Straight arm forehand

[amar]

Jeff,

I think bottle wants you to look at the contact point from the body's point of view and not from the side.

[jeffreycounts]

Jeff,

I think bottle wants you to look at the contact point from the body's point of view and not from the side.

Bottle says he "wonders about hitting way out front" because he has seen Federer hit late (in line with his shoulders) and that he assumes the forehand was a good one.

My biggest concern with Bottle is that he relates everything to his observations of Federer's technique. My article simply looked at two forehands - one of Verdasco and one of Srichiphan - and tried to point out similarities of just those two specific clips. I'd prefer to discuss the examples in the article - what people actually see occuring in the article examples.

[jperedo]

Yes when I compare the contact point of the straight arm forehands vs the double bend forehands the contact points are definitely further in front with the straight arm (eg-compare Moya to Verdasco).

What I'm really trying to understand is how to replicate the "straightening". I am very curious as to what is causing this to occur.
To me it looks like the straigthening is a result of the supination that occurs close to when the hip opens. I wonder if this somehow multiplies the effect of the "stretch shorten cycle", allowing for greater racquet speed at the windshield wipe stage. I've tried this in practice with incosistent results, so I'm wondering just how far off my theory is.

https://www.tennisplayer.net/tp_player/fernando-verdasco/

https://www.tennisplayer.net/tp_player/fernando-verdasco/

[bottle]

Hitting out front--Federer

Jeff, you are absolutely wrong. I base everything on my own experiments, not on films of Federer. I don't even care if I'm doing something similar to
him. But I think he has a darn good idea of how to hit a forehand, and I figured out if I used him as a model; i.e., a starting place, and then stuck
with a program of relentless experimentation, like over a period of years dropping balls for a couple of hours and then playing a match the next day to see if the ideas were silly, someday I might get somewhere. Well, the ideas were silly. Most are. This is the basis of scientific method. A very few of the ideas weren't so silly, and I ended up with a vastly improved forehand.

One mistake I made, probably for a year or more, was to raise the arm up in front of me to the ball. The first thing that does is leave you with no way
to handle a really low ball, which is NOT Federer. But again, I believe in self-interest, not Fedulation. The more I experimented, the more the belly
of the stroke moved back, evolved, you could say, without the guidance of too many of my silly ideas. I just wanted to win, and to hit the ball better and better, and it happened the more I took things BACK!!!

Hell, I was taught by a USPTA pro to hit way out front, always further in front, and take on the rise as much as possible. It's a great way to play, and the first time anyone countered the notion was Ivan Lendl in his collaborative
book with Eugene Scott. He said if you get too far out front you get weak.
Another thing I noticed on my own is that the racket opens up too much.
It won't of course if you have a westernized grip. But if you're going to do that why not knife the elbow forward alongside of the body like Agassi
with a double-bend. Which I believe anybody trying to hit a Federfore should do on a high ball, anyway, the high ball being Roger's Achilles' heel.

I think the poster's more sympathetic observation was accurate, that I was
talking about being out front from the body's point of view. But that's okay,
Jeff, it's pathetically easy to get under any teaching pro's skin-- believe me,
I've had experience in this! Write about torture and you hardly hear a peep.
Say anything faintly provocative about a forehand and you hear from enraged teaching pro's all over the world.

Listen, anybody is free to repeat my mistake and hit their Federfores way out
front. But if you want to have some fun, do lift, unfurl, inflate, getting the
arm almost straight behind your body before you lower it like me and yes, like
Roger, too, and then do the Mondo. Well, I guess that would be part of
inflate, yes, definitely. A lot of the lowness is going to come from body tilt.
Now, start the shoulders early. It's a technique that dates from Tom Okker
or before. The shoulders really get going early, but not with any force. Shoulders and arm work together to lay the hinge of the hand forward from
hand. Now clock that hinge up over the strings. Now carry both ends of the racket out somewhere toward the right fence. Those three little "do's" are
really one motion of the arm to the outside-- you won't be thinking about the details in a short time. What's happening? You're creating great separation in a tennis stroke, which Braden claimed a long time ago was the
sign of a confident player. Now look at photos of Roger, still or moving.
Does he hit the ball far from the body or close to it? From the viewpoint
of the body he's hitting WAY OUT FRONT, but for the sake of all our
sanities, let's call front fence front and right fence right side.

Anyway, if you make contact way out to the right (for speed leverage, no?) that separation is going to continue out front and extremely fast once the big power sources all conflagrate at contact (or a micro-second before, but not before that, not in my book, at least). The outside knee was easily revolving round. Bam that leg drives. Bam the elastics of the stomach release. Bam the hand changes directions by 90 degrees. Zing the arm rolls the strings up the ball, too. I fought this zing part for years but finally gave up. The experiments said forget your silly ideas. Oh yeah, one other major power source and if I left anything out I'm glad because I wouldn't want my tennis to be too conscious. You can row your body a little straight from its bowed over position as the Scotch golf pro Percy Boomer used to teach to increase
speed at contact. If Roger does it, his head is moving left at contact.
(Maybe this is why his looking back at the ball, so perfectly mimed by
DeJoker, is so important.) If I do it, I get a little more topspin, a little
more hop when ball hits the other court. This is important in a Federfore, which is a so far rare combination of sidespin and topspin every time unlike a Jim Courier forehand.

But let's slow this idea down a little. Remember, I'm preaching Mondo
(on the job wrist lay-back, somebody might say) followed by clocking the racket shaft like a clock hand up over the strings as if they are the nub of the watch or clock, and then both ends of the racket going out right like a satellite being bumped out to a wider orbit.

Listen, of course I'm one of those terrible people who thinks that Milton Katselas is the best acting coach in LA and Oscar Wegner-- oh, never
mind. Even if the scientologists do it, reaching for the ball as if you're
trying to catch it is a pretty good idea in tennis. It gets you in the right
place, keeps you cool, makes you a better lover. But if you're going to
move your head left at contact you'd better have tried to catch the ball
a little outside of itself.

I was even doing experiments today moving the hand at MORE THAN 90 DEGREES to side fence, a little backwards, if that can make sense. Not too bad.

Nobody has to believe a word I say. But if you want have fun, arrange yourself in such a way that violent sideways action of the hand will take
the strings straight through the ball and up it and around the side all at once.
Grab the racket by the strings to figure this out. Make the strings do exactly
what you think they should do to the ball. Repeat it over and over imitating DeJoker's miming ability. Then study your handle. What is your handle doing? Memorize.

In the credit where credit is due department: Jeff allowed that I may have seen a Roger forehand where contact and both shoulders were lined up.
And I will allow that I've seen many where the arm is more out front. And hit them, too. Even an imitation Roger forehand hit by a 68-year-old missing 10 per cent of his left leg meniscus is as versatile as anyone could ever want.

Oh, did I tell you, I like Roger? I just read his two biographies, by Rene Stouffer, a Swiss guy, and Chris Bowers, a Brit. No American author or
publisher is smart enough to produce a biography of Roger Federer. He lost to DeJoker after all. There used to be Polish jokes. Now there are American jokes.

My favorite quotes in these books, of two words each, are from Roger himself. Asked to describe his style, he said, "modern retro." Asked as a boy what he would buy if he earned any money from tennis, he said, "mehr CD's." The Swiss papers all said the next day that he wanted a Mercedes.

[stroke]

Now that my friends is how cumbersome verbal eloclution(CVE) is done.

[bottle]

For Stroke, the English Teacher

I'm glad I left that word purposefully misspelled.

I was almost sure someone would squawk.

It's elementary and elocutionary, my dear Stroke.

Now, from your name, it's clear that you're an oarsman.

But do you have a forehand, too?

And if you do, does it speak?

If it's a Federfore, I'm sure you'll agree that the racket goes way out to the right and way out to the front before it goes way round to the left upper arm. It's a very roundabout and airborne and balanced stroke. It's a graceful thing performed by a Baryshnikov, with maximum power coming from leg and gut.

This is what I think about tennis mechanics: They are very complicated.
But that doesn't mean all the jocks like my brother aren't right to keep things simple. If you're an inventor-- and few tennis players are, tending as they do to imitate-- you can still be simple. Simplicity is often in the future, though, in the form of a simple formula (E=MCsquared), called in tennis and other sports a "cue."

Some of the best teaching pro's in the world just work in cues. They know better than to tax a jock's spine much less his brain.

If you had been in as many tennis arguments as I, you most likely would be weary of them, knowing how quickly they can degenerate. A lot of it is like the punditocracy dying to be drama critics when covering politics although most of them have never been to a play.

I really had to react here, though, in what seemed a fantasy string to me. In the 27,000 hits at How to Hit the Federer Forehand, Talk Tennis (deleted),
people said a lot of things-- maybe everything it was possible to say-- but not one person thought Federer was straight-arming into the chin of the
ball. They don't even play American football in Switzerland or South Africa, do they?

No the arm gets straight behind him and finishes getting straight as it loops
down and the hand mondo's-- all part of the same "feel." (As I tried to suggest, the shoulders are already revolving forward, which greatly adds
to this same feel.) But I quickly have to become more complicated-- I'm sorry-- it's just the way life is. The shoulders may be revolving passively
forward from hips action alone-- since you have gone to great trouble
to stretch the transverse stomach muscles and want to keep them that way until contact-- stored power is very much a part of this equation.

Maybe a big spiraling jette is all anyone should think about. But I remember a lot of the ongoing discussion has been about whether the arm bends during contact or after it, with one teaching pro actually giving the percentages of one and then the other.

Just the fact that this discussion ever existed should give some of you arm-straighteners-into-the-ball some pause (but not paws).

Ironically, Roger does appear to straighten his arm quite close to contact
on his backhand. But really, you arm-straighteners should go to Chet Murphy's old cue for lengthening contact-- part of the old pattern of finishing way out front that Jeff Counts said he was rejecting at the start of his article. Or go to easitennis where the great Ray Brown teaches western
grips with contract, rotation, acceleration, and hit stages on every stroke.
The easiest but not sole option he gives for a hit stage is to be straightening the severely bent arm a little right through contact.

Finally, I must say one more thing (the thing no doubt that will get me the straight-arm): This Verdasco guy must be one hell of an athlete to do
so well with such flawed technique.

[amar]

bottle see's a fact and explains it away for what it is!
cheers bottle!

[jeffreycounts]

I'm glad I left that word purposefully misspelled.

I was almost sure someone would squawk.

It's elementary and elocutionary, my dear Stroke.

Now, from your name, it's clear that you're an oarsman.

But do you have a forehand, too?

And if you do, does it speak?

If it's a Federfore, I'm sure you'll agree that the racket goes way out to the right and way out to the front before it goes way round to the left upper arm. It's a very roundabout and airborne and balanced stroke. It's a graceful thing performed by a Baryshnikov, with maximum power coming from leg and gut.

This is what I think about tennis mechanics: They are very complicated.
But that doesn't mean all the jocks like my brother aren't right to keep things simple. If you're an inventor-- and few tennis players are, tending as they do to imitate-- you can still be simple. Simplicity is often in the future, though, in the form of a simple formula (E=MCsquared), called in tennis and other sports a "cue."

Some of the best teaching pro's in the world just work in cues. They know better than to tax a jock's spine much less his brain.

If you had been in as many tennis arguments as I, you most likely would be weary of them, knowing how quickly they can degenerate. A lot of it is like the punditocracy dying to be drama critics when covering politics although most of them have never been to a play.

I really had to react here, though, in what seemed a fantasy string to me. In the 27,000 hits at How to Hit the Federer Forehand, Talk Tennis (deleted),
people said a lot of things-- maybe everything it was possible to say-- but not one person thought Federer was straight-arming into the chin of the
ball. They don't even play American football in Switzerland or South Africa, do they?

No the arm gets straight behind him and finishes getting straight as it loops
down and the hand mondo's-- all part of the same "feel." (As I tried to suggest, the shoulders are already revolving forward, which greatly adds
to this same feel.) But I quickly have to become more complicated-- I'm sorry-- it's just the way life is. The shoulders may be revolving passively
forward from hips action alone-- since you have gone to great trouble
to stretch the transverse stomach muscles and want to keep them that way until contact-- stored power is very much a part of this equation.

Maybe a big spiraling jette is all anyone should think about. But I remember a lot of the ongoing discussion has been about whether the arm bends during contact or after it, with one teaching pro actually giving the percentages of one and then the other.

Just the fact that this discussion ever existed should give some of you arm-straighteners-into-the-ball some pause (but not paws).

Ironically, Roger does appear to straighten his arm quite close to contact
on his backhand. But really, you arm-straighteners should go to Chet Murphy's old cue for lengthening contact-- part of the old pattern of finishing way out front that Jeff Counts said he was rejecting at the start of his article. Or go to easitennis where the great Ray Brown teaches western
grips with contract, rotation, acceleration, and hit stages on every stroke.
The easiest but not sole option he gives for a hit stage is to be straightening the severely bent arm a little right through contact.

Finally, I must say one more thing (the thing no doubt that will get me the straight-arm): This Verdasco guy must be one hell of an athlete to do
so well with such flawed technique.

Bottle,

That post was very entertaining. I think I have told you before, the English major in me likes your style more than most. I agree with you that Federer does not have the straight arm that Verdasco does, but Nadal certainly does. And yes, Verdasco is a hell of an athlete - but I don't think I'd call his technique flawed. I was sitting a few feet away from him during a practice session, and I can assure you he was ripping the ball. The ball just exploded off his racket. It was quite fun to watch.

[seanash]

Very interesting article, but I can't help thinking that the american football/martial arts qoute from wikipedia are slightly bogus in this context. Surely their the impact with a tennis ball is on a completely different angle to the shoulder than a straight arm handoff, or a martial arts punch. At which point excactly do the forces go directly into the shoulder along a straight arm in this context? Surely the primary forces imapcting on the arm at contact a straight armed forehand are running at a approximately 90 degrees to the same forces as when you punch or hand off someone. Even looking at the american football picture shows this. An anology too far methinks

[jeffreycounts]

Very interesting article, but I can't help thinking that the american football/martial arts qoute from wikipedia are slightly bogus in this context. Surely their the impact with a tennis ball is on a completely different angle to the shoulder than a straight arm handoff, or a martial arts punch. At which point excactly do the forces go directly into the shoulder along a straight arm in this context? Surely the primary forces imapcting on the arm at contact a straight armed forehand are running at a approximately 90 degrees to the same forces as when you punch or hand off someone. Even looking at the american football picture shows this. An anology too far methinks

I agree that it doesn't work exactly the same way because there is no racket in football, obviously. In tennis, the shoulder supports the arm, which supports the hand which supports the racket. And the racket is off to the side of the body, so the the force isn't in a straight line to the ball.

But the ball is driven (and lifted) by the palm of the hand (see John's articles on the "power palm position", so having the straight arm support the palm of the hand does provide more force, albiet not as as directly as the Wikipedia quote suggests for other sports.

Thanks for the comment and caveats about the comparison.

Jeff

[matchpoint7]

Hey Guys,

Just thought I'd add my two cents worth here

I think contact point is a major factor with straight arm hitting. If you look at Rafa or Federer you'll notice they give themselves a lot of room to swing (more so than other players such as Aggasi who sometimes looks cramped by comparison - not having a go at him for that either so don't label me an agassi basher) The thing is the two ways to increase room to hit the ball is to hit it further to your right (for righties) and out in front.

One thing to keep in mind though is when you hit low balls, the amount of space you need to give yourself to the right decreases. The higher it gets the more room to your right you need to give yourself - with the most amount of space to the right being at shoulder height balls.

The other thing I've noticed about the straight arm hitting is the arm is quite bent - almost cocked until the beginning of the backswing. At this point the arm extends back and moves forward and outward towards the ball in a smooth uninterrupted fashion.

Of course, without the unit turn, knee bend, hip and shoulder rotation etc, the straight arm hitting is useless. I just recently watched Bernard Tomic hitting at the Australian open and he quite a compact arm swing but still generates more than enough lazy power. This is due to having a relaxed, balanced style which relies on good unit turn.

One thing I would suggest concentrating on for groundstrokes is BALANCED knee bend. This gets the hips and shoulders in alignment which allows for a more fluid shot (this could also suggest why Federer's shots look smoother than a lot of other players) It also makes the unit turn easier and more natural when you take the racket back. Its been the biggest help in my shots and it helps make the whole shot more relaxed.

Cheers guys - happy hitting

[brett701]

How is it possible to hit the forehand with a straight arm??

I tried it once, but found that it was anatomically impossible to get any leverage into the shot. Simply put, I feel that it is impossible for me to hit with a straight arm. I only started to develop a good forehand when I began studying Agassi's double bend forehand.

Also, I used to think that the straightness of the arm had something to do with the grip. But, we have conservative grip players like Federer hitting with a straight arm, and we also have extreme players like Nadal and Brugeura hitting with a straight arm, so that basically destroys that hypothesis.

What the heck is going on? What is your take on this?

all the best

Evan
PS: Allen Fox also hits with a straight arm--I saw a video of it before. arghghg!!!

IT is tricky. Blake and murray are both "straight arm" hitters. I have been toying with other grips than my strong semiwestern grip. IT seems that it is easier to hit with a stiffer arm when you have an eastern or light semiwestern grip.

[brett701]

Hey Guys,

Just thought I'd add my two cents worth here

I think contact point is a major factor with straight arm hitting. If you look at Rafa or Federer you'll notice they give themselves a lot of room to swing (more so than other players such as Aggasi who sometimes looks cramped by comparison - not having a go at him for that either so don't label me an agassi basher) The thing is the two ways to increase room to hit the ball is to hit it further to your right (for righties) and out in front.

One thing to keep in mind though is when you hit low balls, the amount of space you need to give yourself to the right decreases. The higher it gets the more room to your right you need to give yourself - with the most amount of space to the right being at shoulder height balls.

The other thing I've noticed about the straight arm hitting is the arm is quite bent - almost cocked until the beginning of the backswing. At this point the arm extends back and moves forward and outward towards the ball in a smooth uninterrupted fashion.

Of course, without the unit turn, knee bend, hip and shoulder rotation etc, the straight arm hitting is useless. I just recently watched Bernard Tomic hitting at the Australian open and he quite a compact arm swing but still generates more than enough lazy power. This is due to having a relaxed, balanced style which relies on good unit turn.

One thing I would suggest concentrating on for groundstrokes is BALANCED knee bend. This gets the hips and shoulders in alignment which allows for a more fluid shot (this could also suggest why Federer's shots look smoother than a lot of other players) It also makes the unit turn easier and more natural when you take the racket back. Its been the biggest help in my shots and it helps make the whole shot more relaxed.

Cheers guys - happy hitting

This balanced knee you are promoting. Do you think that this should be done with any specific grip or just the straight arm? OR just all shots in general?

[jperedo]

Hey Guys,



One thing I would suggest concentrating on for groundstrokes is BALANCED knee bend. This gets the hips and shoulders in alignment which allows for a more fluid shot (this could also suggest why Federer's shots look smoother than a lot of other players) It also makes the unit turn easier and more natural when you take the racket back. Its been the biggest help in my shots and it helps make the whole shot more relaxed.

Cheers guys - happy hitting

Hi matchpoint,

can you please elaborate on this "balance knee bend"?

[brett701]

Ive been toying with many different grips and strokes. The only time i could successfully hit really good forehands with the straight arm was when i held a light semiwestern or an eastern forehand grip. I believe that if you are semi or full western grip than the straight arm just does not work mechanically because of the angle the racket goes at the ball and the fact your elbow bends in a certain direction.