A Roadmap to a Hall-of-Fame Forehand - Part 5: Transition - The Second-Most Important Phase of the Forehand Stroke

In recent posts, we have alluded to the importance of a particular phase of the tennis forehand stroke that strongly influences the power and control of the resulting shot.

This critical phase of the forehand occurs at the point where the backswing ends and the forward swing to impact begins.

From this point on, let’s refer to this “switch-over” from backswing to forward swing as TRANSITION, or “FHT”, for short.

After careful observation of high-speed video footage showing the FHT used by hundreds of competitive tennis players from all levels from Grand Slam champions to NTRP competitors, we have concluded that there are essentially two fundamental types of FHT used by this vast range of competitive tennis players.

In this post, we will show you pictures of key stages within FHT that we think most clearly illustrate the characteristics and attributes of these two fundamental types of FHT. In the very near future, we will also begin posting high-speed video clips of these same players on our YouTube channel so you can observe the actual movements in actual motion.

(NB: The behind-the-baseline perspective is the optimal viewpoint to observe the key events of any player’s FHT.)

At this point, you should focus on observing very carefully the positions of the racquet hand and forearm, as well as the orientation of the hitting surface of the racquet each player demonstrates during this critical phase of the forehand stroke.

Then, after familiarizing yourself with the images, try to begin "connecting the dots" with the following questions in mind:

1) Can you describe what you see using the anatomical terminology introduced in the last post?

And,

2) What similarities, differences and trends can you identify from these still images extracted from high-speed video footage of the players shown?

TENNIS FOREHAND TRANSITION TYPE 1 ("FHT-1"; MORE COMMON)

M. SHARAPOVA

Y. WICKMAYER

NCAA PLAYER 1

NCAA PLAYER 2

TENNIS FOREHAND TRANSITION TYPE 2 ("FHT-2"; LESS COMMON)

R. NADAL

M. SAFIN

T. BERDYCH

F. VERDASCO

OK, you might be wondering if there’s any reason why we only showed female players using FHT-1 mechanics and only male players using FHT-2? Are we implying that gender influences FHT mechanics?

Not at all... Look at the following FHT sequences:

ATP PLAYERS WITH FHT-1 MECHANICS

J. CHARDY (HIGHEST ATP SINGLES RANK: 31)

ATP TOP 500 SINGLES/(FORMER) NCAA D1 PLAYER

WTA PLAYER / GRAND SLAM SINGLES CHAMPION WITH FHT-2 MECHANICS

S. STOSUR

 
So, what’s the take-home here?

Well, for one thing, we’ve noticed that each FHT type is strongly correlated to a player’s ability to effectively create the wide range of shots that players confront in a competitive tennis point, especially at the highest levels of the sport.

One of the two Transition types appears to be strongly correlated with higher topspin production, higher ball speeds, greater trajectory control and maybe what’s as important to pro players, lower incidence of chronic injuries to the racquet arm and shoulder.

So, not only does one FHT type appear to deliver higher performance, but also delivers higher performance with greater safety to long-term player health.

After looking at such a large number and wide range of forehands and the FHT used by their owners, we've come to rezlize that the movements that players use during FHT have a profound and fundamental influence on how you control your racquet in the Impact Zone.

What happens in the Impact Zone, most would agree, is the most important phase of the forehand as this is where the ball, strings, body and racquet interact directly. It is in the Impact Zone that the proverbial "rubber meets the road". Now that we realize that how the racquet arrives in the Impact Zone is so strongly influenced by what happens during FHT, around here, we have come to consider FHT as being the second-most important phase of the forehand.

Tune in next time and we’ll begin exploring the reasons that explain which type of FHT delivers higher on-court performance.

TTFN!

P.S.... Quick Quiz: Based on the information presented here, which FHT type - Type 1 or 2 - is used by Mr. Roger Federer? How about Mr. Novak Djokovic?

A Roadmap to a Hall-of-Fame Forehand - Part 4: Introduction to the Functional Anatomy of Optimal Tennis Performance

In our previous post titled, “A Roadmap to a Hall-of-Fame Forehand – Part 3”, we suggested that anatomical terminology is far more useful in describing and explaining the movements used by players to execute their various strokes.

We’ve found that using highly precise, widely-accepted and understood anatomical terms is more effective in teaching players about stroke mechanics compared to using the overly-simplistic and easily-misunderstood tennis-specific jargon such as – “wrist layback”, “windshield wiper”, “hit in the slot”; “double-bend structure”, etc. –that dominates the current stroke instruction vocabulary used by players, teachers and coaches alike.

This way, we would finally have a common language – a common terminology that would also be easily understood by doctors and physical therapists in the case, heaven forbid, when tennis somehow leads to injury – to describe the stroke mechanics used by any and all tennis players.

In stark contrast to the fundamentally over-simplified, imprecise and confusing jargon, anatomical terms like “abduction”, “rotation”, “pronation” , “supination”, etc. have very precise meanings which then provide you with far more precise instruction to help you (re-)produce the exact movements you need to increase your racquet speed, the amount of topspin you can generate, the trajectory of your shot, etc.

In this post, we’ll introduce a visual, “anatomical” map of the movements Federer uses to execute his forehand.

In other words, what we’re presenting here is the “functional anatomy” of Roger Federer’s forehand.

Before we really kick things off, let’s make two important points here:

1. because we are looking at still images of what is actually “in motion”, what we are really doing with those labels is identifying the type of (joint) movement that was used to achieve the static position that you see “freeze-framed” at each stage of the stroke.
2. because we are looking at “freeze-framed” events, you need to realize that the body positions you see are not always “static” positions. Rather, a given position you see may be “motion-dependent”—where the pictured position  is the result of moving the arms (or legs) in a particular way.

For example, the (sorry for the jargon here) so-called, “back-scratch” position witnessed in still image sequences of the serve is motion-dependent. Specifically, the downward rotation of the racquet tip is the result of moving the racquet arm using an overhand throwing motion. The “back-scratch” movement is caused by/the result of the external rotation of the shoulder that precedes the internal rotation of the shoulder that propels the racquet to impact.

So, the “back-scratch” movement you see is really a position-in-motion.

Therefore, you can’t reproduce it (or its intended result) by “posing” in that static position then “resuming” the rest of the stroke movements from that point.

Finally, we’ll save any discussion of the labeled movements for later posts.

For now, let’s focus on becoming familiar with correctly identifying the movements we see in any still image stroke analysis using the correct terminology…

1. The Ready Position

 2. Breaking the Triangle

 3. Completed Backswing

  

4. First Forward Move (FFM)

5. 20 frames (95.2 milliseconds) before Impact

 6. 10 Frames (47.6 milliseconds) Before Impact

 

7. Impact

8. 5 Frames (23.8 milliseconds) after Impact

9. Follow-Through - Hands at Shoulder Height

10. End of Stroke

Now, to end this post, let’s compare the “anatomical map” of Roger’s forehand at certain key stages with the map of one of his less-successful contemporaries, Andy Murray.

Before we see the evidence, how similar or different do you think the forehand mechanics between these two players might be? Are the differences subtle or “obvious”, and are the consequences of those differences small or large?

At this point, we’ve spent considerable time trying to sort out the answers to questions like these, and what we’ve found out it that the answers are mostly 180 degrees-opposite of what’s accepted and blindly followed and repeated today.

Maybe what’s more worrisome (but not surprising) is that most coaches, teachers and internet gurus don’t even know what questions they really need to ask to help their players achieve higher performance – at least in terms of stroke mechanics. (Kinda goes back to my example of expecting that your car mechanic can clean your teeth with the same competence and skill as a trained dental hygienist).

Let’s now take a look at the Federer and Murray forehands side-by-side, at five (5) key stages of the stroke: 1) the Completed Backswing; 2) at FFM, 3) at 10 frames before Impact; 4) at Impact; and, 5) during the Follow-Through at the point when the racquet hand reaches shoulder height.

 1. Completed Backswing

 2. First Forward Move (FFM)

  

 3. 10 Frames (47.6 milliseconds) Before Impact

  

 4. Impact

  

5. Follow-Through (Racquet Hand Reaches Shoulder Height)

Now, for those of you out there who still want to believe that the top players use (virtually) identical movements to execute their respective strokes - an opinion you probably have (and staunchly defend) that's reinforced by the over-simplified instruction you've received over your tennis-playing life - maybe you should start looking more closely at the evidence that's now available.

Then, based on this evidence, you might begin to reconsider what you believe you understand about forehand mechanics.

There are some clear (anatomical) differences in the movements used by Federer and Murray at the same stages of their respective forehand strokes (hint: take special note of the differences at stages #2 to #4 between Roger and Andy).

Now that these differences can be identified using a common language, maybe we might want to ask how these differences influence the resulting shot - in terms of power (racquet and ball speed) and control (spin generation potential, trajectory control, etc.) - if they exert any influence at all.

That's the question we'll begin to tackle in our next post...

TTFN!