PDA

View Full Version : Federer is the last one standing in the top 10 with a 1HBH.


Golden Retriever
04-06-2009, 01:09 AM
Is this something historical if everyone in the top 10 has a 2HBH?

msc886
04-06-2009, 01:46 AM
1 handed backhands are becoming more and more scarce.

paulorenzo
04-06-2009, 05:16 AM
1 handed backhands are becoming more and more scarce.

that seems to be the trend, but a certain grigor dimitrov comes to mind, and it makes me feel better about the future of the one handed backhand.

P_Agony
04-06-2009, 05:17 AM
that seems to be the trend, but a certain grigor dimitrov comes to mind, and it makes me feel better about the future of the one handed backhand.

I really hope you're right. I don't want this shot to go away, it's too pretty.

chiru
04-06-2009, 05:20 AM
the damn frustrating thing about it is that one of the most solid backhands in the men's game is a 1h bh (gasquet) which proves pretty definitively that it's not the 1 or 2 hands, but the player which makes the backhand lethal. thankfully for 2hbh proponents, he's a nutcase and will probably never get himself together enough to be a consistent top 10 contender.

paulorenzo
04-06-2009, 05:29 AM
the damn frustrating thing about it is that one of the most solid backhands in the men's game is a 1h bh (gasquet) which proves pretty definitively that it's not the 1 or 2 hands, but the player which makes the backhand lethal. thankfully for 2hbh proponents, he's a nutcase and will probably never get himself together enough to be a consistent top 10 contender.


yeh, like many, i idolize gasquet's backhand, but i cannot stand to watch him use it defensively, which pretty much happens every match at some point - having to muscle shots 10 feet behind the baseline.

harinder
04-06-2009, 06:20 AM
i watched parts of the dimitrov match against nadal and i noticed he handled those backhand shots from nadals cc fh pretty well. it seemed to me he was taking it a little later rather than on the rise as fed tries to do.

SaintClaires
04-06-2009, 06:32 AM
In the top 50 there are 15 players with one-handed backhands right now.


Would you consider that a lot?

sureshs
04-06-2009, 07:41 AM
Wawrinka got the best 1 hander

pmerk34
04-06-2009, 08:02 AM
In the top 50 there are 15 players with one-handed backhands right now.


Would you consider that a lot?

I remember the days where they said to be a top Male player a two handed backhand was considered a limiting liability. Now it is the exact opposite and I have read articles about how at the elite level the men need a two hander. The only constant is change.

betovanbuuren
04-06-2009, 08:14 AM
Wawrinka got the best 1 hander

Agree, Also Haas had a great 1HBH

EtePras
04-06-2009, 08:36 AM
Not a coincidence that he has the worst bh in the top 10.

oneguy21
04-06-2009, 08:40 AM
Not a coincidence that he has the worst bh in the top 10.

His backhands is better than Roddick's or Monfils' imo.

SaintClaires
04-06-2009, 08:44 AM
Monfils has the worst backhand in the top 10.

stormholloway
04-06-2009, 08:46 AM
Not a coincidence that he has the worst bh in the top 10.

What are you talking about?

1hbhBUX
04-06-2009, 08:52 AM
It was also encouraging to see that the opponents that Dimitrov beat in the Wimbledon Juniors and the US Open Juniors also had 1hbh. With any luck, we'll see SOME of the young players using it.

sureshs
04-06-2009, 09:28 AM
Agree, Also Haas had a great 1HBH

Wawrinka's got the best modern 1 hander - plenty of spin

DunlopDood
04-06-2009, 09:38 AM
with the way Federer dominated the game the last couple of years, I think we will see a lot of kids within the next 5-10 years with one handers.

My opinion on why there are more two handers in the game is that kids looking to become professional players are very results oriented now a days. 1hbh take longer to develop than 2hbh and not only the stroke itself but a person has to develop the physical strength to make this an offensive weapon. I don't think that kids have the patience to develop it today. It's a bit of a shame because players no tour are starting to look like clones of one another in terms of their play.

pmerk34
04-06-2009, 10:02 AM
with the way Federer dominated the game the last couple of years, I think we will see a lot of kids within the next 5-10 years with one handers.

My opinion on why there are more two handers in the game is that kids looking to become professional players are very results oriented now a days. 1hbh take longer to develop than 2hbh and not only the stroke itself but a person has to develop the physical strength to make this an offensive weapon. I don't think that kids have the patience to develop it today. It's a bit of a shame because players no tour are starting to look like clones of one another in terms of their play.


That's just sour grapes, perhaps just admit the two hander is better for the way elite level men's tennis is played now.

sureshs
04-06-2009, 10:05 AM
I have heard by now from two pros, one male and the other female, that the main advantage of the 2 hander in the modern game is the return of serve. Since it is the second most important stroke, it has a disproportionate importance.

ChanceEncounter
04-06-2009, 10:44 AM
I have heard by now from two pros, one male and the other female, that the main advantage of the 2 hander in the modern game is the return of serve. Since it is the second most important stroke, it has a disproportionate importance.
The serve often kicks up higher and has a tremendous amount of spin and pace that makes it hard for one handers to handle.

But as mentioned, pros like Wawrinka and Gasquet have plenty good backhands and they both use 1 handers. It's hard to learn the 1hbh, but the rewards in variety are often worth it.

It's all just progression. We're in a phase right now, but I don't see the 1HBH becoming completely obsolete any time soon.

mental midget
04-06-2009, 10:49 AM
I have heard by now from two pros, one male and the other female, that the main advantage of the 2 hander in the modern game is the return of serve. Since it is the second most important stroke, it has a disproportionate importance.

hard to argue with.

the other drawbacks of a 1-hander (and i hit one) are preparation and recovery time.

heninfan99
04-06-2009, 10:52 AM
My coach tells me the two hander is much easier to learn. Pros are so competitive & pressured from an early age they go with the two hander as they want fast results.

Feds return of serve is equal to Agassi's. He does very well against huge servers.

BreakPoint
04-06-2009, 11:17 AM
That's just sour grapes, perhaps just admit the two hander is better for the way elite level men's tennis is played now.
I think all the 2HBH players that have lost to Federer on the pro tour would disagree.

chiru
04-06-2009, 11:20 AM
Feds return of serve is equal to Agassi's. He does very well against huge servers.

Are you for serious? did you ever see andre play...like ever? IMO federer has THE most overrated return of anyone i can think of ever. I think the reason why everyone creams over it is because he manhandles roddick everytime they play.

roger just blocks returns back, whether it's going 88 mph or 145mph. When i saw roger play IW a couple weeks back in the semis vs. murray there was really only one return that i felt he "went" for on the return, and he hit a down the line forehand ripper from the ad court (stepped around the shot, the whole 9 yards). that was basically the only aggressive return that i can recall seeing. oh and by the by, it was a murray second serve at something like 80ish mph with no spin that murray had mishit.

the reason why that's so effective vs. roddick is because he can't back up the big serve by annihilating a blocked return either from the ground or by serving and volleying. the guys that consistently beat roger, nadal and djokovic can simply hit the hell out of the ball and punish roger for a weak reply. Murray plays cat and mouse and finds some new angle off of roger's weak reply which basically takes him off the court after which murray can move him around and/or finish the point.

Golden Retriever
04-06-2009, 11:23 AM
Federer is playing like Moya now standing at the left corner looking to hit only forehands.

chiru
04-06-2009, 11:36 AM
Federer is playing like Moya now standing at the left corner looking to hit only forehands.

with the way his forehand has been looking of late i certainly hope not...

swedechris
04-06-2009, 11:48 AM
that seems to be the trend, but a certain grigor dimitrov comes to mind, and it makes me feel better about the future of the one handed backhand.

He is a great great talent. i really hope he will make it. love this kind of players.. edberg, pete,federer .. the occasional rare talents with all the fluid shots and movement.

sureshs
04-06-2009, 12:14 PM
My coach tells me the two hander is much easier to learn. Pros are so competitive & pressured from an early age they go with the two hander as they want fast results.

Feds return of serve is equal to Agassi's. He does very well against huge servers.

I think all the 2HBH players that have lost to Federer on the pro tour would disagree.

Everything is not about Fed. He is one guy who can pull it off. One of the two pros I quoted was John Isner. The other one was a former WTA player who I cannot recall. Interestingly, they didn't discuss reach, topspin, high ball groundies etc. It was just about the return of serve. My interpretation is that the fraction more time it takes to cross over the shoulder for a 1 handed backhand return of serve is the real issue. The open stance 2 hander keeps the returner in the right position all the time to catch the ball.

tudwell
04-06-2009, 12:22 PM
Why does everyone say one-handers aren't good for high balls? I have a one-hander and I love high balls. Really allows me to tee off.

pmerk34
04-06-2009, 12:30 PM
I think all the 2HBH players that have lost to Federer on the pro tour would disagree.

Fed is one guy, who happens to be one the of the greatest players if not the greatest ever. I'm not going to use him as an example of one handed backhands coming back into vogue.

nikdom
04-06-2009, 12:47 PM
I have a simple theory and I could be totally wrong, but I think this is what explains the efficacy of the 2HBH vs 1HBH in today's game.

What a 1HBH gives a player is slightly greater reach. In fact that's the only option for a good slice or a defensive get when the ball is way off the court. The 2HBH trades that extra reach for power, stability and what I would call "vertical reach", i.e ability to handle higher bounces better*. The only prerequisite is that a player has to be in position to take the ball closer to his/her body.

With this in mind, I think the slowing of all surfaces and the increased athleticism of players has had a pretty drastic effect on the efficacy of the 2HBH shot. The ball doesn't skid through the court as much, bouncing higher in the process and athletic players like Nadal and Murray are able to make gets which were the exception a generation ago.

All this said, the one-hander will continue to be around, although in much less numbers. As for 1HBH top ten players, I bet the proportion will stay the same as for all the players in the ATP.

* In the case of the high backhand, swinging a single arm from back to front while keeping it raised involves smaller muscles like the deltoids. Adding another hand to the equation improves the situation drastically because now stronger muscles like the biceps brachii are helping. The other issue is wrist cocking to keep the ball down. Its far easier to turn a wrist towards the inside of the hand than outside.

pmerk34
04-06-2009, 01:03 PM
I have a simple theory and I could be totally wrong, but I think this is what explains the efficacy of the 2HBH vs 1HBH in today's game.

What a 1HBH gives a player is slightly greater reach. In fact that's the only option for a good slice or a defensive get when the ball is way off the court. The 2HBH trades that extra reach for power, stability and what I would call "vertical reach", i.e ability to handle higher bounces better*. The only prerequisite is that a player has to be in position to take the ball closer to his/her body.

With this in mind, I think the slowing of all surfaces and the increased athleticism of players has had a pretty drastic effect on the efficacy of the 2HBH shot. The ball doesn't skid through the court as much, bouncing higher in the process and athletic players like Nadal and Murray are able to make gets which were the exception a generation ago.

All this said, the one-hander will continue to be around, although in much less numbers. As for 1HBH top ten players, I bet the proportion will stay the same as for all the players in the ATP.

* In the case of the high backhand, swinging a single arm from back to front while keeping it raised involves smaller muscles like the deltoids. Adding another hand to the equation improves the situation drastically because now stronger muscles like the biceps brachii are helping. The other issue is wrist cocking to keep the ball down. Its far easier to turn a wrist towards the inside of the hand than outside.

I know Edberg was awesome at the high one hander, maybe Guga too? Who actually Preferred it up high? We are talking some seriously skilled players who can pull of the high backhand at the highest levels and even they were better at the lower backhand.

gflyer
04-06-2009, 01:22 PM
That's just sour grapes, perhaps just admit the two hander is better for the way elite level men's tennis is played now.

I don't think there is a better/worse BH.
I think there are better/worse players
The fact is that young kids pick up easier a 2HBH and therefore right now it's more popular.
Think about the women tour.
There are maybe 5-6 1HBH players in the first 100, and still if Justine didn't retire she still would be the undiscussed #1.
what is your conclusion?

sureshs
04-06-2009, 01:24 PM
pick up easier a 2HBH and therefore right now it's more popular.


There is a well-known tennis coach who posts in the Tips area and he has debunked this myth. The 2HBH is being preferred these days for a good number of reasons, not just strength limitations of youngsters.

pmerk34
04-06-2009, 01:26 PM
I don't think there is a better/worse BH.
I think there are better/worse players
The fact is that young kids pick up easier a 2HBH and therefore right now it's more popular.
Think about the women tour.
There are maybe 5-6 1HBH players in the firs 100, and still if Justine didn't retire she still would be the undiscussed #1.

The problem with a thread like this is that we tend to interject any level of tennis we want or our own biases. My responses were strictly based on the men's pro tour where I see the two hander's taking over right now.

gflyer
04-06-2009, 01:28 PM
There is a well-known tennis coach who posts in the Tips area and he has debunked this myth. The 2HBH is being preferred these days for a good number of reasons, not just strength limitations of youngsters.

whatever is the reason do you agree that most of the players out there use a 2HBH?
About my point on justine henin? You didn't reply to that...

BreakPoint
04-06-2009, 01:32 PM
Fed is one guy, who happens to be one the of the greatest players if not the greatest ever. I'm not going to use him as an example of one handed backhands coming back into vogue.
Hmmm....did it ever cross your mind that perhaps having a one-handed backhand is one of the things that makes him one of the greatest players ever?

The other two players that most people mention as being the greatest ever are Laver and Sampras. Guess what? They also had 1HBH's, just like Federer. Not exactly a coincidence, is it?

gflyer
04-06-2009, 01:35 PM
btw, it looks to me that Federer has been #1 for quite a while until great Rafa came and took his place. Where were all the other 2HBH players at that time?
You are gonna tell me that 2HBH became better in the last 9/12 months?
Again, I think there are better or worse players, not better or worse BH. IMO

sureshs
04-06-2009, 01:39 PM
Hmmm....did it ever cross your mind that perhaps having a one-handed backhand is one of the things that makes him one of the greatest players ever?

The other two players that most people mention as being the greatest ever are Laver and Sampras. Guess what? They also had 1HBH's, just like Federer. Not exactly a coincidence, is it?

In Laver's time, most players were 1 handers. It doesn't count.

Sampras was inspired by Laver, and Federer by Sampras. Sampras was also forced by his coach to switch. So it is more a tradition/coaching issue than talent. Federer even used the same frame as Sampras did, before switching to a bigger one.

Now the players who consistently beat Federer are all 2 handers. While 1 handers like Blake, Wawrinka and Haas give him no trouble at all.

pmerk34
04-06-2009, 01:43 PM
Hmmm....did it ever cross your mind that perhaps having a one-handed backhand is one of the things that makes him one of the greatest players ever?

The other two players that most people mention as being the greatest ever are Laver and Sampras. Guess what? They also had 1HBH's, just like Federer. Not exactly a coincidence, is it?

I'm talking about the mens game now. Not a greatest players ever type thing.

gflyer
04-06-2009, 01:44 PM
One more thing, in the top 10 there are 8 righty and 2 lefty.
Am I allowed to say that righty are better than lefty players?
just kidding, don't jump on me :D

gflyer
04-06-2009, 01:45 PM
In Laver's time, most players were 1 handers. It doesn't count.

And now most players are 2 handers.
Can you reverse the concept???

BreakPoint
04-06-2009, 01:47 PM
Now the players who consistently beat Federer are all 2 handers. While 1 handers like Blake, Wawrinka and Haas give him no trouble at all.
Um...could that be because there are just more two-handers on the pro tour than there are one-handers? He plays more opponents that have 2-handers so of course he's going to lose more to opponents with 2-handers. It's common sense. He has also lost to one-handers in the past like Blake, Gasquet, Haas, Karlovic, etc.

BTW, don't Roddick, Davydenko, Hewitt, Fish, Safin, etc. have two-handers? :oops:

Cesc Fabregas
04-06-2009, 01:50 PM
Um...could that be because there are just more two-handers on the pro tour than there are one-handers? He plays more opponents that have 2-handers so of course he's going to lose more to opponents with 2-handers. It's common sense. He has also lost to one-handers in the past like Blake, Gasquet, Haas, Karlovic, etc.

BTW, don't Roddick, Davydenko, Hewitt, Fish, Safin, etc. have two-handers? :oops:

Federer loses to players with good 2 handers like Murray, Nadal, Djoker and Nalbandian in backhand ralleys a good 2 hander will always beat a good 1 hander.

pmerk34
04-06-2009, 01:51 PM
Um...could that be because there are just more two-handers on the pro tour than there are one-handers? He plays more opponents that have 2-handers so of course he's going to lose more to opponents with 2-handers. It's common sense. He has also lost to one-handers in the past like Blake, Gasquet, Haas, Karlovic, etc.

BTW, don't Roddick, Davydenko, Hewitt, Fish, Safin, etc. have two-handers? :oops:

He's going to lose to opponents who are able to exploit his weakness and the players that are able to do so right now have two handed backhands that they can bludgeon him with.

The guys on the pro tour with the two handers seem to make much less errors off that wing than the one handers do.

pmerk34
04-06-2009, 01:53 PM
Federer loses to players with good 2 handers like Murray, Nadal, Djoker and Nalbandian in backhand ralleys a good 2 hander will always beat a good 1 hander.

Yes if you take a high level two hander like Djoker and rally him against a high level one hander like Blake, the one hander will make more mistakes. These two handers just grind out the topspin all day

Cup8489
04-06-2009, 02:11 PM
Yes if you take a high level two hander like Djoker and rally him against a high level one hander like Blake, the one hander will make more mistakes. These two handers just grind out the topspin all day

i wouldnt call blake a high level one hander, his rank is a result more of the fh than the backhand. and yeah, in a straight rally the 2hbh may be more consistent. but the two players mentioned most here, Wawrinka and Gasquet, don't tend to hit rally shots with their backhands, rather they tend to go for winners. Wawrinka with his 1hbh definitely stayed with Djokovic in....was it Rome? last year, the clay final. djokovic came out, because he's got more weapons over all. but Wawrinka's backhand was definitely not letting him down.

pmerk34
04-06-2009, 02:14 PM
i wouldnt call blake a high level one hander, his rank is a result more of the fh than the backhand. and yeah, in a straight rally the 2hbh may be more consistent. but the two players mentioned most here, Wawrinka and Gasquet, don't tend to hit rally shots with their backhands, rather they tend to go for winners. Wawrinka with his 1hbh definitely stayed with Djokovic in....was it Rome? last year, the clay final. djokovic came out, because he's got more weapons over all. but Wawrinka's backhand was definitely not letting him down.

Blake crushes off the BH but like most of the one handed backhands I see on the tour it;s not as consistent as the two handers around his same ranking.

sureshs
04-06-2009, 02:18 PM
And now most players are 2 handers.
Can you reverse the concept???

Um...could that be because there are just more two-handers on the pro tour than there are one-handers?

Both of you are saying the same thing. No, the argument cannot be reversed. Today, players can see what has happened in the past, when there were both 1 handers and 2 handers, and yet they go with the 2 hander. It was different when only 1 handers were available for study. Today's upcoming pros could have looked at Sampras, Edberg, Laver, Navratilova, Graf and chosen to go that way, but instead they went the direction of Borg, Courier, Agassi, or Evert. It is like most people today buy cars with automatic transmissions even though manual transmissions are available.

edberg505
04-06-2009, 02:29 PM
Both of you are saying the same thing. No, the argument cannot be reversed. Today, players can see what has happened in the past, when there were both 1 handers and 2 handers, and yet they go with the 2 hander. It was different when only 1 handers were available for study. Today's upcoming pros could have looked at Sampras, Edberg, Laver, Navratilova, Graf and chosen to go that way, but instead they went the direction of Borg, Courier, Agassi, or Evert. It is like most people today buy cars with automatic transmissions even though manual transmissions are available.

BS, I would be willing to bet you anything that if you took a 12 year old who was winning everything in sight; and he decided to learn a one hander that it wouldn't go over so well. Basically because he/she is so in love with winning they'd never stick with the switch. Even if the coach told him/her they'd be better for the switch in the long run. I applaud the youngsters who make the switch and stick with it. Another reason to be impressed by Sampras because he was audacious enough to make the switch even though he knew he would start losing more matches in the juniors because of it.

sureshs
04-06-2009, 02:37 PM
BS, I would be willing to bet you anything that if you took a 12 year old who was winning everything in sight; and he decided to learn a one hander that it wouldn't go over so well. Basically because he/she is so in love with winning they'd never stick with the switch. Even if the coach told him/her they'd be better for the switch in the long run. I applaud the youngsters who make the switch and stick with it. Another reason to be impressed by Sampras because he was audacious enough to make the switch even though he knew he would start losing more matches in the juniors because of it.

The story of Sampras, from what I have read, is more complex. His coach/mentor at that time brainwashed him to switch as he wanted Sampras to be an attacking player. I am also not sure he "knew" he would lose - easy to say in hindsight. More likely he went along with what he was told. Once a person is successful, anything they did in the past automatically becomes the correct and brave choice. The reality is usually much more ambiguous.

msc886
04-06-2009, 02:45 PM
Um...could that be because there are just more two-handers on the pro tour than there are one-handers? He plays more opponents that have 2-handers so of course he's going to lose more to opponents with 2-handers. It's common sense. He has also lost to one-handers in the past like Blake, Gasquet, Haas, Karlovic, etc.

BTW, don't Roddick, Davydenko, Hewitt, Fish, Safin, etc. have two-handers? :oops:

Davydenko, Hewitt, Safin and Fish have pretty good 2 handers as well. So 1 handers can beat 2 handers when used properly

edberg505
04-06-2009, 02:50 PM
The story of Sampras, from what I have read, is more complex. His coach/mentor at that time brainwashed him to switch as he wanted Sampras to be an attacking player. I am also not sure he "knew" he would lose - easy to say in hindsight. More likely he went along with what he was told. Once a person is successful, anything they did in the past automatically becomes the correct and brave choice. The reality is usually much more ambiguous.

I think the guy you are talking about is Pete Fisher. And, well he was in fact losing to people he used to own. Andre Agassi even said it in one of his interviews when he saw Pete in the juniors one year. He would think to himself, "Why did he switch to a one hander, his two hander was such a more reliable shot." Pete even said himself that he used to get upset when he would lose to players he used to beat with no problem. I think Chang was one of them too. So he surely could have switched back if he wanted.

sureshs
04-06-2009, 02:58 PM
I think the guy you are talking about is Pete Fisher. And, well he was in fact losing to people he used to own. Andre Agassi even said it in one of his interviews when he saw Pete in the juniors one year. He would think to himself, "Why did he switch to a one hander, his two hander was such a more reliable shot." Pete even said himself that he used to get upset when he would lose to players he used to beat with no problem. I think Chang was one of them too. So he surely could have switched back if he wanted.

I heard Agassi say on TV in the Sampras bio that the elite juniors at that time thought Sampras was finished. In fact, if he had come up against the likes of a Nadal at that time, he might have been finished.

Maybe he could have switched back, maybe his coach talked him out of it, we don't know. We don't know if he could have been a better player with a 2 hander, and been able to complete the Career Slam like Agassi.

runningmann
04-06-2009, 09:53 PM
Everything is not about Fed. He is one guy who can pull it off. One of the two pros I quoted was John Isner. The other one was a former WTA player who I cannot recall. Interestingly, they didn't discuss reach, topspin, high ball groundies etc. It was just about the return of serve. My interpretation is that the fraction more time it takes to cross over the shoulder for a 1 handed backhand return of serve is the real issue. The open stance 2 hander keeps the returner in the right position all the time to catch the ball.

Thats just because Isner can't think about more than one thing at a time :)

DunlopDood
04-06-2009, 10:42 PM
I don't want to get into an argument over which stroke is better it's been played out to death, however here's some food for thought. There's a good reason why the vast majority of all time greats all had one handers.

Fedace
04-06-2009, 10:45 PM
1-handed backhand is useless in the pro tour. shots are too heavy and too powerful to handle it with 1-hander. and the limited reach of 2-hander is negated by super fast speed, all the top pros possess.

DunlopDood
04-06-2009, 10:48 PM
1-handed backhand is useless in the pro tour. shots are too heavy and too powerful to handle it with 1-hander. and the limited reach of 2-hander is negated by super fast speed, all the top pros possess.

I think you're useless

BreakPoint
04-06-2009, 11:19 PM
1-handed backhand is useless in the pro tour. shots are too heavy and too powerful to handle it with 1-hander. and the limited reach of 2-hander is negated by super fast speed, all the top pros possess.
So then why aren't shots too heavy and too powerful for one-handed forehands? Do the pros only hit heavy powerful shots when hitting to their opponents' backhands but hit nice soft puff balls when they hit to their opponents' forehands? :confused: It's the same hand, isn't it?

don_nguyen11490
04-06-2009, 11:19 PM
Federer, Wawrinka, Gasquet are the few with 1HBHs and yet each of them turns their backhand into a deadly weapon.

Just pointing that out.

Fedace
04-06-2009, 11:24 PM
So then why aren't shots too heavy and too powerful for one-handed forehands? Do the pros only hit heavy powerful shots when hitting to their opponents' backhands but hit nice soft puff balls when they hit to their opponents' forehands? :confused: It's the same hand, isn't it?

Forehand is just fine, no problem because your hand is behind the racket and most of your hand is behind the racket.

Bottle Rocket
04-06-2009, 11:56 PM
ralleys a good 2 hander will always beat a good 1 hander.

I am amazed that tennis players/fans all over the world actually believe this as truth. Maybe it's just this board. I hope it's just this board. Nobody can actually present any real evidence (you know, not the subjective nonsense that is spread all over this place), yet people make this claim repeatedly. People that visit here are incredibly good at convincing themselves that so many things become truth just because they want to believe it.

I am only responding here to offer a differeing opinion and make a point to anyone reading this, who is trying to sort through all this nonsense, that this is not a one-sided argument, and there are guys that can offer a legitimate argument for the one-handed backhand. Many of them are certified teaching pro's, instructors, etc..., but just because they don't come around this forum doens't mean the opinion doesn't exist. I don't think this is the place to argue the real differences between the strokes, so I also don't think guys should be coming in here making blanket statements saying which one is superior.

I think you have to look at what is really going on. There are more two-handers at the top of the game than there are one-handers, but there are more two-handers at all levels of the game than there are one-handers. When new players get coaching, there is not an even distribution of guys starting out with one-handers and two-handers.

As the OP mentioned, coaches often recommend the two-hander by default. Most coaches, I think, would agree that the two-hander is easier to learn. Are things that come easier always better? Most aspects of life say otherwise, but this doesn't stop people in tennis. If it comes easier and quicker, more guys are going to stick with it and try to perfect it. I think this has been the case with the two-hander. I don't think the one-hander is given a fair chance by most, but I understand why - especially now.

I don't feel too strongly about the subject, I just hate totally subjective nonsense statements being put out in public.

So then why aren't shots too heavy and too powerful for one-handed forehands? Do the pros only hit heavy powerful shots when hitting to their opponents' backhands but hit nice soft puff balls when they hit to their opponents' forehands? :confused: It's the same hand, isn't it?

BreakPoint, I figured you might be here to defend the one-hander, but what the hell are you talking about here? You've come up with better arguments for some totally goofy stuff in the past. I think you're losing your edge.

As someone who knows as much about the game as you do, why would you ask such a meaningless question? Do you not know the answers? Do you not know the differences between the strokes? A one-handed backhand is not a mirrored version of a forehand. The footwork is different, the muscles required are different, the timing is different, the technical aspects of the stroke are totally different. You know all this. So why use such an incredibly weak argument against a guy like Fedace. Come on. Even Fedace is going to be able to refute that.

I don't understand what you're out to gain here. Makes no sense... But it is at least a little entertaining.

Bottle Rocket
04-07-2009, 12:02 AM
with the way Federer dominated the game the last couple of years, I think we will see a lot of kids within the next 5-10 years with one handers.

My opinion on why there are more two handers in the game is that kids looking to become professional players are very results oriented now a days. 1hbh take longer to develop than 2hbh and not only the stroke itself but a person has to develop the physical strength to make this an offensive weapon. I don't think that kids have the patience to develop it today. It's a bit of a shame because players no tour are starting to look like clones of one another in terms of their play.

Yeah, I must have missed this post the first time I read through this thread. Great post. There are also others in this thread that have made a similar point that shouldn't be overlooked.

Anyway, It isn't just players on tour... Have you ever seen decent high school players competing? Or players at junior tournament or academy? It is ridiculous how identical all their games are. More so than the WTA.

It makes the game pretty boring in many respects. The only upside I can think of is that to stand out, you truly have to put in extra work off the court, or have mental strength/toughness to stand out about the rest. Most people at those lower levels aren't going to have weapons that their opponent doesn't, except the tuly talented, or maybe those that weren't restricted by coaches early on.

Again though, you see this on the WTA tour. You watch the top 50 girls in practice and you'd never be able to pick out who would beat who. You watch them in a match when the pressure is on though and there are some significant differences, but it isn't usually technique.

BreakPoint
04-07-2009, 12:17 AM
I think you have to look at what is really going on. There are more two-handers at the top of the game than there are one-handers, but there are more two-handers at all levels of the game than there are one-handers.
That's actually not true. If you look at USTA League Tennis, it is dominated mostly by guys in their 30's, 40's and 50's and among this crowd, I see WAY MORE one-handed backhands than 2-handed backhands. In fact, it's VERY rare to see anyone with a 2HBH. I'd say the percentage of 1HBH male players in USTA leagues is well over 90%, if not 95%, at least in my area. As you get older, it's gets harder to move fast enough to use a 2HBH. You need the reach the 1HBH affords you. 1HBH players also tend to make better doubles players and league tennis is dominated by doubles.


BreakPoint, I figured you might be here to defend the one-hander, but what the hell are you talking about here? You've come up with better arguments for some totally goofy stuff in the past. I think you're losing your edge.

As someone who knows as much about the game as you do, why would you ask such a meaningless question? Do you not know the answers? Do you not know the differences between the strokes? A one-handed backhand is not a mirrored version of a forehand. The footwork is different, the muscles required are different, the timing is different, the technical aspects of the stroke are totally different. You know all this. So why use such an incredibly weak argument against a guy like Fedace. Come on. Even Fedace is going to be able to refute that.

I don't understand what you're out to gain here. Makes no sense... But it is at least a little entertaining.
What don't you understand? If you can defend against heavy powerful shots to your forehand, you should also be able to defend against the same with your 1HBH, assuming you have a good 1HBH. There's no shot that I can hit with my forehand that I can't hit with my backhand. In fact, I often run around my forehand to hit my 1HBH because I can defend with it better. I'd much rather people serve to my backhand than to my forehand and I'm always stepping to my right so that I can return hard hit serves with my backhand.

Bottle Rocket
04-07-2009, 12:26 AM
That's actually not true. If you look at USTA League Tennis, it is dominated mostly by guys in their 30's, 40's and 50's and among this crowd, I see WAY MORE one-handed backhands than 2-handed backhands. In fact, it's VERY rare to see anyone with a 2HBH. I'd say the percentage of 1HBH male players in USTA leagues is well over 90%, if not 95%, at least in my area. As you get older, it's gets harder to move fast enough to use a 2HBH. You need the reach the 1HBH affords you. 1HBH players also tend to make better doubles players and league tennis is dominated by doubles.


Ehh, I should have specified an age range or skill level or something, but now I feel that if I do, this might escalate into some crazy argument I really don't want to be part of. Buuut, I guess when I made that statement, I was talking about current high school players, juniors in some sort of academy, and especially, current college players. I would agree though, that overall, at all levels and ages, there are probably still more one-handers, but not in the same context as the one-handers being discussed in this thread.

As far as what "I don't understand", I don't think I am going to respond since I am almost positive you'd come up with some ridiculous response to mine that will make my head explode.

COPEY
04-07-2009, 12:32 AM
In Laver's time, most players were 1 handers. It doesn't count.

Sampras was inspired by Laver, and Federer by Sampras. Sampras was also forced by his coach to switch. So it is more a tradition/coaching issue than talent. Federer even used the same frame as Sampras did, before switching to a bigger one.

Now the players who consistently beat Federer are all 2 handers. While 1 handers like Blake, Wawrinka and Haas give him no trouble at all.

I believe the story goes that Sampras wanted to win Wimbledon, and his coached advised him that in order to achieve such a goal he had to have a one-handed backhand to serve and volley to do so (Borg, of course, was somewhat of an exception to that rule). In those days it was sage advice, so Pete set about making the change, and yes, it came at price--losing to guys he used to routinely beat.

As for the argument of 1hb vs 2hbh, it is indeed an old one. I teach tennis, but I don't force kids (with the exception of my 8-year-olds) to use 2 hands on the backhand. I work with 7 girls ranging from 10-18, and only one (15) uses a 1hbh. She simply preferred it to the the 2hbh. I didn't discourage it. I advised her of the pros and cons of both, but she opted to stick with the 1hbh. Now, her coaches at school tried to force her to use a 2hbh because that's all they know how to teach, but she's quickly becoming more effective on the backhand side (that is, she's winning matches, and decisively), so they've backed off trying to make her change.

I've always used one hand, and for me it just seems easier to learn the various slices (approach, defensive, rally), as well as adapt to volleying on the backhand side. You're already used to using one hand, so the transition to other shots on that side usually comes easier. From my experience, it's more difficult teaching someone with a well-established 2hbh to volley with one hand and slice because they're so used to having two hands on the backside, and making the change necessitates strengthening different muscles as well as adapting to something that's completely foreign--letting go of the dominant hand on the backside.

Anyway, my position is that neither is definitively better than the other.

pmerk34
04-07-2009, 05:21 AM
Ehh, I should have specified an age range or skill level or something, but now I feel that if I do, this might escalate into some crazy argument I really don't want to be part of. Buuut, I guess when I made that statement, I was talking about current high school players, juniors in some sort of academy, and especially, current college players. I would agree though, that overall, at all levels and ages, there are probably still more one-handers, but not in the same context as the one-handers being discussed in this thread.

As far as what "I don't understand", I don't think I am going to respond since I am almost positive you'd come up with some ridiculous response to mine that will make my head explode.


In other words players who are going to be pros are coming up using two hander's. But since most of the players on this board use one handers and one handers dominate the USTA it stands to reason that one handers are more suited to the pro game than two handers and one handed players simply have more skill.

So if you have a one handed backhand, congratulate yourself as you are more skilled on that side than most male pros for they use two handers.

heninfan99
04-07-2009, 05:24 AM
Not only have I seen Agassi play a gazillion times I've heard Agassi's comments at the 2007 US OPEN when he said Fed owned four or five shots that were the best in the game INCLUDING HIS RETURN OF SERVE.

I said EQUAL TO. Fed takes a different approach to Agassi but it's certainly its equal.

So, yes, I take Agaissi's opinion over yours.



Are you for serious? did you ever see andre play...like ever? IMO federer has THE most overrated return of anyone i can think of ever. I think the reason why everyone creams over it is because he manhandles roddick everytime they play.

roger just blocks returns back, whether it's going 88 mph or 145mph. When i saw roger play IW a couple weeks back in the semis vs. murray there was really only one return that i felt he "went" for on the return, and he hit a down the line forehand ripper from the ad court (stepped around the shot, the whole 9 yards). that was basically the only aggressive return that i can recall seeing. oh and by the by, it was a murray second serve at something like 80ish mph with no spin that murray had mishit.

the reason why that's so effective vs. roddick is because he can't back up the big serve by annihilating a blocked return either from the ground or by serving and volleying. the guys that consistently beat roger, nadal and djokovic can simply hit the hell out of the ball and punish roger for a weak reply. Murray plays cat and mouse and finds some new angle off of roger's weak reply which basically takes him off the court after which murray can move him around and/or finish the point.

heninfan99
04-07-2009, 05:28 AM
Always? That's just an idiotic statement.
a good 2 hander will always beat a good 1 hander.

heninfan99
04-07-2009, 05:31 AM
I was just re-watching Gasquet beating Djoker in straight sets this morning in Shanghai Masters. The one hander won him soooo many points from the baseline.

Don't give me Blake. He's the king of unforced errors on both sides.


Yes if you take a high level two hander like Djoker and rally him against a high level one hander like Blake, the one hander will make more mistakes. These two handers just grind out the topspin all day

pmerk34
04-07-2009, 05:35 AM
I was just re-watching Gasquet beating Djoker in straight sets this morning in Shanghai Masters. The one hander won him soooo many points from the baseline.

I don't doubt it. There are always exceptions.

stormholloway
04-07-2009, 05:37 AM
What don't you understand? If you can defend against heavy powerful shots to your forehand, you should also be able to defend against the same with your 1HBH, assuming you have a good 1HBH. There's no shot that I can hit with my forehand that I can't hit with my backhand. In fact, I often run around my forehand to hit my 1HBH because I can defend with it better. I'd much rather people serve to my backhand than to my forehand and I'm always stepping to my right so that I can return hard hit serves with my backhand.

What does this have to do with you specifically? It's as if you didn't even read the guy's post that you responded to. The forehand is not a mirror image of the one handed backhand. Power is derived differently. Weaker muscles tend to be involved in the one hander that require more preparation to generate racquet head momentum. I have a one hander and will defend the shot to the grave but your argument just doesn't make sense.

heninfan99
04-07-2009, 05:38 AM
Obviously, I'm a huge Henin fan. She had no problem with high balls to her backhand and she was able to do battle with the Williams sisters who have truly huge two handed backhands. I can't tell you how many shots (some outright winners) Henin hit up at her shoulders from the backhand side.

My take on all this is that the one hander not only gives you more options but is more powerful due to the whipping action you can get. Only the best players can tap into this though. The drawback is that switching your grip and getting into proper stance for the one-hander takes more time.

The reason we mention Federer is that he's in the Top 10 on the men's side. :-)

Everything is not about Fed. He is one guy who can pull it off. One of the two pros I quoted was John Isner. The other one was a former WTA player who I cannot recall. Interestingly, they didn't discuss reach, topspin, high ball groundies etc. It was just about the return of serve. My interpretation is that the fraction more time it takes to cross over the shoulder for a 1 handed backhand return of serve is the real issue. The open stance 2 hander keeps the returner in the right position all the time to catch the ball.

tennis_hand
04-07-2009, 08:08 AM
that seems to be the trend, but a certain grigor dimitrov comes to mind, and it makes me feel better about the future of the one handed backhand.

dimitrov...

he hasn't proved himself in the pro tour, so don't even mention him.
so what happened to Gasquet?

Golden Retriever
04-07-2009, 08:44 AM
A 2HBH is a lefty forehand. A forehand is almost always better than a backhand. Sure there are exceptions but are you sure you are one of them?

sureshs
04-07-2009, 08:49 AM
So then why aren't shots too heavy and too powerful for one-handed forehands? Do the pros only hit heavy powerful shots when hitting to their opponents' backhands but hit nice soft puff balls when they hit to their opponents' forehands? :confused: It's the same hand, isn't it?


1. No reaching across shoulder needed
2. For most people, dominant eye is the same one as dominant hand

sureshs
04-07-2009, 08:55 AM
Obviously, I'm a huge Henin fan. She had no problem with high balls to her backhand and she was able to do battle with the Williams sisters who have truly huge two handed backhands. I can't tell you how many shots (some outright winners) Henin hit up at her shoulders from the backhand side.

My take on all this is that the one hander not only gives you more options but is more powerful due to the whipping action you can get. Only the best players can tap into this though. The drawback is that switching your grip and getting into proper stance for the one-hander takes more time.

The reason we mention Federer is that he's in the Top 10 on the men's side. :-)

Henin was one of the best, but the men's game is a lot different. It is only very few like Wawrinka or Gasquet who can pull such things off. Also, the extreme Eastern grip used by Henin puts a lot of strain on the wrist.

JediMindTrick
04-07-2009, 09:24 AM
I actually think that Federer has the best one hander on the tour. In the AO 2009 final his backhand was on fire, he manhandled Nadal with the backhand.

Federer's has a backhand problem only against Nadal on clay, but then everybody has a problem against Nadal on clay, doesn't matter if they have a one hander, two hander, three hander, whatever, Nadal is crushing them.

BreakPoint
04-07-2009, 10:28 AM
In other words players who are going to be pros are coming up using two hander's. But since most of the players on this board use one handers and one handers dominate the USTA it stands to reason that one handers are more suited to the pro game than two handers and one handed players simply have more skill.

So if you have a one handed backhand, congratulate yourself as you are more skilled on that side than most male pros for they use two handers.
Most pros started playing tennis when they're like 3 to 6 years old or else it's unlikely they would have made it as pros. At that age, most of them didn't have the strength to hit 1HBH so they used two hands. Perfectly natural.

Most league players started playing tennis as adults or teens. Are you saying they also didn't have the strength to hit 1HBH at that age?

heninfan99
04-07-2009, 10:36 AM
It would be amazing if, someday, a Top 10 player mastered both techniques.


Henin was one of the best, but the men's game is a lot different. It is only very few like Wawrinka or Gasquet who can pull such things off. Also, the extreme Eastern grip used by Henin puts a lot of strain on the wrist.

BreakPoint
04-07-2009, 10:36 AM
What does this have to do with you specifically? It's as if you didn't even read the guy's post that you responded to. The forehand is not a mirror image of the one handed backhand. Power is derived differently. Weaker muscles tend to be involved in the one hander that require more preparation to generate racquet head momentum. I have a one hander and will defend the shot to the grave but your argument just doesn't make sense.
My response was in addressing Fedace's comment that shots are too heavy and powerful to defend with a 1HBH so you need a 2HBH.

That's is false. If even I can defend with my 1HBH as well as my forehand, then I'm sure most pros can as well. I didn't notice Wawrinka nor Haas unable to defend the same shots to their backhands as with their forehands.

So I was asking Fedace why powerful shots are too difficult to handle with a one-handed backhand but not with a one-handed forehand? It's the same hand, right?

BreakPoint
04-07-2009, 10:41 AM
A 2HBH is a lefty forehand. A forehand is almost always better than a backhand. Sure there are exceptions but are you sure you are one of them?
But most people are not ambidextrous. If you're righty and you're so good with your left hand, why not just hit two forehands both with one hand and not have to hit a backhand at all? You'd certainly have more reach.

BreakPoint
04-07-2009, 10:50 AM
1. No reaching across shoulder needed
2. For most people, dominant eye is the same one as dominant hand
If that were true, most people should have better backhands than forehands. If you're right-handed, on the backhand your right eye is the leading eye as it's the one that's closer to the incoming ball and is the one that tracks the ball more than the other eye. On the forehand, it's your left eye that's the leading eye.

In fact, you bring up a good point. I've always theorized that maybe I have a better backhand than forehand because I have astigmatism in my left eye, so on my forehand that's my leading eye (I'm right-handed). But on my backhand, my right eye is the leading eye so I can see the ball better and so I'm more consistent in hitting the sweetspot on the backhand. Of course, hitting the ball further out in front with a 1HBH also helps in seeing the ball better on the backhand than on the forehand.

dextor
04-07-2009, 10:55 AM
It would be amazing if, someday, a Top 10 player mastered both techniques.

It'd be amazing if a top 10 player is ambidextrous and switched racquet hands so they're always hitting forehand

ChanceEncounter
04-07-2009, 05:50 PM
It'd be amazing if a top 10 player is ambidextrous and switched racquet hands so they're always hitting forehand
I wonder why Nadal never learned to do this.

Golden Retriever
04-07-2009, 09:21 PM
But most people are not ambidextrous. If you're righty and you're so good with your left hand, why not just hit two forehands both with one hand and not have to hit a backhand at all? You'd certainly have more reach.

The left hand is weaker hence the additional right hand for support. But still it is a forehand with all the biomechanical advantage, more wrist movement, the palm being behind the handle etc, of a forehand.

OF course at the amateur level the difference is not that apparent. Heck, at the amateur level you probably could just hit a 1HBH slice all the time and still get away with it. I myself lose to onehanders all the time. At the pro level, you would need every addtional advantages that you might get. You won't be able to just hit slices and win Nadal.

Golden Retriever
04-07-2009, 09:36 PM
I actually think that Federer has the best one hander on the tour. In the AO 2009 final his backhand was on fire, he manhandled Nadal with the backhand.

Federer's has a backhand problem only against Nadal on clay, but then everybody has a problem against Nadal on clay, doesn't matter if they have a one hander, two hander, three hander, whatever, Nadal is crushing them.


Are you being sarcastic? Did you know that Federer lost the AO 2009 final against Nadal?

BreakPoint
04-07-2009, 09:39 PM
Are you being sarcastic? Did you know that Federer lost the AO 2009 final against Nadal?
Yeah, but Federer losing the '09 AO final had nothing at all to do with his backhand. It was his serve that let him down. Plain and simple.

Golden Retriever
04-07-2009, 09:50 PM
Ok, whatever. Just keep your 1HBH. It won't hurt your game at the amateur level anyways. Maybe one day it become sure a rarity that people might pay you to showcase it.

tudwell
04-07-2009, 09:54 PM
Gasquet has the best backhand on tour and it's a one-hander.

Golden Retriever
04-07-2009, 10:13 PM
It maybe the best looking but is it really the best? I would take Nalbandian's backhand over Gasquet's.

sh@de
04-07-2009, 10:13 PM
^ Wawrinka's backhand some serious stuff as well. It's a one hander too.

tudwell
04-07-2009, 10:17 PM
It maybe the best looking but is it really the best? I would take Nalbandian's backhand over Gasquet's.

Ah, darn. Okay maybe Nalbandian's is better. But Gasquet's is still better than all those other two handers.

canuckfan
04-07-2009, 10:19 PM
It maybe the best looking but is it really the best? I would take Nalbandian's backhand over Gasquet's.

Nalby or Murray have the best backhands on tour. Gasquet's is flashiest but crazy winners are less important than steady domination...in my opinion.

Mr. Hokey
04-07-2009, 10:19 PM
Moving away from the topic of one handers and two handers... I just need to note how disturbingly post driven users of this forum are. I won't mention any names, even though we're all very aware of them. On just about every forum I've been on, the people possessed the facilities to EDIT their posts, but here, people can't find 30 seconds to do so. The end result is a chain of posts by one user that could have easily been condensed into one. I would imagine that people here could care less about whether or not someone bothered to edit their posts; I just figured it would be worth mentioning.

Now with regards to the debate between one handers and two handers, I'll have to agree with the comment that the huge difference between the two strokes are the time needed to prepare and recover from them. Having practiced both over my high school career(two handed my first two years and one handed the last two), I have noticed distinct differences in their functions and style applications.

When counter punching or retrieving, two handed backhands were absolutely splendid. The ability to load and fire one at any given time or position served my needs perfectly. Ironically, I actually struggled with the serve return, but then again, I was probably just an anomaly. Also, I found that with a two handed backhand, I was definitely more comfortable hitting higher awkward shots than with my one handed backhand. However, the lower the shot, the more I was tempted to use my one handed backhand. When I finally got sick of all this counter punching and retrieving, I made my journey back to a one handed backhand(I started playing tennis with a one handed backhand). The change was huge.

The style of play I ended up with was immensely different from those first two years. I found that I could not afford to get stuck in long points with my one hander which was increasingly less comfortable against my opponents. Don't get me wrong, my backhand, whether one handed or two handed, was always my go-to shot, but as I played more "cookie-cutter" players that just pummeled me from the baseline, I had to concede that I was not going to out last them. To get any kind of decent top spin or pace, I would need substantially more preparation compared to my two hander, so when a shot was blasted at my backhand, the reply was a weak bunt or a slice. (My two hander was much more compact, as I would imagine is similar with everyone else's, therefore hitting a decent shot against aggressive balls was much easier.) The end result, I had to play a very gritty, do-whatever-it-takes style of play. I needed variety of spin and angles just to make sure that my one hander would not become a liability. Now what's my point with all this?

The reason the two hander is so much more dominant now is because of the style of play. Kids raised to play tennis competitively face what many of us know as "junior strat" with high moon balls every shot. Two handed backhands are just more natural for four-foot kids to use against them. For the same reason, western forehands are a lot more natural to these kids because their contacts points are so high.

But then you see people like Federer and Sampras being termed GOATs. Think of what they had to accomplish to be successful? They had to find the variety and shots that would let them compete in a two handed world. I like to relate this concept to professional lefties. We can all agree that lefties have some sort of advantage over right handed players, why then aren't there more top lefties. Granted we have Nadal ripping through his matches like crazy, but still, where are they? Lefties in lower divisions get used to winning their matches because of their advantages and they get in this rut where they think it'll take them to endless heights. I have to think of Feliciano Lopez when it comes to this. He has the mean lefty serve that would just rip up lower division players, but without the will to be great and the effort to make use of his talent, he'll be stuck there. Forever only capable of reaching a certain level. One handers are jammed into this predicament. Be great, or fall behind all the clones. In my opinion, that's why whenever I saw a one handed player on the opposing team (high school var) I could pretty much assume that they were either the #1 player, or one of the crappiest players on the team. Two handers would fill in the rest of the slots.

COPEY
04-07-2009, 10:52 PM
Interesting observations.

paulorenzo
04-08-2009, 12:42 AM
dimitrov...

he hasn't proved himself in the pro tour, so don't even mention him.
so what happened to Gasquet?

how can one not mention him? he can very well be a future great ohbh player.

i agree he hasnt gotten the titles on the pro tour yet, but he has the game.
In rotterdam this year, at the age of 17 with a shoulder injury, he pushed RAFA NADAL to three sets.
Bro, i can definitely mention him.

Golden Retriever
04-08-2009, 05:40 AM
I notice that people here have this bias toward 1HBH. If you have a 1HBH and you are in the top 50 then you are something special. If you have a 2HBH but not in the top 5 at least you are just not worth mentioning.

pmerk34
04-08-2009, 06:00 AM
I notice that people here have this bias toward 1HBH. If you have a 1HBH and you are in the top 50 then you are something special. If you have a 2HBH but not in the top 5 at least you are just not worth mentioning.

The best players in the world are using two handers save for a few.

heninfan99
04-08-2009, 07:24 AM
Agassi used his front arm mostly on his classic two hander backhand. Nadal is one of the few that muscles it with the back arm.

A 2HBH is a lefty forehand. A forehand is almost always better than a backhand. Sure there are exceptions but are you sure you are one of them?

heninfan99
04-08-2009, 07:35 AM
Absolutely!
Yeah, but Federer losing the '09 AO final had nothing at all to do with his backhand. It was his serve that let him down. Plain and simple.

heninfan99
04-08-2009, 07:38 AM
I don't know about that but strain doesn't matter. If it did no one would play tennis at all.
Also, the extreme Eastern grip used by Henin puts a lot of strain on the wrist.

heninfan99
04-08-2009, 07:54 AM
You know what, not only is the two hander easier to learn but very few people serve & volley. The great serve & volloyers are one handers for various reasons.
I love the players with an all court game and I love that Nadal is now using the 1 handed slice and also coming to net sometimes. He's open minded and willing to improve his game seemingly every few weeks. I find the one hander more beautiful to watch. I got into tennis when I saw Edberg's one hander. The two hander is an ugly, utilitarian shot but there are exceptions. i.e. Rios has a beautiful two hander.

Obviously, tennis is now mostly dominated by baseliners without an all court game (thanks Agassi :-) ) and that's the real reason people use the two hander.

Have you ever seen Davydenko or Serena Williams volley? It's tennis at its ugliest.

JediMindTrick
04-08-2009, 08:52 AM
Are you being sarcastic? Did you know that Federer lost the AO 2009 final against Nadal?

I wasn't sarcastic at all. Federer didn't lose that match because of his backhand, he lost it because he had a bad back and couldn't serve well. Even so Nadal was a bit lucky to pull out a win because Federer dominated the first 4 sets. If Federer brings that backhand at the FO he may shock the world!

Cyan
04-08-2009, 11:24 AM
2HBH is the future for sure....

edberg505
04-08-2009, 12:20 PM
2HBH is the future for sure....

I'm pretty sure that's what people said when Lleyton Hewitt was tearing up the tour and we all know what happened next. People have been claiming this for quite some time but those darned one handed players just can't seem to stay away. LOL

pmerk34
04-08-2009, 12:46 PM
I'm pretty sure that's what people said when Lleyton Hewitt was tearing up the tour and we all know what happened next. People have been claiming this for quite some time but those darned one handed players just can't seem to stay away. LOL

How many one handers are in the top 25?

edberg505
04-08-2009, 01:33 PM
How many one handers are in the top 25?

How many 2 handed backhand players have 14 and 13 slams?

pmerk34
04-08-2009, 01:41 PM
How many 2 handed backhand players have 14 and 13 slams?

LOL. Sampras is retired and Fed is one guy who is clearly on the other side of a brilliant career. The question is within the next few years will we see any of the top guys using a 1 handers? How many will left in the top 50 ?????

thejoe
04-08-2009, 01:45 PM
I hope the 1HBH doesn't die out. I can't think of a 2hbh that I like.

pmerk34
04-08-2009, 01:51 PM
I hope the 1HBH doesn't die out. I can't think of a 2hbh that I like.

It's such a pretty shot too.

edberg505
04-08-2009, 01:55 PM
LOL. Sampras is retired and Fed is one guy who is clearly on the other side of a brilliant career. The question is within the next few years will we see any of the top guys using a 1 handers? How many will left in the top 50 ?????

Ok, so are you insinuating that there will never be another player with a 1 handed backhand to reach the position of #1 in the world?

hoahuyen
04-08-2009, 02:02 PM
I hope the 1HBH doesn't die out. I can't think of a 2hbh that I like.

The one of Safin or Nalbadian?

And I'm using OHBH. Sometime people just need to open their minds. Both shots are brilliant.

tudwell
04-08-2009, 02:03 PM
Federer's the only guy in the top ten talented enough to wield a one-handed backhand.

pmerk34
04-08-2009, 02:08 PM
Ok, so are you insinuating that there will never be another player with a 1 handed backhand to reach the position of #1 in the world?

Yes never ever with a cherry on top.

Moose Malloy
04-08-2009, 03:22 PM
Man, if I had a dollar every time I heard someone predict the demise of the one handed backhand. Its been a constant in tennis since the mid 80s at least(I have many old tennis magazines where guys like Ashe, Vic Braden say it will go the way of the dodo very soon. And they also predicted that all the top players will be 6'6 by the mid 90s. Johnny Mac said the same thing in 1985, he seemed certain that guys with the physique/athleticism of Michael Jordan were the future of tennis, lol)

Its pretty silly to predict anything with any certainty, I doubt you would've found any tennis fans 10 years ago that would have predicted that all the men would be playing mostly from the baseline on GRASS in a few years time. I still can't get over it.

And when Pete retired, quite a few said that there wouldn't be another 1 hander at #1(remember Safin was the guy everyone thought would dominate, not Federer. I remember watching Hewitt beat Federer in '02 Shanghai, when Cliff Drysdale said that Fed's one hander may prevent him from ever beating Hewitt on a consistent basis)

How many one handers are in the top 25?

7, which sounds like a decent amount. Looking at the mid to late 90s, most years only had 8 or 9 players in the top 25 with one handers.

Gasquet's only 22, you think he's not capable of winning a couple majors in his career?

BreakPoint
04-08-2009, 03:33 PM
How many one handers are in the top 25?
Who cares how many two-handed players there are in the Top 25?

Sampras, Federer, Lendl, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Rafter, etc. certainly didn't seem to care. :)

BreakPoint
04-08-2009, 03:38 PM
Yes never ever with a cherry on top.
Sure, that's what they said when Connors was #1 -- 35 years ago. Guess what? More players with 1HBH's were #1 at the end of each of those 35 years.

mbstriker
04-08-2009, 03:43 PM
Monfils has the worst backhand in the top 10.

What!?!?!?!?!?
monfils can rip a back hand its just that he always plays to defensively

imalil2gangsta4u
04-08-2009, 03:46 PM
What!?!?!?!?!?
monfils can rip a back hand its just that he always plays to defensively

ide go with roddick for worst backhand in the top 10

THUNDERVOLLEY
04-08-2009, 04:19 PM
with the way Federer dominated the game the last couple of years, I think we will see a lot of kids within the next 5-10 years with one handers.

One can only hope.

pmerk34
04-08-2009, 04:37 PM
Who cares how many two-handed players there are in the Top 25?

Sampras, Federer, Lendl, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Rafter, etc. certainly didn't seem to care. :)

This thread is about the trend in today's game which you know so I do not know why you keep naming great retired players - except for Federer of course.

P_Agony
04-08-2009, 04:52 PM
I hope the 1HBH doesn't die out. I can't think of a 2hbh that I like.

I don't like many 2HBH, but Nalbandian's backhand is just beautiful. I love it as much as I love Fed's 1HBH. It looks so smooth and effortless, I think that's the reason Nalbandian gives so much trouble to Nadal - he's too solid on both wings.
Safin has a nice looking backhand too. But yes, I agree, not many that I like seeing.

FEDERER>buttpicker.
04-08-2009, 09:01 PM
FeDERER IS THE GREATEST.

paulorenzo
04-08-2009, 10:00 PM
This thread is about the trend in today's game which you know so I do not know why you keep naming great retired players - except for Federer of course.

the thing that you fail to realize, is that past players greatly influence how future players play.
there were alot of players that influenced the popularity of the two handed backhand in their own era: the borgs, the connors, the agassi's. junior players wanted to play like them, while at the same time, coaches wanted to teach that style of play.

but then again, the mcenroes, lendls, edbergs, sampras's and federers influenced a lot of juniors to pick up the one handed. why do you think that three of the six spots in the finals of the last three JUNIOR slams were taken by one handers? and both the Boys US Open and Boys Wimbledon 2008 were one by a person possessing a one handed backhand?

Golden Retriever
04-08-2009, 10:11 PM
Its pretty silly to predict anything with any certainty, I doubt you would've found any tennis fans 10 years ago that would have predicted that all the men would be playing mostly from the baseline on GRASS in a few years time. I still can't get over it.



Well, I can predict that the pros are not going back to wood racquets with 99.99999% certainty.

I can also predict that you and I will die at some point in the future with 100% certainty.

I can also predict that you and I will have to pay tax some point in our life with 99.999999% certainty.

I can also predict that the stock market will rise at some point in the future with 99.999999% certainty.

And the list goes on..........................

Golden Retriever
04-08-2009, 10:15 PM
Oh, and I can also predict that time travel is not possible with 100% certainty because if it were possible we would have seen people from the future already.

BreakPoint
04-09-2009, 12:33 AM
Well, I can predict that the pros are not going back to wood racquets with 99.99999% certainty.
Unless the ITF mandates that pros are only allowed to use wood racquets from now on, just like Major League Baseball only allows wooden bats.

I can also predict that you and I will die at some point in the future with 100% certainty.
Unless modern medicine discovers a way to keep you going forever.

I can also predict that you and I will have to pay tax some point in our life with 99.999999% certainty.
Unless you move somewhere with no personal taxes.

I can also predict that the stock market will rise at some point in the future with 99.999999% certainty.
Unless all 30 companies in the Dow Jones Index go bankrupt in this depression.

:shock: :)

BreakPoint
04-09-2009, 12:35 AM
Oh, and I can also predict that time travel is not possible with 100% certainty because if it were possible we would have seen people from the future already.
But we have. Many people have theorized that UFO's are actually us from Earth in the future coming back in time to visit us in the past. :shock:

Golden Retriever
04-09-2009, 02:15 AM
I predict that Breakpoint will rebut this prediction with 100% certainty.

TennezSport
04-09-2009, 02:16 AM
But we have. Many people have theorized that UFO's are actually us from Earth in the future coming back in time to visit us in the past. :shock:

Yeah, I hear it's a really exciting cruise tour :twisted:

Sorry BP, couldn't help it :wink:

Cheers TennezSport :cool:

Golden Retriever
04-09-2009, 02:17 AM
I predict that Breakpoint will continue to rebut every thread that I am going to make in this forum with 100% certainty.

Golden Retriever
04-09-2009, 02:17 AM
I predict that I will double post again with 100% certainty.

TennezSport
04-09-2009, 02:21 AM
But we have. Many people have theorized that UFO's are actually us from Earth in the future coming back in time to visit us in the past. :shock:

Double post, what the.............

BreakPoint
04-09-2009, 12:13 PM
I predict that Breakpoint will continue to rebut every thread that I am going to make in this forum with 100% certainty.
I predict Golden Retriever will continue to start threads like clockwork bashing one-handed backhands for the rest of his life.

It's obviously an inferiority complex, as even he admits he regularly gets his *** kicked by one-handed backhand opponents. :(

Don't you think it's time you gave this topic a rest? :-?

ChanceEncounter
04-09-2009, 03:15 PM
This thread is about the trend in today's game which you know so I do not know why you keep naming great retired players - except for Federer of course.
The problem is that this "trend" has been going on for years.

Do you really think this is the first discussion about the death of the 1HBH? It's been going on since the 70s, at least.

I don't know about you, but Sampras and Federer sure came after the 70s. And you can bet that someone with a 1HBH will rise up in the future. There are simply too many advantages of the 1HBH (deception, versatility, reach) to completely erase it from the game.

It's a flawed shot, but every shot in tennis has its flaws.

RFtennis
04-09-2009, 10:52 PM
I think the 1HBH is becoming more rarer because i think that coaches tend to teach kids the 2HBH nowdays because its simpler and easier to teach.

If you go out to some junior tournaments you will see that 95% of the players will be using a 2HBH.

pmerk34
04-10-2009, 05:01 AM
I think the 1HBH is becoming more rarer because i think that coaches tend to teach kids the 2HBH nowdays because its simpler and easier to teach.

If you go out to some junior tournaments you will see that 95% of the players will be using a 2HBH.

Which is why one handers are rarer and rarer at the pro level.

sh@de
04-10-2009, 05:29 AM
But it won't go extinct, because it's such a beautiful stroke some youngsters will go with it, especially when they see people like Federer and Sampras. Forget it, neither backhand is better than the other, and the OHBH won't disappear completely. Ever.

BreakPoint
04-10-2009, 11:44 AM
Which is why one handers are rarer and rarer at the pro level.
But who cares when it's those 5% with one-handers that usually rise to the top? :)

Mr. Hokey
04-10-2009, 12:11 PM
But who cares when it's those 5% with one-handers that usually rise to the top? :)

Obviously not when, as the thread title says, "Federer is the last one standing in the top 10 with a 1HBH".

Golden Retriever
04-10-2009, 01:06 PM
For BP, only 1HBH players count.

BreakPoint
04-10-2009, 01:08 PM
Obviously not when, as the thread title says, "Federer is the last one standing in the top 10 with a 1HBH".
Federer is not the only pro with a 1HBH.

Golden Retriever
04-10-2009, 01:32 PM
Federer is not the only pro with a 1HBH.

Of course, and who could forget Sampras, Edberg, Lendl, Becker, Agassi...... wait, Agassi who? Nadal............wait, Nadal who?

canuckfan
04-10-2009, 02:12 PM
I think that as the game grows more ballistic and spin levels continue to increase, 1HBH will grow less common...which is really a trend that is 30 years old. But I don't think the 1HBH will ever disappear because tennis is about so much more than hitting big backhands above the shoulders. And it is still possible to have a big backhand with one hand -- exhibit A, Guga Kuerten. Generally in most scenarios an equilibrium is reached (economics, biology, chemistry etc). The equilibrium can be shifted one way or another but there will always be some of each component present.

Mr. Hokey
04-10-2009, 09:00 PM
Federer is not the only pro with a 1HBH.

I'm well aware that he isn't, but you're statement was that the 5% of pro's with one handers rise to the top. He is the ONLY person in the top 10 with a one hand backhand.

BreakPoint
04-10-2009, 10:55 PM
I'm well aware that he isn't, but you're statement was that the 5% of pro's with one handers rise to the top. He is the ONLY person in the top 10 with a one hand backhand.
Don't worry. More one-handers will rise to the top after Federer is gone, as they always have.

Mr. Hokey
04-10-2009, 11:56 PM
I'm sure they will. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt the one hander's capabilities, I use one myself and am pretty aggressive with it.

Just, trends lately lean towards a two handed era.

HipHerring
04-11-2009, 12:04 AM
If it's worth anything, I'm a junior with a 1hbh. Teammates always tell me I have a pretty looking backhand. I'm one of 3 in the top 12 of my team to have a 1hbh. In my experience, the two handed is easier to hit without perfect positioning for juniors.

BreakPoint
04-11-2009, 11:16 PM
Anyone who thinks the 1HBH is dead or can't work in today's pro game didn't see the Suarez Navarro/Cirstea match from the Andalucia semifinal that was on Tennis Channel today. Suarez Navarro was dictating play from the baseline with her massive 1HBH. :)

paulorenzo
04-12-2009, 02:39 PM
Anyone who thinks the 1HBH is dead or can't work in today's pro game didn't see the Suarez Navarro/Cirstea match from the Andalucia semifinal that was on Tennis Channel today. Suarez Navarro was dictating play from the baseline with her massive 1HBH. :)

i was watching that today too, i've been hearing about her since the aussie open, but i never took the time to look at her game because i'm not a huge fan of the roller coaster ride the wta puts on. but i was watching an andalucia match today with her in it and her one handed backhand is fierce. comparable to henin's? it just goes to show, that again, when given a chance to develop, the one handed can be a lethal weapon.