A comparison of the high and low backspin backhand drives in tennis using different grips

Grip position affects upper limb kinematic chain during tennis double-handed backhand topspin strokes: considerations for transitioning tennis grip position technique

The purpose of this study was to compare the upper limb kinematic chain of tennis players using either an eastern or continental non-dominant grip position during the forward swing of the double-handed backhand stroke. Sixteen right-handed tennis players performed backhands using two non-dominant grip positions (eastern and continental), aiming for two cross-court zones (deep and short). Trajectory data were captured using sixty reflective markers attached to the upper limb and racket using a 12-camera Vicon motion capture system (250 Hz). Peak angular velocity was significantly greater for multiple joint rotations at the dominant shoulder and entire non-dominant limb in the eastern grip. Subsequently, greater peak racket head angular velocity and post-impact ball speed were generated by the eastern grip, while shot accuracy was similar between grip types. There was delayed dominant shoulder peak adduction angular velocity for the continental grip, possibly due to a lack of skill familiarity causing changes in coordinative patterns. Collectively, the non-dominant grip position appears to influence proximal and distal upper limb movement. Future research should explore upper limb segment coordination comparing preferred and non-preferred double-handed backhand techniques and complete inter-disciplinary investigations to understand what grip positions are most effective for individuals to learn double-handed backhands.

A kinematic analysis of the upper limb during the topspin double-handed backhand stroke in tennis

The purpose of this study was to compare double-handed backhand kinematics of the non-dominant wrist of tennis players using either an eastern or continental grip position with the non-dominant hand. Trajectory data were captured using sixty reflective markers on sixteen sub-elite right-handed tennis players using a 12-camera VICON motion capture system (250 Hz). Participants executed double-handed backhands using two non-dominant grip positions (Eastern [E] and Continental [C]), aiming for two crosscourt zones (Deep [D] and Short [S]), totalling to four conditions (ED, CD, ES and CS). Three successful attempts from each condition were selected for analysis. The eastern grip demonstrated faster horizontal racket head velocity compared to the continental grip. However, no differences were observed in accuracy or spin rate between grips (p > 0.05). In the non-dominant upper limb, elbow flexion was smaller in the continental condition throughout the swing, whilst wrist extension and ulnar deviation was larger. Collectively, these data suggest that the continental grip may place the wrist in a position vulnerable to overuse injury. Future research into the kinetics of the double-handed backhand would help better understand the onset of ulnar-side wrist pain in tennis.

Comparison of shock transmission and forearm electromyography between experienced and recreational tennis players during backhand strokes

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that recreational tennis players transmit more shock impact from the racket to the elbow joint than experienced tennis players during the backhand stroke. Also, to test whether recreational tennis players used higher electromyographic (EMG) activities in common wrist extensor and flexor around epicondylar region at follow-through phase.

DESIGN

A repeated-measure, cross-sectional study.

SETTING

National College of Physical Education and Sports at Taipei, Taiwan.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-four male tennis players with no abnormal forearm musculoskeletal injury participated in the study. According to performance level, subjects were categorized into 2 groups: experienced and recreational.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Impact transmission and wrist extensor-flexor EMG for backhand acceleration, impact, and follow-through phases were recorded for each player. An independent t test with a significance level of 0.05 was used to examine mean differences of shock impact and EMG between the 2 test groups. One-way ANOVA associated with Tukey multiple comparisons was used to identify differences among different impact locations and EMG phases.

RESULTS

Experienced athletes reduced the racket impact to the elbow joint by 89.2%, but recreational players reduced it by only 61.8%. The largest EMG differences were found in the follow-through phase (P<0.05). Experienced athletes showed that their extensor and flexor EMGs were at submaximal level for follow-through phase, whereas recreational players maintained their flexor and extensor EMGs at either supramaximal or maximal level.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the hypothesis that recreational players transmit more shock impact from the racket to the elbow joint and use larger wrist flexor and extensor EMG activities at follow-through phase of the backhand stroke. Follow-through control is proposed as a critical factor for reduction of shock transmission. Clinicians or trainers should instruct beginners to quickly release their grip tightness after ball-to-racket impact to reduce shock impact transmission to the wrist and elbow.

Trunk rotation torques through the hip joints during the one- and two-handed backhand tennis strokes

The aim of the present study was to compare kinetically the roles of the lower extremities in generating trunk rotation in the tennis one-handed and two-handed backhand strokes. Fourteen male collegiate tennis players, seven with a preference for the one- and seven with a preference for the two-handed technique, were recruited as participants. The motion of each backhand stroke was filmed using two high-speed cine-cameras, and the ground reaction forces on the feet were measured separately using two force platforms to determine the joint moments and joint reaction forces at the hip, knee and ankle joints. A significant difference in hip joint moments between the two types of stroke was found in the phase from the start of forward rotation of the pelvis to the start of racket forward movement. For trunk rotation, the one-handed backhand players exerted a large joint moment in the front leg, whereas the two-handed backhand players exerted a large joint moment in the back leg. The exertion of a large hip joint moment in the latter stroke was comparable with the exertion in a forehand stroke reported previously.

Tennis

The study investigated differences in the one- (SH) and two-handed (DH) backhands when hit flat, across-court (AC) and down-the-line (DL), and with heavy topspin DL (TDL). The ability to disguise each of these backhands when hitting the above strokes was also assessed. Eighteen college-level male tennis players, identified as having a high performance topspin SH (n = 6) or DH (n = 12) backhand drive, participated in the study. Players were required to hit three AC, DL and TDL backhands from the baseline with their preferred technique, while being filmed with two high-speed video cameras operating at 200 Hz. The highest horizontal velocity backhand for each stroke was analysed. Results indicated that the sequential coordination of five body segments (hips, shoulder, upper arm, forearm, and hand/racquet rotations) was required for the execution of the SH stroke. The same number of segments were generally coordinated in the DH stroke (hips, shoulders, and varying degrees of upper arm and forearm rotations followed by hand/racquet movement). Mature players produced comparable racquet horizontal velocities 0.005 s prior to impact using either the SH or DH backhand technique. The SH backhand was characterised by a more rotated shoulder alignment than the DH stroke (SH: 119.1 degrees; DH: 83.4 degrees) at the completion of the backswing. At impact the ball was impacted further in front (SH: 0.59 m: DH: 0.40 m) and a similar distance to the side of the body (SH: 0.75 m: DH: 0.70 m). Players using the DH backhand technique delayed the horizontal acceleration of the racquet towards the ball (SH: 0.13 s: DH: 0.08 s prior to impact) and thus were capable of displaying a similar hitting motion closer to impact than players with a SH technique.

Comparison of ball-and-racquet impact force between two tennis backhand stroke techniqes

STUDY DESIGN

A mixed design for kinetic comparison of 2 types of one-handed backhand strokes and 2 skill levels in tennis.

OBJECTIVES

To develop and evaluate a model to estimate the impact force on the racquet during tennis stroke, and to compare the peak impact force between one-handed backhand stroke with a long backswing and one-handed backhand stroke with a short backswing and between the beginning and advanced players.

BACKGROUND

A one-handed backhand stroke is commonly used in tennis and may be associated with many upper extremity over-use injuries. An understanding of kinetics of the backhand stroke is essential for understanding injury mechanisms and prevention.

METHODS AND MEASURES

Five male advanced tennis players and 4 male and 1 female beginning tennis players participated. Mean age was 32.2 +/- 7.0 years. Each subject was instructed to use the 2 types of one-handed backhand strokes to hit balls from a tennis ball machine. Three-dimensional coordinates of critical body and racquet landmarks were obtained. A mathematical model was developed to estimate the contact duration and the peak impact force during a stroke.

RESULTS

The estimated peak impact forces were reproducible and comparable to those reported in the literature from direct measurements. A one-handed backhand stroke with a short backswing had a significantly shorter contact duration (0.008 +/- 0.003 seconds) and a greater peak resultant impact force (330.0 +/- 140.7) than that with a long backswing (0.016 +/- 0.004 seconds and 180.8 +/- 49.1 N). Skill level did not significantly affect the peak resultant impact force.

CONCLUSION

A long backswing in a one-handed backhand stroke may reduce the load on the upper extremity and may assist in reducing the risks of tennis-related upper extremity over-use injuries.