The Myth of the Recovery Step: Pro Backhands

[John Yandell]

Rich,
Welcome back. Happy holidays. Didn't you mean the bearer of good news??

[hockeyscout]

Snapshot. A new term.

Snap shot is a hockey term, and its a VERY complex shot.

[bottle]

Snapshot. A new term.

[gzhpcu]

Merry Christmas to you too, Rich.

Hope you will join the circle of posters!

[rich berman]

Love the article as it's great ammo when discussing a local head pro with students. Now you're the bearer of the bad news, not me or my coaches.
Thanks John and sorry I've been remiss posting. Tennisplayer.net remains a very important resources for Rich's Tennis School.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!!
Rich

[hockeyscout]

Why would hockey players tend to be good golfers?

A hockey player has THE BEST understanding of how to control - use the sweet spot of any piece of sports equipment.

That is the magic bullet. Nothing else.

You could take most NHL players, and in a matter of three practices teach them to play golf - hockey at a precocious level of play due to their immaculate timing and ability to control the head of their racket and club (among a few other things).

Their is something to be said about the focus level of hockey players as well.

The focus level of a hockey player is off the charts. If you lose focus you're going to get hit, beat or simply lose track of your time and space, and that is dangerous, and you will get hurt.

A hockey player is always consciously aware of the sweet spot of his stick. You need to be, as you don't want to poke a guy in the eye, hurt a teammate, and again, it takes a lot of conscious effort to give and take a pass, shoot and move from A to B carrying a big stick which always needs to be moved properly, and in synch with your hips, collarbone, rib cage and feet. The grips you need to use with the hockey stick, and the small sweet spot you need to manipulate the puck with takes MANY years to develop and they are very concise. You also need setups, as hockey is a transitional game, and you need to flow into your next, accelerate into offensive and defensive holes (windows) and do a flipping unbelievable amount of skill sets under physical pressure (hitting).

You also can't second guess yourself to much, and get involved in these mind games tennis - golf players do (they have nothing else to do sometimes except get nervous and second guess themselves - tennis players and golfers that is).

I imagine a lot of these players in hockey became good golfers so quickly because the level of focused concentration you carry over into golf is a totally different mental game (and in my opinion, its more effective for tennis, and golf). Clearly, tennis players do not have the same mentality as hockey players.

The second reason hockey players tend to be very good golfers is the team social aspect of it. It's a team bonding, buddy's do it, ride the carts, drink the beer, share hockey stories, get away from the public and go out and hit. So, the guys play a lot of it, and, well, they get good.

However, you could not take a hockey player and put him in as a PGA golfer because he has hockey habits and neurology which should not be changed. After retirement, their are a lot of technical things that could be changed, and I'd think if their was every a super serious dude who was relatively injury free (no often BTW) they could get to a world class level in three years.

Really 10splayer, golf and hockey are radically different sports. When I used to golf I'd hate how my hands in hockey felt when I got back on the ice.

The European hockey players are all soccer and tennis guys, and most are pretty good as well. Soccer and tennis are better mixes for hockey players, and as a coach I prefer my kids play those two sports as they are better for skill set development. I think summer golf really hurt our Canadian kids in hockey, and it shows in technical skillets where the European and Russian kids (tennis and soccer) and American (basketball, baseball and football) are better developed in terms of raw athletics.

The advantage the Canadian kids have is they are mentally superior, more powerful in terms of raw shooting (snapshot, snapshot, backhand and wrist shot), schooled in how to play the game (hockey IQ from mom, dad, uncles, brothers ECT who have played) and have had to deal with harsh elements (cold, storms, long travel and disciplined coaching) - Canucks are always able to win big when their talent level isn't on par with other countries.

So golf: why are hockey players good at it? Well in a nutshell, they know how to control the sweet spot (and thus are able to overcome bad technique easier than most), focus, concentration and fanatical devotion to do it day in and day out.

Comparing a static sport (golf) to a highly dynamic - more technical sport (tennis or hockey) isn't appropriate as the skill sets can simply not be carried over in my opinion.

[10splayer]

Interesting reading here gentleman.

First off, I have yet to meet a hockey player who is not a golfer.

It’s golf for us every spring and summer, and the majority of us are 5.5, the phrase you use in tennis (in Canada at least) and could be better if we invested the time into it or bothered even studying the game (which most of us can’t be bothered with as we came up in a hockey system where we learned unconsciously how to play the game from dad, uncles and local coaches who were all pro prospects back in their day and true experts in their fields).

I am a rather good golfer however I just hate a sport where you can’t beat on someone and inflict physical pain. That's just my mentality though.

The only similarity between tennis and golf is the management of the sweet spot. The feet and hips are entirely different, and there is virtually no correlation between the two sports.

This is our methodology, however, tennis coaches in the current paradigm (day and age) may see the crossover with how they teach the game.

Golf is a sport we play virtually ZERO attention to as there are no elements from it that fit into our skill setups in ANY way, shape or form.

I’d never let any tennis player golf, EVER, as it’d screw up my neurology and skill set work.

Granted, I have not done any of the setups you’ve all done with your tennis players, so maybe don_budge’s theory of tennis is golf on the run might work for one of his trained students, however, if we did it we’d get worse overnight, and I’d have to spend a long time ironing out all the bad wrinkles it created.

Why would hockey players tend to be good golfers?

[don_budge]

My Thoughts…on "The Myth of the Recovery Step"

Would love to hear your thoughts on "The Myth of the Recovery Step: Pro Backhands"

Thanks 10splayer, tennis_chiro, Stotty and klacr. An absolutely wonderful meaningful discussion followup on an exquisite article by johnyandell about "The Myth of the Recovery Step".

The comments and analogies taken in their context combine with the article seamlessly. It enhances the whole package…making it an educational experience. Confirming and validating.

[hockeyscout]

Yes, that's the part I don't agree with. For one thing, the ball is 50 yards down the fairway at the time the hips begin to turn again. It would have zero impact. As DB states, there is momentum though, and that needs to dissipate.

Rory is one of the most extreme examples (least that Ive seen) of the hips almost stopping completely..In fact if you look at his right butt cheek, it appears he's pulling his right leg back...Not rotating it.

So the equation (simplified) would be (in the downswing) weight shift (bump) from right to left leg...followed by rotation around left leg (internal?) while the right leg is (at some stage) used to slow down the rate of rotation...I think there are mechanical similarities between this and a two handed backhand, for instance. In other words the rear hip isn't really "firing" into the shot as much as one would think, but used to control over rotation..

This "rotation" of the rear hip, (as I understand Tennis Chiro's position) is the major impetus in a two hander..Don't think I agree, but would love to entertain other thoughts...

Interesting reading here gentleman.

First off, I have yet to meet a hockey player who is not a golfer.

It’s golf for us every spring and summer, and the majority of us are 5.5, the phrase you use in tennis (in Canada at least) and could be better if we invested the time into it or bothered even studying the game (which most of us can’t be bothered with as we came up in a hockey system where we learned unconsciously how to play the game from dad, uncles and local coaches who were all pro prospects back in their day and true experts in their fields).

I am a rather good golfer however I just hate a sport where you can’t beat on someone and inflict physical pain. That's just my mentality though.

The only similarity between tennis and golf is the management of the sweet spot. The feet and hips are entirely different, and there is virtually no correlation between the two sports.

This is our methodology, however, tennis coaches in the current paradigm (day and age) may see the crossover with how they teach the game.

Golf is a sport we play virtually ZERO attention to as there are no elements from it that fit into our skill setups in ANY way, shape or form.

I’d never let any tennis player golf, EVER, as it’d screw up my neurology and skill set work.

Granted, I have not done any of the setups you’ve all done with your tennis players, so maybe don_budge’s theory of tennis is golf on the run might work for one of his trained students, however, if we did it we’d get worse overnight, and I’d have to spend a long time ironing out all the bad wrinkles it created.

[10splayer]

I know little about golf but Rory's swing looks prettier than GP's.

I am just wondering about the hips "firing again to give that little extra power", part. Why would the hips firing again, after they have stalled momentarily, create more power? In slow motion the stall seems quite long.

Yes, that's the part I don't agree with. For one thing, the ball is 50 yards down the fairway at the time the hips begin to turn again. It would have zero impact. As DB states, there is momentum though, and that needs to dissipate.

Rory is one of the most extreme examples (least that Ive seen) of the hips almost stopping completely..In fact if you look at his right butt cheek, it appears he's pulling his right leg back...Not rotating it.

So the equation (simplified) would be (in the downswing) weight shift (bump) from right to left leg...followed by rotation around left leg (internal?) while the right leg is (at some stage) used to slow down the rate of rotation...I think there are mechanical similarities between this and a two handed backhand, for instance. In other words the rear hip isn't really "firing" into the shot as much as one would think, but used to control over rotation..

This "rotation" of the rear hip, (as I understand Tennis Chiro's position) is the major impetus in a two hander..Don't think I agree, but would love to entertain other thoughts...

[don_budge]

Second stage…hip boosters

http://youtu.be/-zHveFE1hus

Boys, what do you think? I think some of the analysis is bogus, but what do you see here in terms of the hip movements?

I would say that the "second stage" of hip movement was merely an after-product of his follow through. This is where Gary Player is walking on through his swing. It's recovery…for balance.

[stotty]

http://youtu.be/-zHveFE1hus

Boys, what do you think? I think some of the analysis is bogus, but what do you see here in terms of the hip movements?

I know little about golf but Rory's swing looks prettier than GP's.

I am just wondering about the hips "firing again to give that little extra power", part. Why would the hips firing again, after they have stalled momentarily, create more power? In slow motion the stall seems quite long.

[10splayer]

http://youtu.be/-zHveFE1hus

Boys, what do you think? I think some of the analysis is bogus, but what do you see here in terms of the hip movements?

[hockeyscout]

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

I gotta say wow. My compliments. 10,000 different solutions for 10,000 problems! Nice work.

[hockeyscout]

I have to say this article, and all of them on this site are so interesting. Its so radically out of left field for us. Which is great. We're preaching and doing the exact polar opposite. All of this dialogue is sure interesting to us because it's shows us how tennis players are taught, what they like to do, how they all have similar commonalities and how that can be tactically used against them in match play. That is sports coaching in a nutshell, see what everyone does, understand the commonalities, know the kenetic chain reason for why they do what they do and use it against them to break them down.

Now, you all have to switch gears to the woman's game.

Woman's tennis points are always won in the 1-2-3-4-5 balls. The statistics bear this out, as well, and we've done a lot of work here in that department. It isn't like men's tennis that is for sure, and their are MANY analytical differences in how points are constructed, and how players move, and hit. The woman's game has a long ways to go, and the men's is quite evolved.

Now, I do not like the word recovery step. Never use it. I see Russian coaches teaching it, and I do not feel it is really applicable to the game of tennis in the way we know it. We teach transitional steps.

Their is a major difference in my opinion, and when you have an athlete who understands the transitional game to their next, a player who thinks in terms of a one dimensional recovery step has no way of competing with the pace as these coaches are simply teaching these kids to STOP, and switch off. And I see it all the time, kids hit the ball and their feet stop moving. Coming from the world of hockey, I see it probably better than any tennis coach, cause transitional movement is so big in sports like hockey and NFL. In tennis you can get away with a pause here and their, and admire a ball, however, not in other sports. In hockey you can't admire a pass or think about you're tennis recovery step after the shot, you need to think about the next, and finishing the play. So, I'd never teach it, or dare pay attention to it, as most coaches teach the kids to stop. I don't want that. Recovery steps are a concern to me. I am into flow and transition. Others coaches stop and start. I do not like stop and start with young athletes, I believe in eliptical movement, flow, and transitional movement as their joint are developing, and many do not have the hip flexor strength needed to correctly take the pressure off their knees and ankles when applying the brakes. BTW, I just detest kids sliding on the tennis court as well!

So, this recovery step, its a strange concept to me, as it doesn't technically exhist (again, it is a transitinal step, or at least the way we see it).

I am a firm believer in teaching players how to play the game in 1-3-5 motions, and if you stop at 1 (and discuss a recovery step) they will likely never develop the pace or thinking man's combinations needed to be a professional athlete of any sport.

Tennis is a game of open windows, and closed windows (much like any sport), and in my opinion shots 1-3 are a combination shot. Trained athletes who think in combinations are dominant, and will always improve. Those who think in terms of recovery will fail, soon or later, or peak out well before their time.

Its not hit = (and) recovery step.

First off I don't like the word hit. I like the word play. Tennis people use construct (play). So, it's (hit) play = accelerate into transition + to + next + behind the ball + third ball + using your opponents pace and momentum to your advantage, and as well, coming into the ball at the right time with the right pace. I dislike arriving in position, coiling and waiting for a ball. I like arriving at the ball at the correct time with maximum velocity, and using that pace to transition to your next wherever it may be. Its a different way of playing tennis, and it certainly takes a lot longer to develop, however, I feel it is better suited to young athletes bodys. When my young one gets older, I may have to fine tune a lot of this, however, I believe by making it harder now I will have a player who will be able to play basic tennis rather easily moving forward. And it is much harder this way, as she has to move to the ball with pace like a soccer player instead of waiting, or letting a ball bounce to high.

The question for us is not a recovery step, it is how can counter number 2 (the opponents ball) with your number 3 most effectively?

I feel if you hit and recover, you're offensive field focus closes. If you hit, transition, and get into counter-attack position for ball three you are good as gold. So, in a nutshell tennis is a 1-3-5 game (the woman's is), and before as you enter shot number 1, you'd better know where you are going to counter shot number 3.

This is analytical footwork. You need to do it by choice. Here, we practice routes, know the analytics of each shot and the end play options. If you are in spot A on ball one, and you want to put it to spot B on the opponents court, you'd better know exactly what are the percentages for you're opponent are based on statistical odds, for his - her shot 3, and how will you counter that by moving the proper route to the ball with the timing and pace to use their energy against them.

Again, I do not like waiting, coiling and hitting, as that's way to tough on a young arm, and I especially dislike open stance. I always want the feet and hands moving together on a young arm, and I think it sets them up better in terms of movement, and transition when you don't allow them to get lazy with these new space age rackets and strings that reward terrible athletism.

Tennis is a fast sport, or at least our version of it is, and their are 100 ways to transition to your next offensive forray based on the factors of how you want to construct the point, so personally I would avoid at all costs even thinking about a recovery step as their are a hundred varients you can do for each (play), and is going to be a unique specifically designed movement - athletic setup with the feet, hips, collarbone etc, and even the follow through and hand positioning.

Also, every play needs a certain stroke, so it can be slice forehand, drop shot, forehand, two handed backhand, one handed slice, one handed backhand, lob, bert, monkey, bert, top spin, underspin, flat, hard, soft, changeup, whatever, and transitional footwork will need to be different depending on the situation and how you are planning to manipulate your opponent with your specific 1-3 combination, or 1-3-5 combination or if worse comes to worse 1-3-5-7 combo (if you choose to be a mean cat and play with the mouse on the other side of the court).

Anyways, we are likely doing things very differently, however, it is such a pleasure to read these articles and the posts so we can learn about constructing our playbooks to understand what may (or may not) get thrown back at us on the 1-3, 1-3-5 and 1-3-5-7 combos (and of course the 2's, 2-4, and 2-4-6 and god help us 2-4-6-8 game).

Now, this strategy I believe will be effective in the woman's game. I don't have a boy I am training yet, so who knows, it would probably be much different.

Anyways, I am teaching serve and volley, so I think transition, transition and transition. Let everyone else recover, however, we are going to play for broke, do Geoff Williams body shots all day and gain athletism and really think of ingenious ways to win points against hitting partners who are men, and we have no business of even being on the same court with playing. Gotta have fun, and be origional!

Thanks for the great posts boys, we're really enjoying reading this site.