A CINEMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
OF THE FOREHAND STROKE
EN TENNIS

THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

BARBARA RUTH SOUTHWARD
1956

ms

“2.51%.

 

"‘3
J

f... L...
‘3

4

.1? 1

 

 

 

A CINEMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF
THE FOREHAND STROKE IN TENNIS

by

Barbara Ruth Sguthward

A THESIS

Submitted to the College of Education of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied
,Science in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

_Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation
1956

11'“

J‘»

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to eXpress appreciation to Dr.
Wayne Van Hues of the Men's Physical Education Department
and Dr. Thelma Bishop of the Women's Physical Education

Department, Michigan State University, for their help

during this research.

m

 

 

 

A CINEMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF
THE FOREHAND STROKE IN TENNIS

by

Barbara Ruth Southward

AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS

Submitted to the College of Education of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied
Science in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation

1956

Approved

 

.7‘_—

f"

.r
I a

I . -/ :1.) a. I, I If": ”I
i -' r: ' / 1' ‘(f Av“.—
é’Ext-iitt W - “M I ”a

ya-

,. -_

 

:: .Ir...

,- H.4_._I

H“;

 

BARBARA RUTH SOUTHWARD ABSTRACT

Title 2; Study
A Cinematographic Analysis of the Forehand Stroke in

Tennis.

Statement 2: Problem
To analyze and compare the forehand strokes of tennis
players of various skill levels, ranging from beginner to

champion.

Methodology

A Bell and Howell 16mm camera was used to photograph
four subjects, consisting of a beginner chosen at random
from an instructional tennis class; a university varsity
tennis member; a university varsity tennis coach, and a
Davis Cup player. The pictures were taken from the side for
all four subjects, and from overhead for the beginner and
the varsity coach. The pictures were analyzed frame by
frame with a Bell and Howell Time and Motion Analyzer pro-

jector.

Conclusions

The following observations were made in comparing the
stroke of the beginner with that of the intermediate and
champion players. The beginner did not (1) take the racket

back as soon nor as far in the backswing; (2) watch the

W“

 

 

 

 

2

BARBARA RUTH SOUTHWARD .ABSTRACT

flight of the ball and, therefore, was unable to Judge where
the ball would bounce in relation to the body; (3) use body
rotation or keep the forward foot stationary throughout the
stroke.

The main observations noted in comparing the patterns
formed by the intermediate and the champion players were (1)
the varsity player and champion did not cock the wrist on
the backswing as much as the varsity coach; (2) the varsity
player hit the ball in front of the forward foot; the varsity
coach off the forward foot and the champion off the rear
foot; (3) the varsity player rotated the body into ball con-
tact; the varsity coach after ball contact, and the Champion's
body rotated much later in the follow through..

Within the limitations of the data, the evidence seems
to indicate that many of the writers and tennis teachers are

correct in their analysis of the forehand tennis stroke.

 

 

Ifllur‘hnni. flu. {IL .Iw

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments . .
Table of Contents. . . . . . .
List of Charts.. .. . . . . . .
List of Figures . . . . . . .
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF
Statement of the problem .
Specific objectives. . .
SCOpe of the study . .' .
Significance of the study.
Limitations of the study .
Definition of terms.
Forehand stroke . .
Side-to-the net position
Diagonal position .
Open position. . .
Tennis beginner . . .
Intermediate player.
Champion player . .
Cinematography . . .

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. .

THE PROBLEM

PAGE
11
iii

vi

x: cm ox kn Ox \n U\ \n tr .: b) Is a: to P‘ r4

CHAPTER
Literature on the elements of the stroke. .
Literature on methods and techniques of
cinematographical research. . . . . .

III. METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH . . . . . . . .

Introduction.. . . . . . . . . . .
Research Method . . . . . . . . .
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Analysis of the movie projector methods.
Delimitation of material . . . . . . .

IV. PRESENTATION OF DATA . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . .5 . . . . . . . .
Comparison of pictures from the sideview. .
Comparison of pictures from overhead . . .

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY... . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

PAGE

11
11
11
12
13
it»
15
15
15
22
28
33

LIST OF CHARTS
CHARTS PAGE
I. Rackethead and Ball Each Frame from the

Racket-back Position through the

Follow-through . . . . . . . . . . 16
II. Patterns formed by the Rackethead, Wrist,

Shoulders, Head, and Feet Every Tenth Frame

from the Racket-back Position through the

Follow-through . . . . . . . . . . 20
III. Patterns Formed by the Body and Racket Every

Tenth Frame from the Racket-back Position

through the Follow-through . . . . . . 23

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES PAGE
1. Side-View Velocity of the Rackethead for
Five Frames Before Ball Contact through
Five Frames After Ball Contact . . . . . 18
2. Overhead Velocity of the Rackethead for
Five Frames Before Ball Contact

through Five Frames After Ball Contact. . . 25

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT
OF THE PROBLEM

For many years tennis teachers have written books and
articles on the mechanics of a forehand stroke. Usually
this motion study analysis has been made through watching a
champion in action or in reviewing motion pictures. This
observational approach has been the method used in analyzing
the various elements of the forehand stroke. All of these
statements made about what happens during a forehand stroke
have been based on observation while the film has sped
through the projector quickly. This has made it difficult
for a person to see actually what happens and not to have
it colored by what he has assumed for many years happens
throughout the stroke.

Therefore, the writer with the use of the Bell and
Howell Time and Motion Analyzer projector will attempt to
plot frame by frame certain trends and patterns of the
beginner's forehand, the intermediate's forehand, and the
champion’s forehand.

Statement 91_ To plot and analyze patterns of the fore-
the Prom
hand stroke made by tennis players of

various skill levels.

Sggcific I. To compare through analyzing moving
O jectives
pictures the forehand stroking positions

 

of various tennis players.

2. To pattern and compare the various
parts of the players' forehand stroke. These parts are:
rackethead, wrist, shoulders, head, and feet.

3. To try to establish from the formed

patterns what actually happens during a forehand stroke.

*1

Scog {g_ The eample consisted of four male tennis
t St d

[2°

players: a beginning tennis player chosen
at random after having a ten—week term of tennis at a univ-
ersity; one university varsity tennis team member; a univ-
ersity varsity tennis coach; and a United States Davis Cup

player. All of the players used an eastern grip.

Significance To understand the problems facing a begin-
221.122.5129.):
ning tennis player, it is necessary to

plot the patterns of players who have been successful in
executing the forehand stroke. It is also necessary to
compare these patterns frame by frame with a beginner's
stroke pattern to determine where the differences in stroke
execution occur.

The study presents, through the medium of cinemato-

graphic analysis, the breakdown and comparison of the fore-

hand stroke at the various skill levels. This is a more

exact way to determine what actually happens during a fore-
hand stroke than just to watch the players in action on the
court or in a film.

Tennis teachers have established theories as to what
happens during a stroke from their years of experience and
from watching tennis players. However, they do not seem to
have proof to back up these theories. Therefore, it is the
writer's desire, through cinematographic analysis of the
forehand stroke at the various skill levels to show whether

these theories are valid or not.

Limitations 9; l. The number of subjects [4] and the
___'t"'E'é"'§_Lx‘t "71"“

number of strokes analyzed is small.
Therefore, thexesults are subject to more error than if
the number of strokes analyzed per subject were greater so
a mean average of racket velocity could be obtained for each
subject.

2. A tennis ball machine which would throw
a tennis ball out to bounce at a specific height and at a
specific spot would have eliminated the difference in the
ball bounce variable.

3. Two cameras for the study would have
made it possible to measure the velocity more accurately.
Both cameras shooting the stroke at the same time; one from
overhead and one from the side. The use of an accelerometer

on the rackethead would also measure the velocity more

exactly.

Definition

9;,Terme

b
Forehand Stroke. The forehand is the stroke

taken on the right-hand side of the body for

right-handed players. The following is an analysis of the

forehand stroke by Driver.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(h)

(5)

Grip [Eastern] - Shake hands with the racket
with the V on top of the racket. The fingers
should be spread and the racket held firmly
but not rigidly.

Wrist Action - The wrist action present in
the stroke is a hyperextension on the back-
swing coming to a locked wrist position of
extension as the ball is hit. The wrist
action insures that the racquet is meeting
the ball squarely, and adds speed to the
ball.

Body Position - The body is at right angles
to the net, with the left foot and shoulder
toward the net, and the right foot and
shoulder away from the net. The sideways
position is parallel with the flight of the
ball, feet about eighteen inches apart. The
knees are slightly relaxed or flexed, with
the body weight carried on the balls of the
feet. Body action consists of weight trans-
ference to right foot with backswing of
racquet and trunk rotation away from the net,
The weight is transferred forward and the
trunk is rotated to meet the ball. Right
shoulder follows the flight of the ball
forward . .

Backswing of Racquet - Racquet is swung back
in line with the sideways position of the
body, elbow well away from body. . . .
Forward Swing - . .

The arm and racquet swing out away from the
body to meet the ball.

At the impact the face of the racquet is flat
and the grip ver firm.

The body weight shifts from the right to the
left foot, keeping racquet in contact with
the ball and traveling in a straight line
forward. The student should use body rotation
forward with the stroke as well as a transfer
of weight. The right shoulder points in the
direction of the ball flight on the follow
through. . . .

(6) Position of the Ball at the Impact — The
ball is opposite the forward tfeft) feet at
racquet's reach from the body.
Side-ppfthe net position. The forehand body position
as described by Driver defines the side to the net position.
The body is at right angles to the net, with the
left foot and shoulder toward the net, and the right
foot and shoulder away from the net. The sideways
position is parallel with the flight of the ball,
feet about eighteen inches apart.
Diagonal position. The body is turned to a forty-
five degree angle to the net. The position is half way
between the side to the net position and the open position

when the forehand drive is stroked.

Oppn position. The body faces the net and the feet

are pointing perpendicular to the net.

Tennis beginner. A university sophomore chosen at
random with a ten-week's term of instructional tennis class
experience.

Iptermediate player. A University varsity tennis

team player and a university varsity tennis coach.

 

1Helen Irene Driver, Tennis for Teachers (Boston:
Spaulding-Moss Company, 1952;, pp. 55-68.

2
Ibid., p. 62.

Champion player. A member of the 1955 Davis Cup
team. .

Cinematography. The techniques by which mechanical
measurements can be taken from an image projected on a

3

screen.

 

3Thomas Kirk Cureton, "Elementary Principles and
Techniques of Cinematographic Analysis as Aids in Athletic
Research," Research Quarterly, 10:“, May, 1939.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Much has been written concerning the forehand stroke.
The stroke has been analyzed by physical education teachers,
coaches, professional tennis teachers, and champion players.
However; there has been very little written on the cinemato—
graphic analysis of the forehand stroke.
Literature pp_ The literature points out the following
Egg elements
p£_ppg_stroke statements concerning the component parts
comprising the forehand tennis stroke for right-handed
players.

1. General body position--the left side is at right
angles to the net as soon as the player knows that the ball

is going to the forehand side.“ Whites

disagrees with this
statement. He believes that the body should not be rotated

to the side until the ball comes over the net.

 

L;
Gertrude Goes, Individual Sports for Women
(Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1939), pp. 362-363.

5Harwood White, "Stand Sideways7," American LaWn
Tennis, November, l9h8, pp.l6- l7.

2. Backswing—-racket drawn back as far as possible
just as soon as the player knows that the ball is going to
the forehand side. Mace6 disagrees and suggests that the
racket should not be drawn back in a wide are because this
makes the person hit late and makes him hit up to the ball
resulting in an insufficient follow through.

3. Feet--para11e1 to the net with the weight on the
rear foot which pivots forward with the weight ending on
the forward foot. Bunn7 states that the rear foot must be
in contact with the court at the moment of impact. The
literature is not too clear or in agreement as to when the
weight is transferred from the rear foot to the forWard foot.

A. Wrist-~hyperextended and then looked just before
ball contact. Bunn8 states that added force is attained by
bending a joint and that the wrist must be rigid and the

grip firm at impact to avoid recoil.

 

6Wynn Mace, Tennig Techniques Illustrated (New York:
A. S. Barnes and Company, 19527, p. 29.

7John Bunn, Scientific Principles‘pg Coachin
(New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19553, pp. 253-255.

8
Ibid., p. 68.

5. E1bow--a slightly bent elbow to cut down on the
loss of power.

6. Shoulders-oright shoulder rotates forward on ball
contact. Mace9 believes that the shoulders should be kept
parallel to the sidelines while hitting the ball. Whitelo,
in his denunciation of the side-to-the—net stroking position,
states that as the ball bounces the player steps toward the
net and begins to turn his right side forward.

7. Head—-follows the flight of the ball.

8. Follow-through--racket follows through out over
the left shoulder. Budge11 says that the wrist and elbow
are bent on the follow-through. Mace12 states that a simple
wind-up and a longer follow-through gives better direction
and power to the ball. The follow-through ends out toward
. the net with a conterclockwise rotation of the wrist.

{pgterature pp A complete description of the techni-
methods Egg

technigues of ques used in cinematographic analysis
cinematograpfiicg;

researph

 

9Hace, ‘2. Cit.’ p. 29.

10Harwood White, 'Free Swing," American Lawn Tennis,
April, 191499 DP. ILA-15.

11
Lloyd Budge, Tennis Made Easy (New York: A. S.
Barnes and Company, 19555. p. 55.

12Mace, op. cit., p. 3b.

10
is given by Cureton13 and Glasgowlu. These writers agree as
to the best techniques to use in cinematographical research.
Fenn15 used cinematographic methods to throw some light on
the fundamental questions, "What is the limiting factor in
running?“ and “Why is swinging the legs so difficult?“

In the twenty-three theses concerning the various
aspects of tennis listed by Cureton16 there is no evidence
of any cinematographical analysis of the forehand tennis

stroke.

 

13Cureton,pp. cit., pp. h—Zh.

1“Ruth Glasgow, 'Photographical and Cinematographical
Research Methods," Research Methods Applied 39 Health,
Ph sical Education, and Recreation (Washington: American
Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation,
1952). pp. 204—218.

 

15wa11ace o. Fenn "A Cinematographic Study of
Sprinters,” Scientifingonthly, April, 1931, pp. 2b6-25h.

16Thomas Kirk Cureton, Masters' Theses pp Health,
Phypical Education, and Recreation (Washington: Department
of the National Education Association, 1953). pp. 292.

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH

gpgroduction The motion pictures of the forehand drive
were taken with a Bell and Howell 16mm camera. The pictures
were taken from the same angle for each subject to determine
whether a definite pattern of movement for each person could
be established.

To plot the patterns, the pictures were analyzed,
frame by frame, with a Bell and Howell Time and Motion
Analyzer projector.

The subjects, except the United States Davis Cup
player, were photographed in June on the same day and under
the same court conditions at Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan. The United States Davis Cup player was
photographed two months later during the 1955 National
Doubles Tournament at the Longwood Cricket Club, Chestnut
Hills, Massachusetts.

Research A camera mounted on a rigging truck designed for
Method

 

use in repairing steet lights was used to obtain
pictures of the shoulder rotation. From this height it was
possible to take pictures directly above the players. The
side-view pictures were taken on the baseline facing the

stroker.

12

The action was taken at 6A frames/second, and the
subject was fifteen to twenty feet away from the camera.

The camera was set up on a tripod to avoid the possibility
of any camera movement.

The photographer set the lens Openings and the
footage for one particular area and waited for the ball to
come within this specified area. The photographer was aided
by an assistant who informed the photographer when the ball
was coming to the subjects' forehand. The photographer
watched the area through the rangefinder and took the
picture when the subject came into view. '

A The execution of several forehand strokes of the
beginner and the intermediate players were photographed.
From the series of stroke patterns plotted for each of the
three subjects, one pattern was analyzed. The one stroke
pattern was chosen on the basis of photographic content.

Only the execution of one forehand stroke of the
Davis Cup player was photographed. This stroke pattern

was plotted and analyzed.

Subjects. The beginner was a university beginning tennis
player, chosen at random from one of the mens' instructional
classes. The university varsity team member was also chosen
at random. Harris Beeman, the varsity tennis coach at
Michigan State University and Tony Trabert, the number one

1955 Davis Cup player were the other two subjects.

13

The analysis pp. The forehand patterns were plotted by
the movie

 

projector methods projecting pictures on a sheet of
white paper 47-1/2 inches from the Bell and Howell Time and
Motion Analyzer projector. The film was cranked through the
projector frame by frame. To make sure that the projector
was aligned after each frame, a spot was selected from the
projected film on the first frame of the stroke and marked
on the white sheet of paper. On each successive frame, the
projector was aligned to this spot and then at the tip of
the rackethead a dot was placed on the white sheet of paper
to plot the pattern formed by the rackethead. The same pro-
cedure was followed every tenth frame in outlining the pat-
tern formed by the body and racket. The pattern formed of
the rackethead, wrist, elbow, shoulders, head,and feet was
plotted in the same way.

The distance the rackethead traveled each frame begin-
ning five frames before ball contract through five frames
after ball contact was measured with calipers to obtain the
estimated velocity of the rackethead. The measurement was
obtained by measuring with calipers the distance the racket-
head traveled frame by frame on the pattern. The mathe—

matical procedure is given by Cureton.20

 

20Cureton, _p, pip, pp. 4—24. (Appropriate corrections
were made in the multiplier Values for differences in picture
depth during the stroke. At best, however, the procedure
used in the measurement of rackethead velocity involves esti-
mates and is in need of further validation.)

1h

 

Delimitation pg Three patterns were formed by each sub—
material

ject; each pattern began with the racket-

back position and continued through the followbthrough.
This was shown graphically by (l) plotting every tenth frame
the rackethead, wrist, elbow, shoulders, head, and feet;
(2) outlining the body and racket every tenth frame; (3)
plotting frame by frame the pattern formed by the rackethead.

To determine the body position when the ball was hit,
the author in the final analysis compared the position of
the feet, rackethead, wrist, and shoulders at the racketback
position, the point of ball contact, and during the follow-
through.

The pictures taken of each subject from the sideview
were plotted and analyzed. The overhead pictures of the
varsity tennis coach and the tennis beginner were plotted

and analyzed.-

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF DATA

Introduction Motion pictures were taken of four tennis
players of various skill levels in order to compare the pat-
terns and trends of the beginner's, the intermediate's, and
the champion's forehand stroke by means of a frame by frame
analysis.

The analyses presented in this chapter are subdivided
into the analysis of the sideview pictures and those taken

from overhead.
I. COMPARISON OF PICTURES FROM THE SIDEVIEW

Chart I shows the patterns formed from a frame by
frame plotting of the rackethead of each subject during a
forehand stroke. The patterns appear different for each
subject, not only because of the difference in the strokes
of the players, but because of the variability of the ball
bounce. The patterns giveeuiindication as to whether the.
ball was hit close to the body, out in front of the forehand
foot, or tepspin was imparted to the ball.

The beginner's pattern is narrow in breadth because

the ball was hit with the elbow bent and the arm too close

to the body.

 

 

BEGINNER

BALL CONTACT

  
      

VARSITY

  

PLAYER

 

CONTACT
CHAMPION
eALL
cowtacr
VARSITY COACH
BALL
CONTACT

SIDEVIEW PATTERNS

Rockotheod each frame from the rocket-hock
position through the follow-through 0—4

CHART I

 

 

17

The pattern of the varsity coach shows that the
racket was taken back high near shoulder level and then
adjusted to the level of the ball bounce before stroking
through the ball.

Both the champion and the Varsity team member hit
a low ball and imparted tepspin which gives the pattern more
of a circular appearance.

The estimated velocity of the rackethead was deter-
mined by measuring frame by frame with calipers the distance
the rackethead traveled each frame. Due to the distortion
of the racket as the racket neared the camera, a corrected
multiplier for calculating the velocity of the beginner and
the varsity coach was estimated from the overhead patterns
of the rackethead.

The speed of the rackethead seemed fairly constant
for the champion and the varsity team members. The beginner,
however, whips the racket from the short racket-back position
through fast until one frame before ball contact and then
gains speed again on the follow-through. Figure 1 shows the
velocities of the rackehead for the tennis coach and the
beginner for five frames before ball contact through five
frames after ball contact. This relative estimate shows
that the varsity coach increases the speed of the rackethead
until ball contact and then the speed of the rackethead

slows down progressively throughout the rest of the stroke.

18

 

    
 

 

 

 

 

TIME/FRAME=.OI53 SEC. o————o BEGINNER
O____.O TENNIS
'60 COACH
I50 R
I\
I40 I \
I \
130 I \
120 I \
no 6 I \\
Q)
IOO m \
\. i \
90 ‘-
80 E
31‘ ° \\ A
g _ \ / \
6° - — m-~—o/ \
or O \
50 > CD ‘\
4o \3
30
20 // <
0‘
IO ‘~-o’
5 4 3 2 I I 2 3 4 5
Frames prior to ball Frames after boll
contact contact

FIGURE l

SIDE-VIEW VELOCITY OF THE RACKET-
HEAD FOR FIVE FRAMES BEFORE BALL

CONTACT THROUGH FIVE FRAMES AFTER
BALL CONTACT.

 

 

19
The beginner increases the speed of the rackethead up to two
frames before ball contact. At this point the rackethead
appears to lose speed and then picks up speed the frame be-
fore ball contact. At ball contact the speed of the racket-
head decreases greatly and then regains speed for the next
three frames before slowing down.

The velocity figures for all of the subjects, except
the beginner, seem to indicate that the velocity of the
rackethead increased up to one or two frames prior to
rackethead contact. This same pattern would most likely
occur with a beginner when the beginner's eye and racket
coordination improve to the extent that the beginner does
not have to slow down the rackethead to make sure of the
racket contacting the ball. The velocity of the rackethead
of the intermediates and the champion was greater each frame
before ball contact because a greater force was being applied
which was due, not only to a freer arm and wrist movement,
but to body rotation as well.

The estimation of the velocity of the rackethead in
feet per second in Figure l is included not as an absolute
measurement but merely for the purpose of comparing the
velocities of the rackethead of a beginner and a varsity
coach.

Chart II shows the patterns formed by the rackethead,

wrist, shoulders, head, and feet every tenth frame for each

 

BEGINNER CHAMPION
40
‘ L‘sso
' \ ;-—~.x \ ...
\\\\ 'z\ \ m \‘
\\ G
I ‘~.‘ . 3,’ H
”TEA/L: cou'rAcT I4 "4135‘: ‘I
4
| Ifli |‘
‘\\\| 3")“

/
\ /
\/ 1”
z ~y ,OALL CONTACT I4
‘ s
| RIGHT FOOT

345G
LEFT FOOT
RIGHT FOOT LEFT FOOT

VARSITY COACH
VARSITY PLAYER

5
\
\
\
\
I \
_ \
“ . I w \\
\ ‘ \
\ I, O \\
a. \
I \

\
“L. \ I .___________...——-a4
I \ /
l H k Ric. ‘ \ I, ‘ z”
“;~ 5 \\ I 3 ’/
N a“ L—————>° 2““ 2 III
/ \\\ I
\\ / \\\ l/
\ “

3 4
\ /’
\ // BALL cowncr Is
0 I _ nu. CONTACT 22

2345C
RIGHT FOOT LEFT FOOT U
RIGHT FOOT

LEFT FOOT

SIDEVIEW PATTERNS
....---. Rackathoad each tOtramu

*——-I Head
0-— Wrtst to rackethead

°—-—o Shoulders
Pattern from racketback position through tollovr- through

CHART II

 

 

 

21
subject. At the racket—back position the beginner's
shoulders are diagonal to the net, whereas the other three
subjects' shoulders are perpendicular to the net. On ball
contact the varsity player's shoulders are parallel to the
net and the varsity coach's and Champion's shoulders are
perpendicular to the net. Even though the pattern shows
that the beginner's shoulders are perpendicular to the net
at the racket-back position and parallel at ball contact,
there does not appear to be the body rotation which the
other subjects used in the stroke.

The beginner does not seem to watch the flight of
the ball and hits the ball off the rear foot. The varsity
player hits the ball in front of the forward foot as the
body rotates with a rear toe pivot towards the net. The
varsity coach hits the ball directly off the forward foot
and then rotates the body on a rear toe pivot towards the
net. The champion hits the ball behind the forward foot and
rotates the body towards the net much later in the stroke.

The forward foot of the varsity player and the
champion is fairly stationary throughout thestrokc. The
varsity coach's forward foot is parallel to the net and
stationary throughout the stroke. The beginner's forward
foot is perpendicular to the net and the feet are not
stationary throughout the stroke. A hop is used to get

away from the ball.

22

In Chart II an idea of the relationship of the wrist
and rackethead is shown every tenth frame for each subject.
At the racket-back position the head of the racket of all of
the subjects is slightly in back of the wrist. As the
racket is brought forward the rackethead catches up with
the wrist at ball contact and stays with the wrist through-
out the rest of the stroke.

On the follow-through all of the players watch the
ball. The beginner's racket follows through with a bent
arm near the left shoulder, whereas the other subjects fol-
low through high and away from the body with the elbow only
slightly bent.

These patterns indicate that the beginner did not
get the racket back and was not ready for the forward swing
as soon as the other subjects. There is an indication that
the beginner did not pivot on the rear foot and did not keep
the forward foot stationary as the body rotated forward and
into the stroke. In this stroke pattern the beginner did
not know where the ball would bounce in relation to the end

of the racket and the forward foot.
II. COMPARISON OF PICTURES FROM OVERHEAD

Chart III shows the overhead pattern of a Varsity
tennis coach and of a beginning tennis player. The patterns

were formed by plotting the racket and body every tenth

 

 

BEGINNER

FOLLOW- THROUGH 3

 

    
 
    

RACK ET- IACK

.\ -

IALL CONTACT II

(I) 2
VARSITY COACH
RACKET-DACK p. ow-flmoucu
I”)

,,—(A

.. 016":
9‘ meat}
5- “23‘- e

.9\ I.“.
M H 5' 3§\,\

RACKET

a».

OVERHEAD PATTERNS
Racket-back through the follow-through

Rackethead platted each frame —.—
Body paetttane and racket each ten frames

CHART III

 

 

24

frame and by plotting the rackethead each frame from the
racket-back position through the follow-through. The
pictures for this chart were taken from thirty—five feet
above the subject.

The patterns appear similar except the beginner's
backswing is shorter and the follow-through does not swing
in toward the left shoulder.

The varsity coach's follow—through gradually stops;
whereas, the beginner has a tendency to let the wrist snap
around causing a slightly increased speed of the rackethead
during the fallow-through.

Figure 2 shows the estimated velocity of the racket-
head for five frames before ball contact through five frames
after ball contact for the varsity coach and the beginner.
The varsity coach swings the racket faster than the beginner.
The beginner increases the speed of the rackethead progres—
sively until two frames before ball contact and then the
rackethead slows down progressively until the fourth frame
after ball contact where the greatest rackethead speed is
attained. In the second frame before ball contact the
velocity of the tennis coach's rackethead reaches the
greatest speed. The rackethead progressively decreases in
speed until three frames after ball contact where it again
gains speed, but the gain is not as great as was observed

in the beginner. Again as was noted two frames before ball

25

 

I60
I50
I40
I30
I20
IIO

IOO

 

TIME/ FRAME = .Ol53 SEC.

tt./sec.

Velocity

 

 

Ball Contact

°—-——° BEGINNER

o————-o TENNIS
COACH

 

 

 

 

5 4 3 2 I I 2 3 4 5
Frames prior to ball Frames after ball
contact contact
FIGURE 2

OVERHEAD VELOCITY OF THE RACKET—
HEAD FORIHVE FRAMES BEFORE BALL
CONTACT THROUGH FIVE FRAMES AFTER

BALL CONTACT.

 

 

26
contact in Figure l, the rackethead of the beginner slows
down slightly on the third frame before ball contact.

Although the measurement of the velocity of the
rackethead from the pictures taken from overhead is a more
accurate measurement than the pictures taken from the side,
there still can be errors in measuring with calipers the
distance the rackethead traveled each frame. Therefore,
Figure 2 is included not as an absolute measurement but
merely for the purpose of comparing the velocities of the
racketheads of a beginner and a varsity coach.

The velocity figures in Figure 1 cannot be compared
with the velocity figures in Figure 2 because the pictures
were taken of two different strokes.

The racket and body positions every tenth frame from
the racket-back position patterned in Chart III show clearly
the constant moving of the beginner's feet as well as the
direction of the head during ball contact. The beginner
does not look at the ball; whereas, the varsity coach appears
to be looking right at the ball during ball contact and
throughout the entire stroke. Body rotation is very evident
in the varsity coach's pattern as the body pivots an the
rear foot to the forward foot on ball contact. The feet are
stationary throughout the stroke.

The racket positions of the beginner and the varsity

coach in Chart III show that the varsity coach has a greater

2?
backswing and gets the racket back sooner than does the
beginner.

Even though the patterns of the varsity coach, the
Davis Cup player, and the varsity member are not identical,
They do emphasize certain trends when contrasted with the
'pattern of the beginner. The beginner has the tendency to
stroke the ball with a bent elbow because the ball bounces
too close to the body. Because the beginner does not know
where the ball will bounce in relation to the body, the for-
ward foot and the end of the rackethead; the beginner haps
away from the ball and is forced to swing with a bent elbow.

The beginner fails to watch the ball, get a long
enough backswing or take the racket back soon enough. The
beginner also lets the wrist snap the rackethead through
the stroke.

Even though the other subjects pivot on the rear foot
and rotate the body to stroke the ball, there waspractically

no evidence of body rotation by the beginner.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

From years of eXperience and from watching tennis
players, tennis teachers have formed certain theories as to
the mechanics of a forehand tennis stroke. These theories
have been assumed and have been merely opinions. Therefore,
the author attempted through cinematographic analysis to
find evidence to support these theories.

In reviewing the literature the author found no
evidence of comparative research through cinematographic
techniques written on the forehand stroke for players of
various skill levels.

With the aid of the Bell and Howell Time and Motion
Analyzer projector, the forehand stroke of the beginner, the
intermediate, and the champion tennis player was analyzed.
The patterns of the various skill levels of players were
plotted to show certain trends throughout the forehand
stroke.

Four subjects were photographed with a Bell and
Howell 16mm. camera and then the stroke was plotted frame
by frame from the pictures.

The subjects consisted of a beginner chosen at random

after having a ten-week instructional tennis class; a

29
university varsity tennis team member; a university varsity
coach, and a member of the 1955 Davis Cup team. The sub-
jects were all men and the eastern grip was used by each.
There was no way of controlling whether the subject imparted
tapspin to the ball, stroked the ball flat, or chopped the
ball. This variable did not seem to affect the results of
the study. The pictures were taken from the side for all
four subjects. Pictures were also taken from overhead of

the beginner and the varsity coach.

Findingg and Conclusions The following observations were

 

made in comparing the strokes of the beginner, the interme-
diate, and the champion.

1. The beginner did not take the racket back as soon
nor as far in the backswing and, therefore, was not ready
to stroke the ball in time.

2. The beginner did not watch the flight of the
ball and was unable to judge where the ball would bounce in
relation to the body, the end of the racket, and the for-
ward foot.

3. The beginner did not pivot on the rear foot
. towards the net and rotate the body from the hips. There
was no apparent transference of weight from the rear foot
to the forward fact at ball contact. The feet were never

stationary throughout the stroke.

30

u. The beginner did not seem to keep the velocity
of the rackethead relatively constant throughout the stroke
but slowed the racket down prior to ball contact and then
let the rackethead whip past the wrist on the follow-through.

5. The varsity player and champion did not hyper-
extend (cook) the wrist on the backswing as much as the
varsity coach. Therefore, the speed of the rackethead
coming through to ball contact for the varsity coach was
greater.

6. The pattern of the varsity player and the
champion was similar. Both of these players used more top-
spin in the stroke than the varsity coach.

7. The varsity player, varsity coach, and champion
used body rotation throughout the stroke. Then pivoted to-
wards the net on the rear foot as the forward foot stayed
practically stationary throughout the stroke.

8. The varsity player hit the ball in front of the
forward foot and rotated the body into the ball contact.
The varsity coach hit the ball off the forward foot and
rotated the body after ball contact. The champion hit the
ball from behind the forward foot and rotated the body much
later in the stroke.

9. The intermediate players and the champion player
watched the ball throughout the stroke, got the racket back
in time to adjust to the oncoming ball and followed through

with a gradual decrease in the rackethead velocity.

31
From the small sample and from the analysis of the
execution of one forehand stroke for each subject, the
evidence has a tendency to indicate that many of the writers
and tennis teachers are correct in their analysis of the
forehand stroke. However, there needs to be more analyses
made of larger groups before significant patterns can be

established.

Recommeggggions The writer would like to offer the
following recommendations concerning cinematographicresearch
on the forehand tennis stroke.

1. Analyze ten forehand strokes for each player to
obtain a mean pattern average for each subject.

2. Take pictures of the stroke from overhead and
from the side at the same time.

3. Use an accelerometer to measure the velocity of
the rackethead.

4. Take the entire stroke from the ready position
through the follow—through.

5. Use a tennis machine to toss out tennis balls
to fall at the same spot and to bounce at the same height.

6. Use markings on the body and racket to help
identify body parts in analyzing the various parts of the
stroke. The markings should be put on the following parts:

a. Inside of the wrist--determine wrist flexion.

 

 

 

32
Edge of the acromion process of each
shoulder-~body rotation.
Medial and lateral malleolus of both
ankles--pivoting of the feet.
Edges of the sales of the tennis shoes--
movements of the feet.
Center of the frontal bone to the crown of
the head-~movements of the head.
End of the rackethead--making plotting of

the rackethead easier and more accurate.

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Budge, Lloyd. Tennis Made Ea 1. New York: A. S. Barnes

and Company, 1955.

Bunn, John. Scientific Pripglples 9; Coaching. New York:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955.

Cureton, Thomas Kirk. Masters' Theses ;p_Health, Physical
Education, and Recreation. Washington: Department
of the National Education Association, 1953.

 

Driver, Helen Irene. Tennis for Teachers. Boston:
Spaulding-Moss Company, 1952.

Mace, Wynn. Tgnnis Techggques Illustrated. New York:
A. S. Barnes and Company, 1952.

Articles i3 Collections

Glasgow, Ruth. "Photographical and Cinematographical
Research Methods,” Research Methods Applied £9_Health,
Physical Education, gag.§§creation. Washington:
American Association of Health, Physical Education,
and Recreation, 1952. Pp. 204—218.

Goss, Gertrude. “Tennis," Individual Sports for Women.
Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1949.
Pp. 362-363.

Periodicals

Cureton, Thomas Kirk. ”Elementary Principles and Techniques
in Cinematographic Analysis as Aids in Athletic
Research," Research Quarterly, 10:4—2h, May, 1939.

Fenn, Wallace 0. "A Cinematographic Study of Sprinters,“
Scientific Monthly, 32:3h6-35U, April, 1931.

 

w
. =._.-_
*—

 

White
, Harwood
Nave . "Stan
mber, 19u8’dpgidigays?," Am
. ‘17 _ erican L
. aWn Tenni
8.

34

Date Due

 

Demco-293

 

HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES

31293010969305