A New Teaching System: Forehand: Body Rotation

[don_budge]

Written August 5, 2012...The Shape of Things to Come...the Fedefore

The Shape of Things to come...the Fedefore.

When you talk about determining the shape of something as ethereal as a forehand swing you had better pay attention to the base from which it is swung. The swing starts down below as the shamanic Ben Hogan suggests and it works it way up the body.

The consideration with respect to modern tennis is this...if you design and build your swing on open or even semi open stance you are limiting yourself to one option. Heavy topspin. Having the ability to apply heavy topspin is obviously an asset...but the ability to flatten the stroke out enhances ones chances of hitting for depth and penetration. In order to hit this kind of ball you will need to be able to perform your swing on a platform of a closed or neutral stance. Which comes first the chicken or the egg? In this case it must be the closed and neutral stances with an eastern grip because as you are finding out...once you go western you can never go back.

This being the case there is only one player in the game today from which to emulate. His name of course is Roger Federer...The Once and Future King. When he leaves the game the void is going to be so immense that you will hear a giant sucking sound as the air makes leaving a giant balloon. The vacuum that his absence will create in the professional game will be as profound as the difference between a world with cell phones...and one that was without.

Once again...it is the "Forehand Not Gone" video. A beautiful work of art that I never tire of seeing or listening to. Even the words of the song ring in my ears to haunt me as a message to all of those beautiful women that I loved...and lost. A wistful tear can form in my eye when I think of them. But oh well...I am, or rather was a tennis player. Past tense...like them. Of all people I should realize that love means nothing. It is the irony of life in the end...at the end of the night. Good old Ferdinand.

Where was I...oh yes. Roger Federer hitting from less than perfect position. Because the base of his swing is built on the foundation of a closed or neutral stance he is compelled to swing his forehand with his feet, body and racquet lined up when he begins his move forward to the ball. Hitting from a less than perfect position...is an art. I am sure that you will agree with me when you look at this video. This is a beautiful enigmatic piece of work courtesy of John Yandell. Who is the artist of the song...btw John?

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

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.

Another absolutely stunningly, brilliant music video...John. Catchy tune, too. The music coupled with the maestro's footwork and low center of gravity create...poetry in motion. Be still my beating heart!

I agree.

The least of all my concerns is reaching an agreement with you or anybody else for that matter. Just state your case...interestingly enough. I am a tennis teacher. My students start as beginners at either eight or nine years old or they are full grown adults. I teach fundamental tennis. I have a stated teaching paradigm. Perhaps you are familiar with it...perhaps not. Anyways...it goes like this:

The book is William Tilden. The model is Richard Gonzales with the Don Budge backhand. The coach is Harry Hopman. The Living Proof is Roger Federer.

What is your teaching paradigm? I'm curious.

I don't teach 90+ or even 100+ mph forehands. I don't teach rpm's. I don't even teach the pro game. I teach solid fundamentals. I am very familiar with the professional game though.

My original post in August of 2012 was with regards to footwork but it also serves as a beautiful example of the rotation of the shoulders from unbalanced swings.

It's an incredible video courtesy of John Yandell and I never get tired of looking at it...or learning from it. It is also one of my favorite posts...of mine.

[seano]

Planting the rear foot behind the ball is paramount, I agree. Then whether you step in with the left foot is purely situational. If the oncoming ball is in front of you and low, then yes you would step in with the left foot (approaching the net or not). Otherwise you would not have a neutral or slightly closed stance. There are so many different stance/footwork patterns involved in setting up to hit the ball, then recovery steps after hitting the ball that every thing is dependent on many factors. Step out with the rear foot, yes, then you may or may not step in with the left foot. I think the teaching model is the ability to adapt to the situation.
For better or worse, the pro game is a power game. When it comes to hitting a tennis ball, angular momentum provides far more M.P.H. & R.P.M. than linear momentum. I find it extremely unlikely that players hitting a linear swing will reach the 90+, even 100+ m.p.h. forehands that we see today in the pro game. Even in a rotational forehand, there are linear aspects to the swing, particularly in the legs.

[don_budge]

Shoulder Rotation...The Living Proof

Here is your teaching model for the modern forehand. Starting from a slightly closed stance...shoulder rotation. The planting of the back foot is paramount. This enables one to accurately plant the front foot which initiates the process of transferring the weight into the shot. Notice how by shifting the weight to the front foot the hips begin to rotate...followed very shortly by the shoulders. Once the shoulders have "cleared" and are out of the way the arm and subsequently the racquet come swinging on through rather effortlessly. The closed stance limits the amount of shoulder rotation and rightly so. More open stances allow for more rotation...which can be used to great advantage in a number of different ways. One important aspect is when the player is slightly off balance or too late with the front foot...the open stances evolve quite naturally.

Playing from the closed or neutral stance allows the player the option of moving forwards which in classic tennis was the name of the game. Modern tennis is played from side to side...hitting shots and then recovering to move from side to side.

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

Even late in his career this player was evolving (adapting) although too slowly. He had the tools to have enjoyed a lot more success in his later years but he was too slow in adapting to the equipment. Giving away 12% racquet face against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray cost him a number of Slams. I was advocating a switch for a long time. I wonder why he didn't. Perhaps he had "The Borg Syndrome"...a distant cousin of "The Stockholm Syndrome" where the captive feels empathy for their captors.

[stotty]

So the question is...How do you communicate this technical jargon to your player? What visual and or kinesthetic cues do you tell them? All coaches have their ideas and key words to their students, which ones are the most effective?
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Absolutely correct. It's one thing knowing; that's actually the easy part once you're read up, but it's quite another thing teaching and getting students to do stuff.

Stotty

[klacr]

Great thread going on here. I knew nickw would be a great poster after his 1-2 rhythm articles that he wrote for this site. Glad he has time to post. I love that there are so many good minds and the thrill of sharing our knowledge makes us better and hopefully benefits our best asset, our students.
So the question is...How do you communicate this technical jargon to your player? What visual and or kinesthetic cues do you tell them? All coaches have their ideas and key words to their students, which ones are the most effective? Its great if a coach knows a lot of stuff like many of us on this forum, but its even better when she/he can communicate that to a student.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[nickw]

You're too kind Stotty! Great to be part of a very knowledgable community here on tennisplayer.

[stotty]

The modern game is too fast to always play from neutral or closed stance? Its true and so was the classic game. Players were always reverting to open stances when the situation called for it.
cool:

Very true. This is most evident on return of serve. You can hark back to many classic matches and find open stance returning quite routinely going on. Open stance backhands under duress in rallies are also not uncommon.

Yes nickw's post was a good one. My fellow countryman never ceases to impress me with his knowledge of the game.

Stotty

[nickw]

Thanks for the positive feedback don_budge and hockeyscout. Not that new on here hockeyscout, just that time constraints mean I'm not as regular as I would like to be.

Very valid and interesting point about comparing to other sports don_budge, there is always lots to learn from doing that.

That was me by the way! Was logged out before posting.

Thanks for the positive feedback don_budge and hockeyscout. Not that new on here hockeyscout, just that time constraints mean I'm not as regular as I would like to be.

Very valid and interesting point about comparing to other sports don_budge, there is always lots to learn from doing that.

[hockeyscout]

This is a good post and evidence that the foundation of the teaching of forehand fundamentals should ALWAYS be the teaching of the slightly closed stance. Of course this is the way that power is most efficiently generated. Not only that but it is the best position to be in for control...to teach about being in control, under control. Balanced. After all control is power and control is made up of the elements of speed, spin and placement. This is the foundation of the fundamentals.

The modern game is too fast to always play from neutral or closed stance? Its true and so was the classic game. Players were always reverting to open stances when the situation called for it. Closed stances are good for short balls or attacking balls. This was a good percentage of the time followed up with a net attack...players were moving forwards and weren't always recovering to reverse field to only take off in the opposite direction. If you teach a student to play from the closed stance initially they will "evolve" and play from other stances as well. This is nothing new or modern.

Baseball batters always bat from a closed or neutral stance...perhaps even slightly open. Golfers always play from a closed stance...lining up the feet in the direction of their shot. But golfer subtly adjust their feet too....depending on whether they are playing a "fade" or a "draw".

Nice post nickw...thoughtful and thought provoking. There are many conversations that might evolve from such a post...particularly if you know anything about other sports.

Yes, this new poster nickw has very interesting thoughts.

[John Yandell]

Peter would love to see some video.

[don_budge]

Don't forget the link between stance and linear/angular, as this can help understand it, and develop it in your forehand. If you are using closed or neutral stance, then it will be natural to use a linear swing. If your feet are open or semi-open, then angular is going to be the more natural way. Linear is more classic old style as seano says, but you'll still see it used at pro level for lower bouncing attackable balls. Linear is more efficient and less stressful on the body, and I believe studies have found that linear has greater power potential because of that efficiency (basically the energy is being transferred more in a line and then into the shot). Angular can create more energy, but because of the increased body rotation, that energy isn't transferred into the shot as efficiently (more of it is lost). The problem with the closed or neutral stance is that recovery takes a fraction longer, which is why at the fast-paced pro level, players are more likely to use it when they are in control of the point or not too far wide, and can afford that extra time.

This is a good post and evidence that the foundation of the teaching of forehand fundamentals should ALWAYS be the teaching of the slightly closed stance. Of course this is the way that power is most efficiently generated. Not only that but it is the best position to be in for control...to teach about being in control, under control. Balanced. After all control is power and control is made up of the elements of speed, spin and placement. This is the foundation of the fundamentals.

The modern game is too fast to always play from neutral or closed stance? Its true and so was the classic game. Players were always reverting to open stances when the situation called for it. Closed stances are good for short balls or attacking balls. This was a good percentage of the time followed up with a net attack...players were moving forwards and weren't always recovering to reverse field to only take off in the opposite direction. If you teach a student to play from the closed stance initially they will "evolve" and play from other stances as well. This is nothing new or modern.

Baseball batters always bat from a closed or neutral stance...perhaps even slightly open. Golfers always play from a closed stance...lining up the feet in the direction of their shot. But golfer subtly adjust their feet too....depending on whether they are playing a "fade" or a "draw".

Nice post nickw...thoughtful and thought provoking. There are many conversations that might evolve from such a post...particularly if you know anything about other sports.

[nickw]

Don't forget the link between stance and linear/angular, as this can help understand it, and develop it in your forehand. If you are using closed or neutral stance, then it will be natural to use a linear swing. If your feet are open or semi-open, then angular is going to be the more natural way. Linear is more classic old style as seano says, but you'll still see it used at pro level for lower bouncing attackable balls. Linear is more efficient and less stressful on the body, and I believe studies have found that linear has greater power potential because of that efficiency (basically the energy is being transferred more in a line and then into the shot). Angular can create more energy, but because of the increased body rotation, that energy isn't transferred into the shot as efficiently (more of it is lost). The problem with the closed or neutral stance is that recovery takes a fraction longer, which is why at the fast-paced pro level, players are more likely to use it when they are in control of the point or not too far wide, and can afford that extra time.

[pvchen]

John, I have a classic 3/3 forehand grip, and my tendency is toward a straight arm forehand.

This linear vs. angular momentum idea is interesting...

I seem to be having the most success thinking of my shot as linear, trying to translate the rotation of the hips and shoulders into a release of the arm that goes straight to the ball and along the path of the shot.

Peter

[seano]

Older styles used more linear momentum from the body to generate power (stepping towards your target and reaching towards your target, as long as you can) Example on the forehand - point the racquet tip towards the back fence in the backswing and finish with the racquet pointing towards the fence on the other side. Body and arm tend to move together.
Angular momentum, your body rotates around the axis of your spine, allowing you to separate body parts to create tension and torque (elastic energy). In this type of forehand, the racquet tip could point towards the fence on the opposite side, in the backswing and finishes towards the rear fence. Just the opposite of the linear swing.