Truncated ….shortened in duration or extent.
System 5 would identify a Madison Keys forehand preparation as a number 6-7…exceedingly lengthy.
Most groundstrokes in the modern era finish over the opposite shoulder at a 4 or 5.
What about those groundstrokes that are truncated on the through swing? Pete Sampras at 10 years of age had a circular swing that finished out in front at #3 and his stroke became more complex in time with a #4. Ivan Lendl was number 1 in the world and his bread and butter forehand finished at 3.
Given that the ball is only on the strings for 1/250 th. of a second, does it really matter?
Why should coaches care if the completion of a forehand is 2,3,4, or 5…or if, like Elina Svitolina, the racquet handle finishes at her left hip or in her holster?
Is a 3 -5 finish indicative of an ascending swing plane? Is Elina’s holster shot lacking that swing plane?
If a coach put a rope 2.5 feet above the net and asked players to rally over the rope, would an ascending swing plane be created?
I have to think that it would and, in the same breath, would anyone change the holster swings of Svitolina and Kerber when they’ve risen to the top of the game?
Personally, I don’t think a player with a 2.5/truncated groundstroke whether it be forehand or backhand derives much pleasure when playing the shot.
Does a composite or continental grip lead to a truncated forehand?
Surely it could but Edberg proved it needn’t snuff the life from the shot.
Maybe it comes down to a player wanting to possess a plus forehand and are they willing to devote the necessary time on the ball machine and/or eye coach to get it.
What You’re Saying