Talk:Forehand

Tennis Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TennisWikipedia:WikiProject TennisTemplate:WikiProject Tennistennis articles

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tennis To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Take an item off the Cleanup listing
Copyedit : Roger Federer, Leander Paes, Rafael Nadal, Justine Henin – to be used as examples for ideal page structures
Expand : Grab a Start article and expand it, or peruse the List of articles.
Photo : Add photos to Tennis or Tennis people articles
Stubs : Bring a Stub up to our standards.
Other : *Sign up as a member of the project.
Tag more articles with our standard project template.
Help with the creation of yearly main articles and drawsheets for every Open Era ATP and WTA tournament.

1[edit]

Why does every tennis page insist on referencing Jack Kramer's book? Seriously, just make a page about that book so that if anyone cares about Kramer's opinion they can read about it. The book and its opinion are so horrifically out of date that it's silly for us to even be talking about it still. (What does it matter what Gonzales's forehand clocked in at when every top modern player can easily surpass that?) I really want wikipedia to remove all these meaningless Kramer references. The places Ellsworth Vines above Bjorn Borg. Should Kim Clijsters and Serena Williams be included on the list of great forehands? Their forehands are very good, but they are generally considered to be the much weaker and inconsistent side of both of those players.

Personally, I don't think they should be there, but I don't know that much about modern tennis. I think that "great" forehands, backhands, etc. should be reserved for those players, male or female, who are universally renowned for these particular stokes, such as Johnston, Vines, Kramer, Segura for the forehand, Budge and Rosewall for the backhand, etc. etc. Once there are more than, say, 8 or 10 players listed for each category, that category becomes devalued and mostly meaningless. Hayford Peirce 22:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

picture[edit]

can we have a better picture? one that accurately describes the forehand and is more technically correct? ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 06:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forehand Grips[edit]

This sections tells the reader nothing about the different grips for the forehand, which is a major part of the stroke. I propose further dividing this section into four sections titled Western, Semi-Western, Eastern, and Continental. Each section would discuss the history of the grip, the usage today of the grip, and the pro's and con's of the grip compared to the other grips. Yaanch 16:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Forehands[edit]

Something needs to be done about this section. There's just too many names listed there. Also, do people agree that the mention of Blake's short against Faurel should be removed? We've all seen some absolute bullets over the years. I don't think that particular shot deserves a mention nor do any else really. Depor23 (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly. Anyone could add (and has done?) any player's name, and unless there's a citation as a wp:RS, then the reader of the encyclopedia has no way of knowing whether the entry is justified. Strictly, I believe that - if we keep this section at all - every player listed should have a wp:CITE to justify their inclusion. Same for several strokes in tennis (& other sports I dare say). Trafford09 (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now being wp:Bold, and removing this 'yet another' list of players without wp:RS.

Feel free to add (or re-add) any player, providing you can also at the same time supply a wp:RS for each player, to justify their forehand claim. --Trafford09 (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Forehand. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1135707/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]