air and needs something to push against. All of the clips in the article are where the player doesn't have enough time to actually set up and move into the ball, but when you look at some neutral clips where they did have enough time, I find some difference:

Djokovic neutral stance from rear:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/high_speed_archive/phantom/Novak_Djokovic_HD_HS/index.html?dir=Backhand/ND_BH_Center&stroke=ND%20BH%20Center%20NeutralStance%20Rear1%20250fps.mp4

Murray neutral stance from front:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/high_speed_archive/phantom/Andy_Murray_HD_HS/index.html?dir=Backhand/AM_BH_Center&stroke=AM%20BH%20Center%20NeutralStance%20Front1%20500fps.mp4

And one of my favorites:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/high_speed/High_Speed.html?MaratSafinBackhand.mov

Hating being wrong again!
don

And granted, to make a strong argument, I'm going to have to find some closed stance clips where the player has enough time to apply the drive I am advocating here. But this should be enough to at least further the discussion. As for the open stance 2-hander, that makes it even easier to use the power of the legs although the actual hip turn may be reduced because the shoulder turn load the power into the "x-factor" between the hips and the shoulders.

...IMHO, aside from the biomechanics, I believe that the recovery step on that backhand has a deeper and more psychologically impactful purpose. Much along the lines of Damien Lafont's article on a fixed head position, I feel the recovery step that happens too early is also a sign of rushing and pulling out of the shot too early, not staying with the ball and shot and instead focusing on the outcome and not the actual execution of the stroke. That recovery step lag and the fixed head position aid in keeping the player on top of the shot and staying with it entirely.

I like the clips you posted Don. Although I'm not in love with the 2hb like I am with serves and volleys, you happened to select one of the best in the archives in Marat Safin. What a beast.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[John Yandell]

Don,

Yeah good questions. The answer is partly in the arm configuration. The more left handed the more open the shoulders. See the bh stance articles. But yeah the shoulders don't open all the way for the men on the two hander.

As for the one, the shoulders don't rotate past vertical but again with the closed stance there is significant rotation to get to vertical.

This is all my interpretation of the video, but I see the back leg as the governor of over rotation in both.

[hockeyscout]

That depends on the change in equipment: rackets, strings, balls, courts. Changes have come when equipment has changed, opening new possibilities.

Yes, equipment will obviously get better, however, I think training and nutrition will improve meteorically with other training elements from other sports coming over to the world of tennis. Just a hunch.

[gzhpcu]

And, ten years from now I really believe their will be a new breed of super players in the sport of tennis, and the technique will be radically different from what we are seeing today. Radically.

That depends on the change in equipment: rackets, strings, balls, courts. Changes have come when equipment has changed, opening new possibilities.