PDA

View Full Version : A brilliant idea to end the 1HBH VS 2HBH argument.


Golden Retriever
04-04-2008, 03:26 AM
Lets start a campaign right here right now to create a fifth GS where the players can only hit backhand (except the serve.) The court will be made smaller maybe about 45% to 50% smaller. My bet is on the 2HBHs dominating.

my_forehand
04-04-2008, 03:35 AM
...How?

Then you wouldn't have 2HBH against each other and vice versa

...and...have you even thought about the ratio between 1HBH players and 2HBH players?

Sentinel
04-04-2008, 03:38 AM
Why not we just hit what we hit best, and ST** ???!!!

Golden Retriever
04-04-2008, 03:41 AM
If the 1HBH were really superior then the ratio wouldn't matter much. The superior technique should always win.

Lets say if there were a serve-only GS where there were 100 underhand servers and 1 non-underhand server. Who would win?

my_forehand
04-04-2008, 03:45 AM
If the 1HBH were really superior then the ratio wouldn't matter much. The superior technique should always win.

Lets say if there were a serve-only GS where there were 100 underhand servers and 1 non-underhand server. Who would win?

Uhhh...yes...it would. You'd have less people, or the same amount of not-so-grand slam quality people.

If Roddick were the 1 non-underhand...;) or Karlovic...returning would a heck alot easy!

adams_1
04-04-2008, 04:30 AM
We don't need anything to end the argument, we just need everyone to realise that there is no argument.

There is no better backhand.

my_forehand
04-04-2008, 04:46 AM
^ Say it to Rickson or soy.

JohnnyCracker
04-04-2008, 05:02 AM
We don't need anything to end the argument, we just need everyone to realise that there is no argument.

There is no better backhand.

Just like there is no "better/best racquet".
Different strokes for different folks. :)

Andres
04-04-2008, 06:10 AM
If the 1HBH were really superior then the ratio wouldn't matter much. The superior technique should always win.

Lets say if there were a serve-only GS where there were 100 underhand servers and 1 non-underhand server. Who would win?
Since when a 1HBH is a superior shot? There's a reason why 70% of the players use 2 handers these days.

Prettier? Hell yeah.
More powerful? Hell yeah
Better acces to spin? Hell yeah
Less stable? Hell yeah
Less solid? Hell yeah

Better? No way

Is there any good up-and-comer with a 1HBH? (Gasquet is not really an up-and-comer anymore)

Penguin Slapper
04-04-2008, 07:44 AM
Since when a 1HBH is a superior shot? There's a reason why 70% of the players use 2 handers these days.

Prettier? Hell yeah.
More powerful? Hell yeah
Better acces to spin? Hell yeah
Less stable? Hell yeah
Less solid? Hell yeah

Better? No way


i dont really understand what your post is saying Andres. are you saying the 1HBH is prettier, more powerful, more spin-able(?), less stable and less solid, or the 2HBH is? are you saying the 1HBH is more powerful, more spin capable, but not as good because its less stable and less solid? im a little confused

my_forehand
04-04-2008, 07:48 AM
i dont really understand what your post is saying Andres. are you saying the 1HBH is prettier, more powerful, more spin-able(?), less stable and less solid, or the 2HBH is? are you saying the 1HBH is more powerful, more spin capable, but not as good because its less stable and less solid? im a little confused

....? Guess?

Duh, it's the one-hander. Andres is pro-2-hander, so he's saying the 2-hander is more stable and solid, but has less power and doesn't look as sick. Okay, you might have not known Andres is a 2-hander (hell, I don't even know if he is) but it's pretty obvious, just reading his post.

Penguin Slapper
04-04-2008, 12:13 PM
the 1HBH has more power than the two hander? i never thought so. i use a 1HBH and rather than more power it makes up with flexibility and recovery. i did not know that he thought it had more power.

saram
04-04-2008, 12:19 PM
A brilliant idea would be to stop posting threads like this...then there would be no argument.

Andres
04-04-2008, 12:34 PM
....? Guess?

Duh, it's the one-hander. Andres is pro-2-hander, so he's saying the 2-hander is more stable and solid, but has less power and doesn't look as sick. Okay, you might have not known Andres is a 2-hander (hell, I don't even know if he is) but it's pretty obvious, just reading his post.
I'm not. I play with a 1HBH, but it seems obvious to me that the 2HBH is the better shot. I prefer solid and stable over flashy and pretty every time.

sureshs
04-04-2008, 12:35 PM
What is the argument here? By how much more the 2 hander is better?

A.Davidson
04-04-2008, 12:36 PM
If the 1HBH were really superior then the ratio wouldn't matter much. The superior technique should always win.

Lets say if there were a serve-only GS where there were 100 underhand servers and 1 non-underhand server. Who would win?

Ah, the first paragraph - perfectly squashing the complaints of one-handers.

I like this idea, though shrinking the court does admittedly make things easier for the 2HBH.

Dedans Penthouse
04-04-2008, 12:41 PM
I'm not. I play with a 1HBH, but it seems obvious to me that the 2HBH is the better shot. I prefer solid and stable over flashy and pretty every time."Solid?"....."Stable?"......and you call yourself a musician? :shock:--"!!!"

;-)

Andres
04-04-2008, 12:47 PM
Of course! Think of a bass line. I prefer the solid and stable bass line over the pretty, flashy and over the place bassline.

Unless it's Yes' Roundabout *droooools*

Golden Retriever
04-04-2008, 12:51 PM
Actually you guys can try the BH-only match yourselves and see which BH wins more.

TennisNewbie85
04-04-2008, 01:19 PM
personally, i think this 1hbh and 2hbh is getting ********...players have their preference. They choose what they like and stick with it. so why should anyone critize them? plus, a 1hbher also uses the slice...which adds diversity to their game!!!!

Ryoma Kun
04-04-2008, 01:29 PM
Lets start a campaign right here right now to create a fifth GS where the players can only hit backhand (except the serve.) The court will be made smaller maybe about 45% to 50% smaller. My bet is on the 2HBHs dominating.

this must be the most ******** discussion ever, i think karlovich would win strait up considering he can kick it above most peoples heads.

how does this prove what backhand is better? it just proves which would be more consistent... the court would completely negate any angle shots and depend completely on power and consistency.

TennisProdigy
04-06-2008, 11:02 AM
I use a 2h and I use a one handed slice and one handed drop shot a good amount just to mix things up...

beedlejuice22
04-06-2008, 11:05 AM
Lets start a campaign right here right now to create a fifth GS where the players can only hit backhand (except the serve.) The court will be made smaller maybe about 45% to 50% smaller. My bet is on the 2HBHs dominating.

this is possibly the worst idea i have ever heard. no way would they ever start an all backhand tournament, let alone create a fifth grand slam. wouldnt making the court smaller basically eliminate the cross court back hand? you could only hit down the line. LAME.

Mr. Hokey
04-06-2008, 08:15 PM
flawed.

10char

sunnyIce
04-13-2008, 07:06 PM
2hbh is prettier? really?

Andres
04-13-2008, 08:03 PM
"A brilliant idea to end the 1HBH VS 2HBH argument"

Yeah... "brilliant" was the word I was looking for........ :roll:

Djokovicfan4life
04-13-2008, 08:25 PM
Of course! Think of a bass line. I prefer the solid and stable bass line over the pretty, flashy and over the place bassline.

Unless it's Yes' Roundabout *droooools*

I take it you're not a Primus fan? :lol:

Hot Sauce
04-13-2008, 08:27 PM
What if a player with a 2hbh took out a player with a better 2hbh, because of the serve? This thread fails.

Andres
04-13-2008, 08:31 PM
It took you like 3 weeks to realize this thread fails?? :D:D

Hot Sauce
04-13-2008, 08:39 PM
Sorry, lol. This is my first time seeing it.

dh003i
04-13-2008, 09:29 PM
Stupid thread, no such thing as which one's better. The fact that they're pro's and many of the top pro's use 1HBH indicates that there's pros and cons to each. Federer would not be as good as he is now with a 2 HBH, although maybe he'd be better on clay, but he'd be worse on grass.

spikyblackhair
04-13-2008, 10:41 PM
Yeah, it's personal preference; I switched from a 2h to 1h and I like the increased flexibility over the slightly greater consistency and firepower I had before. Being able to hit more easily when I have to on the run is nice, to say the least. Also, as a guitarist, I'll choose my pretty 1hbh and screaming solos over boring (but important) bass lines any day :lol: There are certainly times when I miss the absolute confidence I had in my two hander, though.

Actually, whenever I write bass lines for songs, I try to make them as complex and interesting as possible because I feel bad for bass players who don't have much to do. They all end up hating me for it, go figure.

AlpineCadet
05-17-2008, 01:35 AM
Stupid thread, no such thing as which one's better. The fact that they're pro's and many of the top pro's use 1HBH indicates that there's pros and cons to each. Federer would not be as good as he is now with a 2 HBH, although maybe he'd be better on clay, but he'd be worse on grass.
Found this thread, and can't help but agree with the above statement. This war shouldn't even exist because everyone is biomechanically different anyway. The 2hbh is much easier to learn, but the 1hbh is much more versatile.