Biomechanics of the Forehand Stroke

Rafael Bahamonde Indiana University, USA

Introduction
The tennis forehand stroke has changed drastically over the last 10 years. Today's players
seldom use the traditional forehand. Instead, the majority of the top amateur and professional
players use the modern topspin forehand stroke. Changes in the forehand technique have
been attributed to new racket designs1,2. Rackets are bigger, lighter, and stiffer than the
traditional wooden rackets allowing the players to hit the ball with more power and control.
These changes in the forehand technique have influenced the type of grip, footwork and
racket backswing and forward swing of today's tennis players.
.
Preparation
The Grip: The functions of the grip are to provide the proper racket orientation at impact,
place the wrist in a favorable strength position, and, depending on the type of stroke used,
allow for hand mobility1. Most researchers agree that grip firmness is a crucial factor for offcenter impacts.4-6,10 Most tennis professionals advocate the use of a western or semiwestern grip instead of the traditional eastern forehand grip. The western grips are preferred
because it is easier to generate topspin and maintain racket orientation at impact. One
disadvantage of the western grip is that it is difficult for players to hit low bouncing balls. Other
researchers promote the use of the eastern forehand grip highlighting that it provides for
greater wrist stability and allows the players to achieve the proper racket orientation at impact
regardless of ball height1. In a study by Elliott et al9. the effects of using the eastern and
western forehand grips on the rotational contribution of the upper limb segments to racket
head velocity were investigated. Players using the western grip were able to produce higher
forward (toward the court) and sideways (along the baseline) velocities than the players using
the eastern forehand grip.
The Stance: Today's players must react faster and are forced to hit on the run due to the
power developed in the groundstrokes and the serves. Hence, they adopt an open stance.
The traditional square stance takes longer to execute but it generates linear momentum; as
the player steps forward toward the ball, and angular momentum; from the rotation of the
legs, hips, and trunk10-12. In contrast, in the open stance there is little or no transfer of linear
momentum since the step is taken side ways, and only the segment rotations are used to
generate power for the forward swing.
.
The Backswing
Another point of controversy among players, coaches, and tennis professionals has been
which type of backswing provides more racket velocity and control. It was thought that the
traditional straight backswing provided more control, and the loop (large and small)
backswings provided greater racket velocity. Although a large-loop backswing has been

shown to increase racket velocity, racket control and timing are more likely to be affected 1,10. In
contrast, the small-loop backswing seemed to increase racket velocity without affecting the
timing and control of the stroke10. Regardless of the type of backswing used, for more power
and efficiency, the transition between the backswing and forward swing should be a fluid
motion since it enhances the player's ability to utilize the pre-stretching of the muscles.
.
The Forward Swing
The type of forward swing has also been modified by the changes in the game. Many of the
top professional players use a multi-segment forehand technique in which individual
segments of the upper extremity are used to generate racket velocity. In contrast, in the
conventional forward swing the segments of the upper extremity move as a single unit from
the shoulder. Research by Elliott et al14 revealed no major differences in the type of grip or
initial footwork preferred by the players using multi-segment or single unit forehand swing.
Clear differences were observed during the backswing phase; the multi-segment group had a
more compact arm, and later, during the forward swing, generated higher racket velocities
(22.5 m/s) than the single unit group (19.3 m/s) resulting in greater ball velocities.
.
Racket Trajectory and Orientation
Aside from the differences in the type of stance, grip, and/or forward swing, the key elements
in the topspin forehand stroke are the stroke arc and the racket orientation at impact. The
trajectory of the racket (stroke arc) can be separated into horizontal and vertical planes. Most
researchers agree that the horizontal motion of the racket should resemble a flattened arc
near impact 6,13. The optimum angle of the racket in the vertical plane has been suggested to
be 28o 1,10. This angle provides good spin production and speed. Smaller angles tend to
produce less spin while larger angles sacrifice ball speed and the depth of the shot. Changes
in footwork and type of forward swing can influence the stroke arc. For instance, the use of
the multi-segment forehand swing produces a smaller stroke arc and a steep vertical
trajectory at impact (47o)10. According to Brody a smaller stroke arc is less accurate since it
reduces the margin of error due to the smaller swing radius 6. Most researchers agree that
hitting with an open stance is not more efficient but is the result of lack of preparation time for
the forehand stroke1,10. Research by Knudson and Bahamonde15 showed that the closed
stance allowed a group of teaching professionals to maintain a more accurate racket path in
the horizontal plane. When the players used an open stance it resulted in a 60% reduction in
the time in which the ball could be successfully hit on the racket face in the horizontal plane.
.
Linear and Angular Momentum
One of the most common concerns of tennis players is how to develop more power and
control on the forehand stroke. Both power and control can be achieved through the proper
development of linear and angular momentum. Linear momentum is the quantity of linear
motion that a body possesses. In the forehand stroke, linear momentum is developed through
the forces generated from the ground as you step forward and transfer your body weight from
the back leg to the forward leg (for a closed stance footwork) 10. Angular momentum is the

quantity of angular motion that a body possesses. Angular momentum is also developed from
the ground reaction forces (GRF) and tends to produce a sequence of body rotations (legs,
hips, trunk, upper limb, and racket)10. Optimal trunk rotation is one of the outcomes of angular
momentum. It has been shown that trunk rotation is significantly correlated with racket
velocity regardless of the type of stance used or skill level (professionals or intermediates) 12.
The rotation of the trunk not only contributes to the racket velocity (about 10% of final racket
velocity) but is also used in the pre-stretching of the shoulder muscles to allow them to
produce a larger tension.
.
Conclusion
What can coaches or players do to produce explosive forehands? Coaches and players need
to understand the basic biomechanical principles and how to apply them to the different
components of the strokes. There is no doubt that one of the most important sources of power
for a tennis player comes from the racket. The new rackets not only allow the players to hit
ball harder, they also provide more control. A firm grip near impact is necessary to control the
racket during off-centre hits. Use a square stance whenever possible, it not only seems to be
more effective in generating linear and angular momentum but it also seems to produce a
more accurate racket path. Try to develop a smooth and continuous small-loop backswing.
Select the forward swing (multi-segment or single unit forehand) that best suits the player's
physical and motor skill abilities. Regardless of the type of forward swing, stress the
importance of using trunk rotation and the legs throughout the forehand stroke and explain to
the players the importance of a proper follow-through.

References
1. Knudson, D. (1991). The tennis topspin forehand drive: Technique changes and critical elements. Strategies,
5(1), 19-22.
2. Brody, H. The influence of racket technology on tennis. USPTR, 1997.
3. Baker, J. A. & Putnam, C. A. (1979). Tennis racket and ball responses during impact under clamped and
freestanding conditions. Res. Q, 50, 164-170.
4. Grabiner, M. D., Groppel, J. L. & Campbell, K. R. (1983). Resultant tennis ball velocity as a function of offcenter impact and grip firmness. Med. Sci. Sports, 15, 542-544.
5. Elliott, B. C. (1982). Tennis: the influence of grip firmness on reaction impulse and rebound velocity. Med. Sci.
Sports, 14, 348-352.
6. Brody, H. (1987). Tennis science for tennis players. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.
7. Knudson, D. V. & White, S. C. (1989). Forces on the hand on the tennis forehand drive: Application of force
sensing resistors. Int J Sport Biomech, 5 , 324-331.
8. Knudson, D. V. (1991). Factors affecting force loading on the hand in the tennis forehand. J Sports Med Phys
Fit, 31(4), 527-331.
9. Elliott, B., Kotara, T. & Noffal, G. (`1997). The influence of grip position on upper limb contribution to racket
head velocity in a tennis forehand. J Applied Biomech, 13, 182-196.
10. Groppel, J. (1984). Tennis for Advanced Players. Human Kinetics: Champaign, Illinois.
11. Bahamonde, R. E. & Knudson, D. (1998). Upper extremity kinetics of the open and close stance forehand.
4th International Conference on Sports Medicine and Science in Tennis, Coral Gables, Florida.
12. Bahamonde, R. E. & Knudson, D. (1998). Kinematic analysis of the open and square stance tennis forehand.
Med. Sci. Sports, 30(5), s29.
13. Elliott, B., Marsh, T. & Overheu, P. (1987). The mechanics of the Lendl and conventional tennis forehands: A
coach's perpective. Sports Coach, Oct/Dec, 4-9.

14. Elliott, B., Marsh, T. & Overheu, P. (1989). A biomechanical comparison of the multi-segment and single unit
topspin forehand drives in tennis. Int J Sports Biomech, 5, 350-364
15. Knudson, D. & Bahamonde, R. E. (1998). Impact kinematics of the open and square stance tennis forehand.
4th International Conference on Sports Medicine and Science in Tennis, Coral Gables, Florida.