PDA

View Full Version : Call me a novice but what is wrong with a 2HBH?


Ledigs
10-23-2009, 02:27 PM
What is so great about a one-hander?

DownTheLine
10-23-2009, 02:29 PM
Nothing. Who said it was better? It's all about preference.

Mick
10-23-2009, 02:29 PM
imo, nothing is wrong with a 2hbh and nothing is great about a 1hbh but to hit a good 1hbh, you have to be a pretty good player. for most people, it is more difficult to hit a backhand well with one hand than with 2 hands.

kOaMaster
10-23-2009, 02:30 PM
it's easier and therefore people with good 1hbh have some credit

boredone3456
10-23-2009, 02:31 PM
the only argument that I have seen in favor of the one hander over the two hander is that the one hander provides slightly better reach, but then you could just say the 2 hander can generate more power. There is really nothing wrong with either shot...each have plus's and minus's, but neither is inherently bad.

kOaMaster
10-23-2009, 03:06 PM
I would also say the one handed backhand is better for your position and movement, not only for your reach.
and the 2hbh neither is only for power but also precision

FlamEnemY
10-23-2009, 03:15 PM
the only argument that I have seen in favor of the one hander over the two hander is that the one hander provides slightly better reach, but then you could just say the 2 hander can generate more power. There is really nothing wrong with either shot...each have plus's and minus's, but neither is inherently bad.
I have to disagree with this statement... The way to generate power is optimizing your swing speed and hitting a clean shot, not so much about using muscles, i.e. two hands being stronger than one. As the one-hander is NOT a compact shot you'd actually be able to generate more head speed than with a two hander. Granted, the 2HBH is more reliable.

flyinghippos101
10-23-2009, 03:20 PM
the only argument that I have seen in favor of the one hander over the two hander is that the one hander provides slightly better reach, but then you could just say the 2 hander can generate more power. There is really nothing wrong with either shot...each have plus's and minus's, but neither is inherently bad.

Not to mention its easier to disguise shots as well. Of course your opponent will kow if you're dropping or slicing if you're a two hander. As for your original question, no real problem with 2 handers, one handed is just harder to learn initially where footowkr is key. Crap footwork = no solid one hander.

Joe Pike
10-23-2009, 03:40 PM
What is so great about a one-hander?


You can be a GOAT candidate - just ask Sampras, Federer, Graf and Navratilova.

sureshs
10-23-2009, 03:44 PM
No one hander can defeat Nadal. And the only people who can defeat Federer are two-handers.

Think about that.

It says that a lefty two hander with the best top spin ever can only be tamed by a two hander (Del P, Djokovic, Davy). And that the best one hander in the world can be defeated only by a 2 hander (Nadal, Del P).

Thus, two hander is the superior all-round stroke.

kOaMaster
10-23-2009, 03:50 PM
that is some weird constructure you built there. I can't see a real argument though

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-23-2009, 03:56 PM
No one hander can defeat Nadal. And the only people who can defeat Federer are two-handers.

Think about that.

It says that a lefty two hander with the best top spin ever can only be tamed by a two hander (Del P, Djokovic, Davy). And that the best one hander in the world can be defeated only by a 2 hander (Nadal, Del P).

Thus, two hander is the superior all-round stroke.

Only people named Chrissy (Evert) play with two hands!

Two handers are for weak momo's that don't have the strength or technique to hit a pure one handed back hand and control it. That equates to lazy mindless ball bashing and boring tennis.

Shangri La
10-23-2009, 03:57 PM
the best 1hander in the world loses to the best 2hander in the world

VGP
10-23-2009, 03:57 PM
No one hander can defeat Nadal. And the only people who can defeat Federer are two-handers.

Think about that.

C'mon. Stop talking in absolutes and slanting stats.

Federer's got 6 wins over Nadal, Blake has 3, I'm sure there are others.

The reason Federer loses to two-handers is because 85% of the tour are two-handed backhand players......

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-23-2009, 03:58 PM
No one hander can defeat Nadal. And the only people who can defeat Federer are two-handers.

Think about that.

It says that a lefty two hander with the best top spin ever can only be tamed by a two hander (Del P, Djokovic, Davy). And that the best one hander in the world can be defeated only by a 2 hander (Nadal, Del P).

Thus, two hander is the superior all-round stroke.

Take away Nadal's rocket launcher, then he is an average player that hits every ball short..

Oh thats right. Everyone has worked that out already.. Probably why he is now getting beat... Not because they have two handers...

VGP
10-23-2009, 03:58 PM
the best 1hander in the world loses to the best 2hander in the world

That's more because of the matchup than anything else.

Shangri La
10-23-2009, 03:59 PM
That's more because of the matchup than anything else.

are you sure about that : )

FlamEnemY
10-23-2009, 04:02 PM
No one hander can defeat Nadal. And the only people who can defeat Federer are two-handers.

Think about that.

It says that a lefty two hander with the best top spin ever can only be tamed by a two hander (Del P, Djokovic, Davy). And that the best one hander in the world can be defeated only by a 2 hander (Nadal, Del P).

Thus, two hander is the superior all-round stroke.

If only it were so simple.
You can't take away a single stroke and make whatever equations you want with it. Nadal's 2HBHmay be the best VS Federer. On slow surfaces. But it clearly isn't the best vs every player.

Besides, calling Fed's 1HBH 'the best' is pushing it. Excellent shot yes, the best it isn't.

Topaz
10-23-2009, 04:02 PM
it's easier and therefore people with good 1hbh have some credit

Not if their 1hbh sucks they don't.

P_Agony
10-23-2009, 04:15 PM
No one hander can defeat Nadal.

So does that statement join the "Federer is the undisputed GOAT" and "Federer has 18 slams" claims? It definitely fits the pattern.

IvanAndreevich
10-23-2009, 04:29 PM
How original to start a thread about 1HBH vs 2HBH.

McBrat
10-23-2009, 06:00 PM
You can be a GOAT candidate - just ask Sampras, Federer, Graf and Navratilova.Borg? Connors?:?

Maybe 2HBH is easier to develop when you start playing as a kid as it provides more power. Many probably just stick to it as they develop.

But both plays have their own advantages. 1HBH allows Federer to use his range of shots and 2HBH gives Nadal more power and precision. They both make great use of these shots. Players use the play that supports their game. Or, rather, have developed techniques based on their play.

Pwned
10-23-2009, 06:05 PM
Why would a 2hbh give you more power?

McBrat
10-23-2009, 06:10 PM
Why would a 2hbh give you more power?Baseball...

Toxicmilk
10-23-2009, 06:17 PM
Baseball...

I hit a 2hbh..but on a ball that is floating in the air, i can hit it loads harder and with more spin with a 1hbh. imo the 2 hander is just more steady and reliable in this respect, easier to hit with power against a heavy ball. that's my experiance at least.

McBrat
10-23-2009, 06:42 PM
I hit a 2hbh..but on a ball that is floating in the air, i can hit it loads harder and with more spin with a 1hbh. imo the 2 hander is just more steady and reliable in this respect, easier to hit with power against a heavy ball. that's my experiance at least.But you receive more balls with pace than ones that float, right? And players with 2HBH don't use both hands for *all* their shots, just ones where they can generate pace with ease. I doubt anyone will use it for an overhead.

Gugafan
10-23-2009, 06:55 PM
I have to disagree with this statement... The way to generate power is optimizing your swing speed and hitting a clean shot, not so much about using muscles, i.e. two hands being stronger than one. As the one-hander is NOT a compact shot you'd actually be able to generate more head speed than with a two hander. Granted, the 2HBH is more reliable.

Agree with this. The problem with a one-handed backhand is the return of serve aswell as dealing with heavy spin. I find returning particularly difficult with a one-hander as it's alot more difficult to shorten your swing and block the ball back into play, which requires excellent timing. The two hander has better stability.

Chadwixx
10-23-2009, 07:09 PM
the best 1hander in the world loses to the best 2hander in the world

Delportro played an amazing match but lest not get carried away yet. Fed also took as many games off that beast in one set as nadal did all match.

Falloutjr
10-23-2009, 08:16 PM
As a 1h player I have to agree, power generation is less than that of a 2h. 2h is a powerful shot, but 1h is so much more forgiving. If your footwork is great, you can virtually return anything and hit a very clean shot. Also, you can easily slice a ball that you normally couldn't hit with 2hbh and you aren't jammed as easily; you have considerably more reach. You can hit a ball that's very close to you with ease as well, it's easier to push a ball back with 1 hand.

On the note of being able to generate topspin easier with a 2hbh, I have to disagree. Again, if your form is correct, topspin should be the EASIEST 1h shot. Topspin comes with the follow through if you bring your racquet all the way through the ball. Again, in the slice department, no competition. Hitting flat, the advantage goes to 2h though.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that a 2hbh is more appropriate for an aggressive baseline player and a 1hbh is more for the defender/retriever type, but it's not really necessary to use either one, both have ads and disads.

I will say this, though. I love my 1-hander and I'll never change. A properly executed 1hbh is the most beautiful thing in sports :D

coyfish
10-23-2009, 08:30 PM
the only argument that I have seen in favor of the one hander over the two hander is that the one hander provides slightly better reach, but then you could just say the 2 hander can generate more power. There is really nothing wrong with either shot...each have plus's and minus's, but neither is inherently bad.

The 1H doesn't really have better reach. Positioning and timing are more important which makes the shot more difficult for most players. With a 2H you have more flexibility over where you hit the ball. With a 1 hander it has to be in pretty much perfect position for a good shot. Its impossible to hit a 1HBH when youre stretched out wide. I find with a 2H I can use my left hand to extend my arm and create that power to hit angles when im stretched outwide. For instance you see nadal hitting those crazy angles with his 2H bh's when hes on teh run. You can't do that with a 1 hander.

Cup8489
10-23-2009, 10:29 PM
the argument is basically consistency vs. versatility.

the 1hbh is more versatile, can generate (generally) more power and spin, but is not as consistent or reliable, generally, as the 2hbh.

2hbh returns better generally, and is good for rallies. 1hbh is good for moving the ball around and infusing variety in your game, and is generally a good backup with solid footwork and net play.

Baikalic
10-23-2009, 11:00 PM
the argument is basically consistency vs. versatility.

the 1hbh is more versatile, can generate (generally) more power and spin, but is not as consistent or reliable, generally, as the 2hbh.

2hbh returns better generally, and is good for rallies. 1hbh is good for moving the ball around and infusing variety in your game, and is generally a good backup with solid footwork and net play.

Not to mention the 1 hbh is more stylish :).

sh@de
10-24-2009, 12:28 AM
1hbh > 2hbh because of style :D

Pwned
10-24-2009, 12:40 AM
Baseball...
So then a 2hfh is generally more powerful than a 1hfh?

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 12:43 AM
the only argument that I have seen in favor of the one hander over the two hander is that the one hander provides slightly better reach, but then you could just say the 2 hander can generate more power. There is really nothing wrong with either shot...each have plus's and minus's, but neither is inherently bad.
Correction: The one-hander provides both more reach AND more power (if you know how to hit it correctly). For example, most pros who hit one-handers can absolutely crush the ball with their backhands. :)

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 01:02 AM
No one hander can defeat Nadal. And the only people who can defeat Federer are two-handers.

Think about that.

It says that a lefty two hander with the best top spin ever can only be tamed by a two hander (Del P, Djokovic, Davy). And that the best one hander in the world can be defeated only by a 2 hander (Nadal, Del P).

Thus, two hander is the superior all-round stroke.
Hmmm....plenty of one-handers have beaten Nadal, e.g., Blake, Gaudio, Youznhy, Federer, Joachim Johansson, Gonzales, Ljubicic, Lopez, etc.

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 01:08 AM
the best 1hander in the world loses to the best 2hander in the world
Correction: The best 1 hander in the world loses to the best left-handed player in the world, who also happens to have a great crosscourt forehand. His 2HBH has nothing to do with it.

BTW, the best 2 hander in the world is not Nadal. Nalbandian, Del Potro, Davydenko, Murray, Djokovic, etc. all have better 2HBH's than Nadal.

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 01:13 AM
Why would a 2hbh give you more power?
Because it doesn't. Two arms and two hands on the racquet limit the range and speed of your swing. You can generate much faster racquet head speed with one arm than with two arms. That's also why you can serve faster with one arm than with two. And why you can throw a baseball much faster with one arm than with two arms. Same with backhands.

Cesc Fabregas
10-24-2009, 01:15 AM
Its strange that Tsonga has a 2hbh instead of a 1, his game would suit a 1 hander more with his agressive all-court game.

lawrence
10-24-2009, 01:16 AM
1HBH harder to learn, only in the sense that if you don't have perfect technique you run the risk of developing TE.

Other then that, it's probably all preference. I mean, there are probably MINUSCULE differences like control and consistency with the 2HBH due to the aid of an additional arm for balancing, and power and reach with the 1HBH due to having more leverage and less restrictions on ROM as well as torso positioning.
But in the end I really believe it comes down to which suits your game / which form you prefer using.

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 01:20 AM
The 1H doesn't really have better reach. Positioning and timing are more important which makes the shot more difficult for most players. With a 2H you have more flexibility over where you hit the ball. With a 1 hander it has to be in pretty much perfect position for a good shot. Its impossible to hit a 1HBH when youre stretched out wide. I find with a 2H I can use my left hand to extend my arm and create that power to hit angles when im stretched outwide. For instance you see nadal hitting those crazy angles with his 2H bh's when hes on teh run. You can't do that with a 1 hander.
The one-hander does have more reach. It's also much easier to hit 1HBH's on the run than to hit 2HBH's on the run because you use your arm and shoulder more when hitting 1HBH so your legs and lower body can keep moving while hitting it, but with a 2HBH, you pretty much have to stop so that you can rotate your torso to hit the 2HBH.

Ripster
10-24-2009, 01:34 AM
The big advantage of a 2 hander is the stability you get at contact - especially off high-balls. It's easy to see that Federer struggles with the high-kicking topspin balls from Nadal to his backhand, but guys like Murray and Djokovic handle that shot with ease. Novak even prefers it at shoulder height, he loves to hit down on the ball.

Golden Retriever
10-24-2009, 02:03 AM
Because it doesn't. Two arms and two hands on the racquet limit the range and speed of your swing. You can generate much faster racquet head speed with one arm than with two arms. That's also why you can serve faster with one arm than with two. And why you can throw a baseball much faster with one arm than with two arms. Same with backhands.

You are doing it again, comparing apple with orange. I bet you can swing a baseball bat faster with one hand too, right? Is winning an argument on the internet that important to you?

With 2 hands you can use your wrists to speed up your swing a lot more than using one hand.

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-24-2009, 02:24 AM
You are doing it again, comparing apple with orange. I bet you can swing a baseball bat faster with one hand too, right? Is winning an argument on the internet that important to you?

With 2 hands you can use your wrists to speed up your swing a lot more than using one hand.

I have a 1HBH and don't agree a 2HBH is better in any way, but BP is just a troll...

Dutch-Guy
10-24-2009, 03:05 AM
There is nothing wrong with 2hbh but 1hbh is more beautiful to watch(to me at least).

McBrat
10-24-2009, 05:56 AM
So then a 2hfh is generally more powerful than a 1hfh?Sorry if the analogy loses something in translation. I don't follow baseball all that much. Plus, I'm cross-dominant. Also, I could be *completely* wrong.:oops:

To answer your question, if people playing tennis had to hit legal 100-mph fastballs over an assumed outfield fence starting their movement from a resting position and making contact with the ball close to their body, then yes.

Essentially, in the 2HBH you are adding weight to the racquet and taking some pace off the incoming ball before striking it, I think. This changes the situation from, say, badminton (where the shuttlecock's speed depends on the racquet's swing speed) to baseball (where batted ball speed depends on swing speed *and* bat weight). Plus, you get more power from rotation in the 2HBH than in the 1HBH.

McBrat
10-24-2009, 06:04 AM
Huh! Someone at BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/skills/4237358.stm) agrees with me. Obviously, they explain it better/correctly.

Andres
10-24-2009, 06:44 AM
No one hander can defeat Nadal. And the only people who can defeat Federer are two-handers.

Think about that.

It says that a lefty two hander with the best top spin ever can only be tamed by a two hander (Del P, Djokovic, Davy). And that the best one hander in the world can be defeated only by a 2 hander (Nadal, Del P).

Thus, two hander is the superior all-round stroke.
Yeah, but the one handers are the ones winning the slams ;)

SplitStepper
10-24-2009, 07:28 AM
I grew up with 2hbh and it was my best shot. After learning the 1hbh for teaching purposes I realized how much more efficient it is than the 2hbh. The 2hbh definitely has some benifits but I've always thought the 1hbh was the most beautiful shot in the game. It took time to develop (which was actually lots of fun) but now I have completely left the 2hbh behind. Thankfully, my game is now much more efficient and effective.

SplitStepper
10-24-2009, 07:32 AM
I've bumped into one (good) player that switched from 1hbh to 2hbh and he was kind of a tool. An injury would be the only reasonable explaination. Or just not being skilled enough for a 1hbh. I've definitely switched some 3.0 and 3.5 players to a 2h but nobody with real skill.

JennyS
10-24-2009, 07:36 AM
No one hander can defeat Nadal. And the only people who can defeat Federer are two-handers.

Think about that.

It says that a lefty two hander with the best top spin ever can only be tamed by a two hander (Del P, Djokovic, Davy). And that the best one hander in the world can be defeated only by a 2 hander (Nadal, Del P).

Thus, two hander is the superior all-round stroke.

Amazing stat:
since January 2008, Nadal has lost only 2 matches to one handers (Youzhny at Chennai in 08, Federer at Madrid in 09).

Ledigs
10-24-2009, 08:10 AM
How original to start a thread about 1HBH vs 2HBH.

Sorry I'm new

Ledigs
10-24-2009, 08:18 AM
You are doing it again, comparing apple with orange. I bet you can swing a baseball bat faster with one hand too, right? Is winning an argument on the internet that important to you?

With 2 hands you can use your wrists to speed up your swing a lot more than using one hand.

Now that you mention it, us 2hbh rightie tennis players would probably do better batting lefty.

Ledigs
10-24-2009, 08:21 AM
Amazing stat:
since January 2008, Nadal has lost only 2 matches to one handers (Youzhny at Chennai in 08, Federer at Madrid in 09).

As of today? That is a CRAZY stat. Maybe top post it?

sennoc
10-24-2009, 08:29 AM
the best 1hander in the world loses to the best LEFTY 2hander in the world

You've missed an important word.

sennoc
10-24-2009, 08:37 AM
Essentially, in the 2HBH you are adding weight to the racquet and taking some pace off the incoming ball before striking it, I think. This changes the situation from, say, badminton (where the shuttlecock's speed depends on the racquet's swing speed) to baseball (where batted ball speed depends on swing speed *and* bat weight). Plus, you get more power from rotation in the 2HBH than in the 1HBH.

You are wrong. 2HBH generates less power and the reasons are physically and biomechanically obvious: 1HBH has longer radius of rotation of racquet's head and there are more elements in the kinetic chain also (and every kinetic element adds its energy to the energy of the ball).

In fact, 1HBH is the most powerful shot in professional tennis (except serves and overheads of course).

Ledigs
10-24-2009, 08:38 AM
You've missed an important word.

He's a rightie! But changed to lefty as a child cause he knew federer was coming

Ledigs
10-24-2009, 08:39 AM
You are wrong. 2HBH generates less power and the reasons are physically and biomechanically obvious: 1HBH has longer radius of rotation of racquet's head and there are more elements in the kinetic chain also (and every kinetic element adds its energy to the energy of the ball).

In fact, 1HBH is the most powerful shot in professional tennis (except serves and overheads of course).

Do any ladies use a 1h? I assumed2h was more powerful cause more women use it

defrule
10-24-2009, 08:56 AM
I think the two-hander is capable of generating consistent power and in the baseline game where you may not have lots of preparation time the two-hander a consistently strong shot.

The one-hander on the other hand, I think the power of it can go much higher but what stops one-handers ripping backhand winners all the time is preparation. You can't really spank winners on every shot, you need to find the right ball to fully unload on.

coyfish
10-24-2009, 09:23 AM
The one-hander does have more reach. It's also much easier to hit 1HBH's on the run than to hit 2HBH's on the run because you use your arm and shoulder more when hitting 1HBH so your legs and lower body can keep moving while hitting it, but with a 2HBH, you pretty much have to stop so that you can rotate your torso to hit the 2HBH.

Hmm maybe for you. i switched from a 2H to a 1H. Hitting the 1 Hander when you are out of perfect position is extremely difficult. Im not talking about slicing or hitting a continental type shot but a real backhand. It takes PERFECT timing. Not to mention with a 1 hander you have to hit the ball in front of you. With a 2H you can hit from the side if you want. So you can extend your arm more but the ball still has to be in front of you limiting your reach.

sennoc
10-24-2009, 10:12 AM
No one hander can defeat Nadal. And the only people who can defeat Federer are two-handers.

I assume that Solon Peppas, Mounir El Aarej and Guillermo Platel are twohanders. So:

Federer(6), Youzhny(4), Blake(3), Gaudio(3), Gonzalez(3), Corretja(2), Mahut(1), Guccione(1), Johansson(1), Waske(1), Ljubicic(1), Calleri(1), Ascione(1), Lopez(1), Gasquet(1), Srichaphan(1), Puerta(1), Volandri(1), Roitman(1), Hantschk(1), Rochus(1).

Nadal lost 102 matches to 63 players. He lost 35 times to onehanders (35.3%) and to 21 one-handed backhand players (33.3%).

These days there are less onehanders in top ATP than 1/3, so statistics is obvious: onehander has more chances to win against Nadal than twohanders.

Thank you, sureshs, for your professional knowledge.

ac3111
10-24-2009, 10:16 AM
One Hand backhand is considered more stylish and gracious but in modern tennis I think no one is playing 1hbh. At least in my area I do not see anyone teaching 1hbh.
Take a look at the top 10. With the exception of Federer who is one of the older guys all the other (Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Roddick, Del Potro, Verdasco, Davydenko) play with 2hbh...
One Hand backhand for me has 2 great advantages, I can hit faster with one hand and when I mean hit to perform all the movement and I can reach longer using one hand. On the other hand 2hbh for me gives more control and power, pace etc...
And one hand backhand has a weakness that was illustrated in Federer case many times... When you have to hit a ball that bounces high I think it's harder to hit with one hand. You have to wait until it goes down and I think it's harder to calculate at least for my standards...

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 10:22 AM
You are doing it again, comparing apple with orange. I bet you can swing a baseball bat faster with one hand too, right? Is winning an argument on the internet that important to you?

With 2 hands you can use your wrists to speed up your swing a lot more than using one hand.
Yes, I can (if the baseball bat was the same weight, balance, length, and swingweight as a tennis racquet, but it isn't!).

I'm stating facts. But don't let facts get in your way. It's simple physiology. You have a lot more freedom of motion when swinging with one arm than with two arms (one of which your body gets in the way).

Look at the pros with 2HBH's (e.g., Murray, Hewitt, Djokovic, Roddick, etc.). Most of them cannot swing the racquet as fast as the pros with one handed backhands. The much longer uninhibited swingpath of the 1HBH allows you to really accelerate the racquet speed and rip the ball.

DarthFed
10-24-2009, 10:28 AM
Ya know...despite people throwing around h2h..i keep seeing Fed beat Nadal 6 times when it's actually 7

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 10:35 AM
You are wrong. 2HBH generates less power and the reasons are physically and biomechanically obvious: 1HBH has longer radius of rotation of racquet's head and there are more elements in the kinetic chain also (and every kinetic element adds its energy to the energy of the ball).

In fact, 1HBH is the most powerful shot in professional tennis (except serves and overheads of course).
Absolutely true!

Even I can rip my 1HBH much harder than my forehand. When my opponent approaches the net on me, I pray he approaches to my backhand so that I can rip a 1HBH passing shot past them. :)

DarthFed
10-24-2009, 10:41 AM
Well this coach i talk to says it's simply because it's a "Natural" shot. He says the FH is "unnatural". He compares it to slapping someone. If you just stand there and do a FH motion and a BH w/o a racket..the BH motion (at least for me) will feel much looser and more comfortable.

Cesc Fabregas
10-24-2009, 10:58 AM
Absolutely true!

Even I can rip my 1HBH much harder than my forehand. When my opponent approaches the net on me, I pray he approaches to my backhand so that I can rip a 1HBH passing shot past them. :)

What a joke! forehands are hit much harder, what does Federer hit harder his 1 handed backhand or his forehand? Same with Sampras?

sureshs
10-24-2009, 11:29 AM
It is a myth that 1H has better reach on non-slice shots. It depends on the position of the ball. For deep wide balls, a 2H has better reach due to the open stance position without requiring arm to cross over, and the shot can be hit with better balance. I use the 2H for such balls though normally I am a 1 hander.

Shangri La
10-24-2009, 11:32 AM
Absolutely true!

Even I can rip my 1HBH much harder than my forehand. When my opponent approaches the net on me, I pray he approaches to my backhand so that I can rip a 1HBH passing shot past them. :)

Then obviously you are hitting your forehand wrong.

ubermeyer
10-24-2009, 12:31 PM
it's called personal preference

ubermeyer
10-24-2009, 12:32 PM
No one hander can defeat Nadal. And the only people who can defeat Federer are two-handers.

Blake, a 1hander, has beaten Federer. Blake and Federer, both 1handers, have beaten Nadal.

So... you know nothing at all about tennis. It's sad that you have so many posts when you are so clueless.

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 12:40 PM
What a joke! forehands are hit much harder, what does Federer hit harder his 1 handed backhand or his forehand? Same with Sampras?
That's because neither Federer nor Sampras are unleashing the full potential of their backhands. Watch Haas and Gasquet and how they rip their backhands with tremendous pace when they want to.

I know for a fact I can hit my backhand harder than my forehand because I can uncoil and swing out with my backhand which gives me tremendous power which is not possible with forehands (no uncoiling involved with forehands as you have to swing across your body).

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 12:43 PM
Then obviously you are hitting your forehand wrong.
Um...no. Just watch guys like Haas and Gasquet.

Biomechanically, if you hit your backhand properly, you should be able to generate more power with your 1HBH than with your forehand because you can uncoil and swing out with your 1HBH which you cannot do with your forehand as you have to swing across your body on the forehand and there's no uncoiling involved.

Cesc Fabregas
10-24-2009, 01:02 PM
That's because neither Federer nor Sampras are unleashing the full potential of their backhands. Watch Haas and Gasquet and how they rip their backhands with tremendous pace when they want to.

I know for a fact I can hit my backhand harder than my forehand because I can uncoil and swing out with my backhand which gives me tremendous power which is not possible with forehands (no uncoiling involved with forehands as you have to swing across your body).

Haas and Gasquet don't hit their 1 handed backhands harder than Federer or Sampras they just have mediorce and weak forehands compared to Fed and Sampras.

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 01:08 PM
Haas and Gasquet don't hit their 1 handed backhands harder than Federer or Sampras they just have mediorce and weak forehands compared to Fed and Sampras.
Oh, yes, they do. This is indisputable. Maybe you've never seen Haas nor Gasquet play?

And, no, Haas and Gasquet do not have mediocre forehands. Their backhands are better than 99.99% of all people who play tennis. :-?

Cesc Fabregas
10-24-2009, 01:11 PM
Oh, yes, they do. This is indisputable. Maybe you've never seen Haas nor Gasquet play?

And, no, Haas and Gasquet do not have mediocre forehands. Their backhands are better than 99.99% of all people who play tennis. :-?

Yes they do. Why do think either of them have never won a grandslam? because there forehands are too weak to win one.

Brned
10-24-2009, 01:15 PM
Um...no. Just watch guys like Haas and Gasquet.

Biomechanically, if you hit your backhand properly, you should be able to generate more power with your 1HBH than with your forehand because you can uncoil and swing out with your 1HBH which you cannot do with your forehand as you have to swing across your body on the forehand and there's no uncoiling involved.

You can uncoil but you can't rotate your torso like you do on the forehand...

If what you said was true why people don't people swing their bats when playing baseball like a OHB?

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 01:18 PM
Yes they do. Why do think either of them have never won a grandslam? because there forehands are too weak to win one.
Then why hasn't Gonzalez nor Blake nor Gulbis won a Grand Slam? They all have weak forehands, too? :oops:

Maybe you should stick to trying to figure out if Federer is an all-court player? :oops:

Cesc Fabregas
10-24-2009, 01:20 PM
Then why hasn't Gonzalez nor Blake nor Gulbis won a Grand Slam? They all have weak forehands, too? :oops:

Maybe you should stick to trying to figure out if Federer is an all-court player? :oops:

A). They're all mental midgets
B). Gonzo and Blake's backhands both suck (especially Gonzo)
C). Gulbis can't keep the ball in court for more than 2 shots

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 01:22 PM
You can uncoil but you can't rotate your torso like you do on the forehand...

If what you said was true why people don't people swing their bats when playing baseball like a OHB?
Because people use two hands/arms to swing baseball bats which restricts the uncoiling. They use two hand/arms because baseball bats are much heavier, much longer, are balanced much more head heavy, and have much higher swingweights than a tennis racquet. A baseball is also much heavier than a tennis ball. And the purpose of tennis is not to hit the ball as far as you can.

Chadwixx
10-24-2009, 01:24 PM
Haas and Gasquet don't hit their 1 handed backhands harder than Federer or Sampras they just have mediorce and weak forehands compared to Fed and Sampras.

Sampras's backhand? LOL

You get more whip on the 1 one hander than the two if your technique is correct. Kinda like a serve, you wanna be loose to get that pop.

Baseball analogy is bad due to the weight of the bat. Can you punch someone harder with one hand or two?

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 01:25 PM
A). They're all mental midgets
B). Gonzo and Blake's backhands both suck (especially Gonzo)
C). Gulbis can't keep the ball in court for more than 2 shots
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

You've just answered your own question as to why Haas nor Gasquet have not won a Grand Slam. :oops:

Winning is what happens between the ears and not because you have the best forehand, backhand, serve, volley, etc. Heck, the only reason Nadal wins is because of his mental toughness.

Cesc Fabregas
10-24-2009, 01:28 PM
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

You've just answered your own question as to why Haas nor Gasquet have not won a Grand Slam. :oops:

Winning is what happens between the ears and not because you have the best forehand, backhand, serve, volley, etc. Heck, the only reason Nadal wins is because of his mental toughness.

Mental strength is not the only reason why Nadal won slams and Haas and Gasquet didn't, Nadal has a better forehand than either, better athlete and has a clear method of winning points you get the impression with Haas and Gasquet that they don't have a consistant method of winning points.

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 01:36 PM
Mental strength is not the only reason why Nadal won slams and Haas and Gasquet didn't, Nadal has a better forehand than either, better athlete and has a clear method of winning points you get the impression with Haas and Gasquet that they don't have a consistant method of winning points.
You're right. I forgot. It's also because Nadal cheats by taking so much time before each serve. :oops:

As we've seen, Nadal can be overpowered (even by tiny little Davydenko). No amount of mental toughness can prevent you from being overpowered. :(

Cesc Fabregas
10-24-2009, 01:39 PM
You're right. I forgot. It's also because Nadal cheats by taking so much time before each serve. :oops:

As we've seen, Nadal can be overpowered (even by tiny little Davydenko). No amount of mental toughness can prevent you from being overpowered. :(

Nadal is more talented and a better tennis player than either Gasquet or Haas. Deal with it.

David L
10-24-2009, 04:23 PM
That's because neither Federer nor Sampras are unleashing the full potential of their backhands. Watch Haas and Gasquet and how they rip their backhands with tremendous pace when they want to.

I know for a fact I can hit my backhand harder than my forehand because I can uncoil and swing out with my backhand which gives me tremendous power which is not possible with forehands (no uncoiling involved with forehands as you have to swing across your body).
No, Federer hits consistently harder with his backhand than either player.

Federer vs Gasquet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8zIvyStSK8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrqee9YV5KM

Also, forehands are and should usually be bigger shots than backhands, whether 1 or 2 handed. Sure you get the occasional backhand screamer, like below at 2.48 , but you get many more screamers on forehands and a consistently harder shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYyiIzJprVE

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-24-2009, 04:37 PM
Federer looked and played like Rafter in that second clip...

Amazing...

Baikalic
10-24-2009, 04:43 PM
You are wrong. 2HBH generates less power and the reasons are physically and biomechanically obvious: 1HBH has longer radius of rotation of racquet's head and there are more elements in the kinetic chain also (and every kinetic element adds its energy to the energy of the ball).

In fact, 1HBH is the most powerful shot in professional tennis (except serves and overheads of course).

This is not the whole picture because although the 1hbh has a longer radius of rotation (longer lever arm in application of torque), the 2hbh typically applies a larger force because two arms are accelerating into the swing instead of one. Evaluating the "power" of a swing based on mechanics is complicated.

In the end I think the 1hbh has the potential to exert more power but requires more precision to use consistently because of the inherent increased reliability of applying force with 2 arms instead of one when performing strokes on one's nondominant side.. So, the 1hbh is harder to pick up when learning how to play tennis than the 2hbh.

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-24-2009, 05:13 PM
Yes, the 2HBH is the lazy alternative...

LiveForever
10-24-2009, 05:26 PM
Mental strength is not the only reason why Nadal won slams and Haas and Gasquet didn't, Nadal has a better forehand than either, better athlete and has a clear method of winning points you get the impression with Haas and Gasquet that they don't have a consistant method of winning points.
Absolutely correct. Good post.

LiveForever
10-24-2009, 05:32 PM
You're right. I forgot. It's also because Nadal cheats by taking so much time before each serve. :oops:

As we've seen, Nadal can be overpowered (even by tiny little Davydenko). No amount of mental toughness can prevent you from being overpowered. :(
You are nitpicking for matches. That is crazy. Of course Rafa is gonna get overpowered in some matches but you are overlooking all the time Nadal wiped the floor with /overpowered his opponents. Yeah Davydenko, Blake, Federer, and Tsonga might have overpowered Nadal in some matches but there are also matches were Nadal has overpowered them as well. Nadal has put hurtings on Tsonga, Blake, Davydenko, and Federer in his career and is clearly one of the best players the game has produced. Far superior then either Haas and Gasquet.

NamRanger
10-24-2009, 06:13 PM
No, Federer hits consistently harder with his backhand than either player.

Federer vs Gasquet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8zIvyStSK8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrqee9YV5KM

Also, forehands are and should usually be bigger shots than backhands, whether 1 or 2 handed. Sure you get the occasional backhand screamer, like below at 2.48 , but you get many more screamers on forehands and a consistently harder shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYyiIzJprVE




Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.......



Wow. That's some bold statement there.

sennoc
10-24-2009, 06:26 PM
2hbh typically applies a larger force because two arms are accelerating into the swing instead of one.

Do not talk about forces. Talk about energy and momentum, we have very good defined collisions and conservation laws here.

The kinetic energy of racquet head and its momentum are higher in 1HBH. Why? Masses are the same in both cases, the crucial point is velocity, which is larger in 1HBH because of:

1. longer radius of rotation of racquet head;
2. longer path of accelerating of racquet head - you have time to accelerate;
3. longer part of deceleration - you can accelerate more because you have place to decelerate;
4. rotation of forearm significantly increases kinetic energy of racquet head.

Sad (not for me, I'm onehander) but true: good 1HBH is always stronger than good 2HBH.

If you watch tennis matches in TV, you probably see many strong 2HBHs, but generally they are strokes where players use the power of the opponent.

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 06:38 PM
Nadal is more talented and a better tennis player than either Gasquet or Haas. Deal with it.
You're right. Mental toughness is a special talent that not many people have.

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 06:41 PM
No, Federer hits consistently harder with his backhand than either player.

Federer vs Gasquet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8zIvyStSK8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrqee9YV5KM

Also, forehands are and should usually be bigger shots than backhands, whether 1 or 2 handed. Sure you get the occasional backhand screamer, like below at 2.48 , but you get many more screamers on forehands and a consistently harder shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYyiIzJprVE
You're right. Tell Cesc Fabregas that Federer does not have a weak backhand and can hit it harder than his forehand when he wants to. :)

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 06:43 PM
So, the 1hbh is harder to pick up when learning how to play tennis than the 2hbh.
That is true, I agree.

It takes real tennis talent to hit great one-handed backhands. :)

LiveForever
10-24-2009, 06:44 PM
You're right. Tell Cesc Fabregas that Federer does not have a weak backhand and can hit it harder than his forehand when he wants to. :)
Federer hardest forehand will always be faster and more powerful than his hardest backhand.

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 06:47 PM
You are nitpicking for matches. That is crazy. Of course Rafa is gonna get overpowered in some matches but you are overlooking all the time Nadal wiped the floor with /overpowered his opponents. Yeah Davydenko, Blake, Federer, and Tsonga might have overpowered Nadal in some matches but there are also matches were Nadal has overpowered them as well. Nadal has put hurtings on Tsonga, Blake, Davydenko, and Federer in his career and is clearly one of the best players the game has produced. Far superior then either Haas and Gasquet.
I agree. Because Nadal is so much mentally tougher than either Haas or Gasquet. Heck, if either of those two guys had any mental toughness at all, they would have won as many Grand Slams as Nadal by now. :shock:

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 06:48 PM
Federer hardest forehand will always be faster and more powerful than his hardest backhand.
Prove it. How often does Federer hit his hardest backhand? Not very often.

LiveForever
10-24-2009, 06:57 PM
I agree. Because Nadal is so much mentally tougher than either Haas or Gasquet. Heck, if either of those two guys had any mental toughness at all, they would have won as many Grand Slams as Nadal by now. :shock:
emmm No. Nadal is a better tennis player than either of those guys. He has amazing consistency, his forehand is ridiclously superior to gasquets and Haas's, and dont forget athleticism. Nadal is one of the greatest athletes ever produced by the sport of tennis. Even if Haas and Gasquet had the mental toughness, they wouldnt be 6 time winners. They would be pretty much be like Gilles Simon.

LiveForever
10-24-2009, 06:57 PM
@^#&! when do I get to edit my posts?!

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 07:05 PM
emmm No. Nadal is a better tennis player than either of those guys. He has amazing consistency, his forehand is ridiclously superior to gasquets and Haas's, and dont forget athleticism. Nadal is one of the greatest athletes ever produced by the sport of tennis. Even if Haas and Gasquet had the mental toughness, they wouldnt be 6 time winners. They would be pretty much be like Gilles Simon.
Um...no. Not even close.

LiveForever
10-24-2009, 07:14 PM
Lol. I exaggerated for Haas but Gasquet is the most overrated player ever. People seem to correlate talent in tennis to the 1 hbh. Just because he has pretty 1 hander doesnt mean he is a tennis god. Simon has already achieved more than Gasquet and scored 2 wins on Fed and 1 win on Nadal.

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 07:21 PM
Lol. I exaggerated for Haas but Gasquet is the most overrated player ever. People seem to correlate talent in tennis to the 1 hbh. Just because he has pretty 1 hander doesnt mean he is a tennis god. Simon has already achieved more than Gasquet and scored 2 wins on Fed and 1 win on Nadal.
Simon is much mentally tougher than Gasquet.

And see this post:

That is true, I agree.

It takes real tennis talent to hit great one-handed backhands. :)

LiveForever
10-24-2009, 07:23 PM
Simon is much mentally tougher than Gasquet.

And see this post:
that and the fact that Gasquet's forehand is utter crap. Simon's consistency of both wings, or is entire ground game for that matter, works better than Gasquets flashy backhand winners that occur every now and then.

matchmaker
10-24-2009, 07:24 PM
This is not the whole picture because although the 1hbh has a longer radius of rotation (longer lever arm in application of torque), the 2hbh typically applies a larger force because two arms are accelerating into the swing instead of one. Evaluating the "power" of a swing based on mechanics is complicated.

In the end I think the 1hbh has the potential to exert more power but requires more precision to use consistently because of the inherent increased reliability of applying force with 2 arms instead of one when performing strokes on one's nondominant side.. So, the 1hbh is harder to pick up when learning how to play tennis than the 2hbh.


Good post, this eternal war between onehanders and twohanders is ridiculous for me because having hit with both techniques I can honestly say that they can both lead to very good and powerful results.

As you indicate the leverage on the onehander is bigger, but the acceleration in the more compacter swing of the twohander is faster, so that virtually balances everything.

I actually think that hitting a good twohander is a big a talent as hitting a onehander. Hitting with the cleanliness of Agassi, Nalbandian, Djokovic, Murray, Rios, or Connors takes talent, but so does hitting a great onehander like Gasquet, Kuerten, Stich, Becker, Edberg or Gaudio.

Choosing one technique over the other has probably more to do with personal choice and aptitude than anything else. It is also a choice that has to do with the general framework of your game. If you like to slice and volley, a onehander will be more natural, if you like to play at the baseline, the twohander may be a more logical choice. But even to those general guidelines there are many exceptions.

Falloutjr
10-24-2009, 07:25 PM
Gasquet =/= overrated

Fixed. You have to admit that Gasquet is a very competent player with the potential to return to the top 10 again. HE CANNOT BE OVERATED!!11!11!! [/gasquetfanboi]

Back to the issue at hand, 1hbh has more upside in terms of usage, whereas 2hbh is easier to control, but has more limitations. Thus, someone that is equally as skilled at controlling a 1hbh than someone who has a 2hbh has a better backhand than someone with a 2hbh because they have better reach, spin generation, and power. I wasn't even a believer in a power 1hbh til i tried one today and it was the most amazing thing I've ever seen! I did it a few times and it wasn't even fair how easy it was.

1hbh > 2hbh

And if you hold the racquet back with two hands and release immediately before impact, you get a 2hbh like effect with one hand. So really, you can hit 2 handed and 1 handed with 1 hand ;D

matchmaker
10-24-2009, 07:44 PM
Not to mention its easier to disguise shots as well. Of course your opponent will kow if you're dropping or slicing if you're a two hander. As for your original question, no real problem with 2 handers, one handed is just harder to learn initially where footowkr is key. Crap footwork = no solid one hander.

I have to disagree on the onehander having more disguise, it depends:

1) if by disguise you mean hitting dropshots, you might be right, but then again maybe not always. It is possible for a twohander to start a conventional doublehanded swing and all of a sudden take one arm of the grip to hit a dropshot. Whereas a onehander has to put his hand on the racquet throat to allow for changing his grip.

2) If we talk about disguising angles on drives, I think the twohander does this a lot better because the contact point is closer to the body and you can hit from open stance. I master both the onehander and twohander and with the twohander I can really mystify my opponents by changeing the angle at the last split second before impact and they will just stand petrified and look at the ball going in the opposite direction than they thought.

With a onehander, because of the fact you are hitting from closed stance and take the ball further in front, you generally are a little bit forced to "announce" where you are hitting. OTOH, with a onehander you can absolutely smack the ball if you have time for a proper set up.

Again having played with both, I am not partisan to one or another. They are both magnificent strokes if properly executed. Nowadays the onehander is a treat to see, because there are only very few onehanders left on the circuit. But I remember that when everyone was hitting onehanders, some players had quite bad backhands that did not look that well.

Nowadays, it is the other way round. The big majority of players hits a twohander, but some of them are dead ugly, not because of the stroke itself, but because of the one who executes it. A clearly hit doublehander a la Agassi, Rios or Nalbandian is absolutely gorgeous. But that applies also for the onehander if it is well hit.

Baikalic
10-24-2009, 07:45 PM
Do not talk about forces. Talk about energy and momentum, we have very good defined collisions and conservation laws here.

The kinetic energy of racquet head and its momentum are higher in 1HBH. Why? [b]Masses are the same in both cases, the crucial point is velocity, which is larger in 1HBH because of:

1. longer radius of rotation of racquet head;
2. longer path of accelerating of racquet head - you have time to accelerate;
3. longer part of deceleration - you can accelerate more because you have place to decelerate;
4. rotation of forearm significantly increases kinetic energy of racquet head.

Sad (not for me, I'm onehander) but true: good 1HBH is always stronger than good 2HBH.

If you watch tennis matches in TV, you probably see many strong 2HBHs, but generally they are strokes where players use the power of the opponent.

Right, because you are the only person who knows anything about physics :-?.

I was referring to application of torque which is the lever arm length multiplied by the force applied. Now that I think of it angular momentum is more appropriate.

Now if you want to think in terms of kinetic energy, then velocity wins over mass because E = 1/2*Mass*velocity^2; thus increasing the velocity will increase the kinetic energy more than increasing the mass by the same amount.

The masses are not the same in comparing 1hbh and 2hbh because your racket head is an extension of the arm; thus the 2hbh has an additional mass being the nondominant arm during the 2hbh takeback and follow through. The velocities will also not necessarily be the same, because decreasing the lever arm distance will also also increase the ability for a tennis player to increase his velocity with less effort (conservation of angular momentum).

In any case we are agreeing, I still think a 1hbh has an easier time generating "power" than a 2hbh.

RalphNYC
10-24-2009, 07:51 PM
Incorrect, the best 1-hander has beaten many 2-handers, and has won the most slams.
No one hander can defeat Nadal. And the only people who can defeat Federer are two-handers.

Think about that.

It says that a lefty two hander with the best top spin ever can only be tamed by a two hander (Del P, Djokovic, Davy). And that the best one hander in the world can be defeated only by a 2 hander (Nadal, Del P).

Thus, two hander is the superior all-round stroke.

Baikalic
10-24-2009, 07:55 PM
Good post, this eternal war between onehanders and twohanders is ridiculous for me because having hit with both techniques I can honestly say that they can both lead to very good and powerful results.

As you indicate the leverage on the onehander is bigger, but the acceleration in the more compacter swing of the twohander is faster, so that virtually balances everything.

I actually think that hitting a good twohander is a big a talent as hitting a onehander. Hitting with the cleanliness of Agassi, Nalbandian, Djokovic, Murray, Rios, or Connors takes talent, but so does hitting a great onehander like Gasquet, Kuerten, Stich, Becker, Edberg or Gaudio.

Choosing one technique over the other has probably more to do with personal choice and aptitude than anything else. It is also a choice that has to do with the general framework of your game. If you like to slice and volley, a onehander will be more natural, if you like to play at the baseline, the twohander may be a more logical choice. But even to those general guidelines there are many exceptions.

Haha it is pretty funny for the fact that some posters called out the OP for bringing up a dead horse argument, that people are arguing so much anyway :).

In the end I agree it does come down to personal choice and aptitude for recreational players.
I imagine there is more involved for competitive and professional players; the option to undergo serious conditioning and building muscle mass, and the natural talent to be able to integrate the entire body into a stroke and maximize momentum is more pertinent to allow players to hit with a greater range of "power."

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 08:14 PM
that and the fact that Gasquet's forehand is utter crap. Simon's consistency of both wings, or is entire ground game for that matter, works better than Gasquets flashy backhand winners that occur every now and then.
Thanks for confirming that you've never seen Gasquet play.

Gasquet's forehand is not "utter crap". If it were, he wouldn't always run around his backhand to hit his forehand.

Ultra2HolyGrail
10-24-2009, 08:21 PM
Clearly the two hander is the superior shot. Not even a debate. From the wta to the Atp. The one hander is almost literally extinct. It's gone the way of the dinosaur.

sh@de
10-24-2009, 08:47 PM
Clearly the two hander is the superior shot. Not even a debate. From the wta to the Atp. The one hander is almost literally extinct. It's gone the way of the dinosaur.

Easier to learn doesn't necessarily mean better. That's the case with the two hander.

Don't get me wrong though, I think both backhands are equal.

McBrat
10-24-2009, 09:19 PM
You are wrong. 2HBH generates less power and the reasons are physically and biomechanically obvious: 1HBH has longer radius of rotation of racquet's head and there are more elements in the kinetic chain also (and every kinetic element adds its energy to the energy of the ball).

In fact, 1HBH is the most powerful shot in professional tennis (except serves and overheads of course).
Um, typo?

Also, you haven't shown any bio-mechanical energy conversion. And the longer radius of 1HBHs isn't employable/effective for most of the shots you would hit during a regular match.


Anyway, people seem to be taking extreme cases. Of course, players who have developed a particular style of play will find it more powerful. My point is the 2HBH is more powerful than the 1HBH for a player who hasn't developed either style of play and has an equal affinity and aptitude for both.

McBrat
10-24-2009, 09:23 PM
Do not talk about forces. Talk about energy and momentum, we have very good defined collisions and conservation laws here.
As Baikalic said, bring in conservation of angular momentum and Newton's third. You'll get a better picture. If you want to bring it down to (simple) physics, that is.

McBrat
10-24-2009, 09:29 PM
From ITF Tennis (http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_27759_original.PDF) (PDF):
More power- power at one handed backhand comes mostly by stepping into the ball;rotation of the body, and backswing are second in line .When htiting two handed backhand power can come also from stepping into the ball (lateral force),but as well as rotating upper body around head (angular force), and to lessen degree from the backswing..So it obvious that two hander has edge over one hander.

From BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/skills/4237358.stm):
Statistics show that the double-handed backhand is now the dominant choice among professional players.

It gives more power and control on return of serve and on high balls, which are two crucial areas in the modern game.

LiveForever
10-24-2009, 09:50 PM
Thanks for confirming that you've never seen Gasquet play.

Gasquet's forehand is not "utter crap". If it were, he wouldn't always run around his backhand to hit his forehand.
Resorting to cheap shots? I can easily say that you havent ever seen Gasquet play either if you havent seen the countless time his forehand breaks down under pressure and how opponents like Nadal, Verdasco, etc force his forehand into short balls that get munched up for winners. :?

Polaris
10-24-2009, 09:53 PM
Call me a novice but what is wrong with a 2HBH?
Nothing at all.

msc886
10-24-2009, 09:55 PM
Nothing wrong with 2HBH. 1HBH is just more appreciated because it is more difficult to learn and there are few of them on the tour.

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 11:13 PM
Resorting to cheap shots? I can easily say that you havent ever seen Gasquet play either if you havent seen the countless time his forehand breaks down under pressure and how opponents like Nadal, Verdasco, etc force his forehand into short balls that get munched up for winners. :?
Federer's forehand also breaks down under pressure. Does that make Federer's forehand "utter crap" as well?

the wise wizard
10-24-2009, 11:22 PM
we are forgetting that the one hander is much much sexier!

LiveForever
10-24-2009, 11:22 PM
Federer's forehand also breaks down under pressure. Does that make Federer's forehand "utter crap" as well?
lol. Comparing Gasquet to Federer? Federer's forehand hardly ever breaks down to the extent to which Gasquet's does. Sure, Federer's forehand broke down badly during the early part of this year but that was easily due to the fact that Federer was going through a low. I also take back "utter crap" but relative to his backhand, Gasquet forehand is not good by any means.

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-24-2009, 11:23 PM
Federer's forehand also breaks down under pressure. Does that make Federer's forehand "utter crap" as well?

Seriously. Is your life so boring that you gotta do this all day?

I mean, open a window or something.....

the wise wizard
10-24-2009, 11:28 PM
Easier to learn doesn't necessarily mean better. That's the case with the two hander.

Don't get me wrong though, I think both backhands are equal.

i agree with this, generally players that make it to the tour have been playing since a very young age, which also means that because of a childs lack of strength they are taught to hit a 2-hander. that means if they want to switch to a one hander they have to take about 6months-1 year to perfect it, which in turn means a year of bad tourney stats, which in turn means being less impressive on paper....but having a sexy backhand.

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 11:35 PM
Seriously. Is your life so boring that you gotta do this all day?

I mean, open a window or something.....
No, is yours? :-?

Why are you posting here? Bored? :oops:

Max G.
10-24-2009, 11:38 PM
Absolutely true!

Even I can rip my 1HBH much harder than my forehand. When my opponent approaches the net on me, I pray he approaches to my backhand so that I can rip a 1HBH passing shot past them. :)

Um, BP... you do realize that's the exact opposite of what most players are like?

Whether they have one or two-handed backhands, most players, both pro and amateur, hit their forehands harder than their backhands. Even the guys with the best backhands in the world - guys like Haas or Gasquet, who are used as models for how to hit GREAT backhands - still run around and hit forehands when they can.

(It isn't everyone - in the womens game especially, there are a number of players who don't run around their backhands, and in the mens game Fabrice Santoro would actually run around his forehand!)

BP, I suspect that your experience is unusual. That's fine - everyone's different - but you keep expecting that EVERYONE will experience the same thing when they switch.

BreakPoint
10-24-2009, 11:46 PM
Um, BP... you do realize that's the exact opposite of what most players are like?

Whether they have one or two-handed backhands, most players, both pro and amateur, hit their forehands harder than their backhands. Even the guys with the best backhands in the world - guys like Haas or Gasquet, who are used as models for how to hit GREAT backhands - still run around and hit forehands when they can.

(It isn't everyone - in the womens game especially, there are a number of players who don't run around their backhands, and in the mens game Fabrice Santoro would actually run around his forehand!)

BP, I suspect that your experience is unusual. That's fine - everyone's different - but you keep expecting that EVERYONE will experience the same thing when they switch.
But just because they run around their backhands doesn't mean they can't hit their backhands harder on an absolute basis. I have seen both Haas and Gasquet rip the cover off of the ball with their 1HBH's. Harder than I have ever seen them hit their forehands. I'm talking about absolute pace. Sure, neither of them do this all the time, but when given the right opportunity and the desire, they can crush their backhands. So they posses the ability to do so. How often they choose to do so is another story. Hitting hard all the time doesn't win you Grand Slams. Just ask Blake or Gonzalez. :)

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-25-2009, 12:30 AM
No, is yours? :-?

Why are you posting here? Bored? :oops:

Yeah, I'm bored, and interested in tennis. So I joined this site..

Big difference between that, and wanting to spend my life arguing with strangers ;)

lol..

sennoc
10-25-2009, 01:11 AM
Right, because you are the only person who knows anything about physics :-?.

No. I'm a physicist and that's a reason why I talk like a physicist, I think ;)

I was referring to application of torque which is the lever arm length multiplied by the force applied.

It's much more complicated, you have to think very carefully in this case. As example, you've missed a problem of increasing momentum of inertia, which grows much faster than torque in function of length.

Thinking in terms of energy, momentum and conservation laws is always easier in tennis, especially if you are interested in the physics of collisions.

The masses are not the same in comparing 1hbh and 2hbh because your racket head is an extension of the arm; thus the 2hbh has an additional mass being the nondominant arm during the 2hbh takeback and follow through.

You've missed important physics here. You can check in science publications that at the moment of stroke free tennis racquet reacts the same way as tennis racquet in player's hand. So, what really counts is the mass of racquet head. That's counterintuitive but experimental fact.

The velocities will also not necessarily be the same, because decreasing the lever arm distance will also also increase the ability for a tennis player to increase his velocity with less effort (conservation of angular momentum)

Again, wrong attempt. You want to talk in terms of conservation of angular momentum? So, 2HBH has to increase angular momentum of both hands, while onehander compensates increasing angular momentum of dominating hand by movement of his free arm in opposite direction. That's always easier due to conservation law of angular momentum.

sennoc
10-25-2009, 01:51 AM
From ITF Tennis (http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_27759_original.PDF) (PDF):

From BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/skills/4237358.stm):

As a science journalist I can tell you: never believe journalists ;)

BBC makes serious mistakes too. The most funny example probably was a news about "frozen martian lake" (you can read it here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/4727847.stm)). Original news from ESA was about a patch of water ice on a huge dune (200 m height) (you can read it here (http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMGKA808BE_0.html); what's funny there are anaglyphs too...). As you can see, BBC has power to change a 200 m dune into a lake, so I'm not surprised that it has power to change 2HBH into the most powerful stroke on this planet.

Do not believe authorities. Believe facts and your mind.

Cesc Fabregas
10-25-2009, 01:58 AM
You're right. Mental toughness is a special talent that not many people have.

Nothing to do with mental toughness, Nadal has more talent than Haas and Gasquet put together!

BreakPoint
10-25-2009, 02:09 AM
Nothing to do with mental toughness, Nadal has more talent than Haas and Gasquet put together!
Yes, you're right. Nadal has the talent to hit weak serves, poor returns of serve, and short balls that get pounded back down his throat by big hitters. :neutral:

It sure is a good thing he has that mental toughness or else he may never win a match. :shock:

Oh, and if Nadal has more talent than Haas and Gasquet combined, then Federer must have more talent than the entire ATP Tour combined. :)

Cesc Fabregas
10-25-2009, 02:14 AM
Yes, you're right. Nadal has the talent to hit weak serves, poor returns of serve, and short balls that get pounded back down his throat by big hitters. :neutral:

It sure is a good thing he has that mental toughness or else he may never win a match. :shock:

Oh, and if Nadal has more talent than Haas and Gasquet combined, then Federer must have more talent than the entire ATP Tour combined. :)

Haas and Gasquet both have weak second serves and are prone to double faulting alot, Gasquet's forehand rarely ever makes it passed the service line and neither does Haas', Gasquet's return plain old sucks and Haas' is not brilliant either (Nadal is a much better returner than either of them).

The only think Gasquet and Haas do better than Nadal is first serve, Nadal does everything else better than those 2 pretenders.

Baikalic
10-25-2009, 02:25 AM
No. I'm a physicist and that's a reason why I talk like a physicist, I think ;)

I see...I am not a physicist and only use it to a certain extent in my academic work.


It's much more complicated, you have to think very carefully in this case. As example, you've missed a problem of increasing momentum of inertia, which grows much faster than torque in function of length.

Thinking in terms of energy, momentum and conservation laws is always easier in tennis, especially if you are interested in the physics of collisions.

Yes, that is why I have already said it was not as appropriate as energy momentum and conservation. Although is a much faster increasing moment of intertia a problem in generating "power" from a tennis shot? I think it means his arm and will coil more around the torso, which we see a lot on the tour.


You've missed important physics here. You can check in science publications that at the moment of stroke free tennis racquet reacts the same way as tennis racquet in player's hand. So, what really counts is the mass of racquet head. That's counterintuitive but experimental fact.

Experiments on tennis rackets counts count as important physics? I have clearly missed it, as everyone else in this thread has. What do you mean by "reacts" in the same way? Can you provide links to your science publications?


Again, wrong attempt. You want to talk in terms of conservation of angular momentum? So, 2HBH has to increase angular momentum of both hands, while onehander compensates increasing angular momentum of dominating hand by movement of his free arm in opposite direction. That's always easier due to conservation law of angular momentum.

I am using Angular Momentum = rxm*v, where r is the position vector from the origin (the torso in a tennis player), m is the mass, and v is velocity. What I am saying is that assuming that two players with a 2hbh and 1hbh that can take the same strain that angular momentum entails on their body, a 2hbh swing has the shorter radius but higher velocity and the 1hbh swing with has the longer radius but lower velocity. What this implies is that the difference in angular momentum is not going to be significant. This is of course assuming the physiological strain on the muscles is the same when the swing length is short/faster, and when it is long and slower.

The entire situation is very complicated; for example we could also take into account the fact that pros are all swinging at a variety of degrees from the horizontal (level of the court), that pros can build muscle mass to increase swing speeds, and that not every swing is going to be at maximum velocity and radius (assumptions critical to our discussion on momentum), etc. I consciously tried to keep it relevant to other posters in this thread, so I have little interest in debating the physics associated with a tennis swing beyond simplified terms when we are agreeing with each other on the end product: I think the 1hbh can provide more power because one arm is easier swing fast than two if a player is intent on ripping the ball at the cost of precision and stability.

Tennis_Monk
10-25-2009, 04:54 AM
I play both sometimes in a single rally. Everyone has their opinions on which is better ,powerful and what not but for me i need both .
I like the 1hbh for its reach especially when i am caught out of position (I am no Nadal or federer when it comes to court positioning and it doesnt take much to put me off position). Because i played with it so long , i have a decent control on this shot ie i can place it well-albeit with less pace. This lack of pace is not the limitation of the shot but limitation of my ability and technique.

I can hit harder down the line 2HBH. i can also return harder serves.

It took good 2 seasons for me to feel natural with 2hbh and at that time, i thought 2hbh will replace my 1hbh. Instead it became another tool in my box.

I rally with 2hbh unless i am winded or out of position , then i switch to 1hbh.


I will take gasquet's 1hbh or nadal/nalby 's 2hbh in a heart beat. My backhand sucks and it shows!

McBrat
10-25-2009, 05:23 AM
As a science journalist I can tell you: never believe journalists ;)

BBC makes serious mistakes too. The most funny example probably was a news about "frozen martian lake" (you can read it here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/4727847.stm)). Original news from ESA was about a patch of water ice on a huge dune (200 m height) (you can read it here (http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMGKA808BE_0.html); what's funny there are anaglyphs too...). As you can see, BBC has power to change a 200 m dune into a lake, so I'm not surprised that it has power to change 2HBH into the most powerful stroke on this planet.

Do not believe authorities. Believe facts and your mind.

OT: I don't think they changed the dune into a lake but rather, the crater into a lake. Calling it an "ice lake" instead of "ice on a dune in a crater" makes a better headline for the general public. Probably the reason it's still unchanged. And it's not an *analytical* flaw like a tennis article would've been. Also, they probably have different writers and editors for sports and science.

BBC probably makes quite a few errors. I'm just saying their theory seems sound in the article I pointed out. They didn't claim the 2HBH to be the most powerful stroke on the planet, just more powerful than the 1HBH.

Case: Someone drops a standard weight on a 1HBH stance and then on a 2HBH stance, with the head horizontal. In which case would it be easier to hold the racquet level? I say the 2HBH stance. This, when used in an actual shot, effectively makes it easier to handle a ball coming to your backhand with some pace on it.

Again, I'm not saying the 2HBH is more powerful in extreme situations such as the ones where you'd have the extremely long radius of rotation and huge backswing. Here, the power achieved would depend more on skill. But I do think the 2HBH is more powerful for most shots used in a match, especially returns of serve and high balls (BBC article).

TheFifthSet
10-25-2009, 06:04 AM
Nadal does everything else better than those 2 pretenders.

HEY, can you go a day without insulting pro players?

I can't stop chuckling at the notion of you having an obvious superiority complex over them.

Tempest344
10-25-2009, 06:14 AM
Nothing is wrong with it, if it works for you go for it.

BreakPoint
10-25-2009, 12:02 PM
BBC probably makes quite a few errors. I'm just saying their theory seems sound in the article I pointed out. They didn't claim the 2HBH to be the most powerful stroke on the planet, just more powerful than the 1HBH.

Actually, all the BBC said was this:
It gives more power and control on return of serve and on high balls, which are two crucial areas in the modern game.So they said nothing about low balls nor slices nor hitting with spin, all of which are easier with one hand. It's really easy to crank up powerful 1HBH's on low balls. This is one of the reasons why Federer and Sampras have won so many Wimbledons on low-bouncing grass. :)

NamRanger
10-25-2009, 12:39 PM
Actually, all the BBC said was this:
So they said nothing about low balls nor slices nor hitting with spin, all of which are easier with one hand. It's really easy to crank up powerful 1HBH's on low balls. This is one of the reasons why Federer and Sampras have won so many Wimbledons on low-bouncing grass. :)



I think it has more to do with their power game and allcourt abilities to adapt to different situations than their BH, although Federer certainly relied on his BH much more than Sampras in his Wimbledon victories. Those slice BHs are just nasty.

NamRanger
10-25-2009, 12:40 PM
Um, BP... you do realize that's the exact opposite of what most players are like?

Whether they have one or two-handed backhands, most players, both pro and amateur, hit their forehands harder than their backhands. Even the guys with the best backhands in the world - guys like Haas or Gasquet, who are used as models for how to hit GREAT backhands - still run around and hit forehands when they can.

(It isn't everyone - in the womens game especially, there are a number of players who don't run around their backhands, and in the mens game Fabrice Santoro would actually run around his forehand!)

BP, I suspect that your experience is unusual. That's fine - everyone's different - but you keep expecting that EVERYONE will experience the same thing when they switch.




Haas and Gasquet run around their backhands on higher balls that they cannot generate a good amount of pace on. Their forehands have a much bigger strike zone, and that is why they run around their backhands at times. It has nothing to do with pace, as Gasquet easily outpowers his forehand by a mile with his backhand.

sureshs
10-25-2009, 12:58 PM
I assume that Solon Peppas, Mounir El Aarej and Guillermo Platel are twohanders. So:

Federer(6), Youzhny(4), Blake(3), Gaudio(3), Gonzalez(3), Corretja(2), Mahut(1), Guccione(1), Johansson(1), Waske(1), Ljubicic(1), Calleri(1), Ascione(1), Lopez(1), Gasquet(1), Srichaphan(1), Puerta(1), Volandri(1), Roitman(1), Hantschk(1), Rochus(1).

Nadal lost 102 matches to 63 players. He lost 35 times to onehanders (35.3%) and to 21 one-handed backhand players (33.3%).

These days there are less onehanders in top ATP than 1/3, so statistics is obvious: onehander has more chances to win against Nadal than twohanders.

Thank you, sureshs, for your professional knowledge.

Look at the important matches

sureshs
10-25-2009, 12:59 PM
Blake, a 1hander, has beaten Federer. Blake and Federer, both 1handers, have beaten Nadal.

So... you know nothing at all about tennis. It's sad that you have so many posts when you are so clueless.

Look at their head to head record against Nadal.

Rjtennis
10-25-2009, 01:00 PM
What do you meanby the question, "what is so great about a 1hbh"?

sureshs
10-25-2009, 01:01 PM
Ice is a generic term in astronomy. It refers to water ice as well as other ices - like methane ice and carbon dioxide ice.

Baikalic
10-25-2009, 02:55 PM
Ice is a generic term in astronomy. It refers to water ice as well as other ices - like methane ice and carbon dioxide ice.

This. I think this sums up the discussion.

Gugafan
10-25-2009, 04:30 PM
Haas and Gasquet both have weak second serves and are prone to double faulting alot, Gasquet's forehand rarely ever makes it passed the service line and neither does Haas', Gasquet's return plain old sucks and Haas' is not brilliant either (Nadal is a much better returner than either of them).

The only think Gasquet and Haas do better than Nadal is first serve, Nadal does everything else better than those 2 pretenders.

Gasquet and Haas both volley alot better than Nadal. Also, not sure how you can say Haas second serve is weak when he used it effectively during his run to the semis at Wimbledon.

BreakPoint
10-25-2009, 06:04 PM
Look at the important matches
Wimbledon, US Open, and the Australian Open are not important matches? :confused:

BreakPoint
10-25-2009, 06:06 PM
Gasquet and Haas both volley alot better than Nadal. Also, not sure how you can say Haas second serve is weak when he used it effectively during his run to the semis at Wimbledon.
Most definitely true! :)

wyutani
10-25-2009, 06:07 PM
see how many one handers are there in the top 10? thats ur answer mate'.

benasp
10-25-2009, 06:12 PM
I would also say the one handed backhand is better for your position and movement, not only for your reach.
and the 2hbh neither is only for power but also precision

I disagree, 1 handed require much more precise positioning/precise movement. Bad positioning result in loosy shot. IMO, there more margin for error with 2HB so it's easier for the same result.

And you can't beat Nadal with 1HBH !!

Falloutjr
10-25-2009, 06:28 PM
see how many one handers are there in the top 10? thats ur answer mate'.

That's not a fair comparison because most coaches simply don't teach 1hbh anymore because it is more injury prone and it is harder for new players to grasp so they teach 2hbh, and if 80% of players are learning 2hbh, how many pros do you think will use it? I could do the same thing and say look back 30 years and say how many top 10 players are using 1hbhs and leave it at that. It's not that 1hbh isn't as good, it's just that the times have changed. Maybe people associate 1hbh more with skill is because the 70s-80s were a much stronger era with better players than today who generally used 1hbh, as compared to now when it's almost become a lost art and the field is weaker as a whole.

Gugafan
10-25-2009, 06:36 PM
see how many one handers are there in the top 10? thats ur answer mate'.

Counter argument...Many of the GS winners in the open era have one handed backhands....Sampras, Guga, Fed, Rafter, Gaudio, Edberg, Mauresmo, Henin etc.

BreakPoint
10-25-2009, 06:52 PM
And you can't beat Nadal with 1HBH !!
Um...wrong. See below:


Federer(6), Youzhny(4), Blake(3), Gaudio(3), Gonzalez(3), Corretja(2), Mahut(1), Guccione(1), Johansson(1), Waske(1), Ljubicic(1), Calleri(1), Ascione(1), Lopez(1), Gasquet(1), Srichaphan(1), Puerta(1), Volandri(1), Roitman(1), Hantschk(1), Rochus(1).

Nadal lost 102 matches to 63 players. He lost 35 times to onehanders (35.3%) and to 21 one-handed backhand players (33.3%).

These days there are less onehanders in top ATP than 1/3, so statistics is obvious: onehander has more chances to win against Nadal than twohanders.

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-25-2009, 09:32 PM
That's not a fair comparison because most coaches simply don't teach 1hbh anymore because it is more injury prone and it is harder for new players to grasp so they teach 2hbh, and if 80% of players are learning 2hbh, how many pros do you think will use it? I could do the same thing and say look back 30 years and say how many top 10 players are using 1hbhs and leave it at that. It's not that 1hbh isn't as good, it's just that the times have changed. Maybe people associate 1hbh more with skill is because the 70s-80s were a much stronger era with better players than today who generally used 1hbh, as compared to now when it's almost become a lost art and the field is weaker as a whole.

2HBH's mean lazy players being coached by lazy coaches..

Period....

Cantankersore
10-25-2009, 09:47 PM
That's not a fair comparison because most coaches simply don't teach 1hbh anymore because it is more injury prone and it is harder for new players to grasp so they teach 2hbh, and if 80% of players are learning 2hbh, how many pros do you think will use it? I could do the same thing and say look back 30 years and say how many top 10 players are using 1hbhs and leave it at that. It's not that 1hbh isn't as good, it's just that the times have changed. Maybe people associate 1hbh more with skill is because the 70s-80s were a much stronger era with better players than today who generally used 1hbh, as compared to now when it's almost become a lost art and the field is weaker as a whole.

I disagree.

McBrat
10-25-2009, 10:21 PM
Actually, all the BBC said was this:
So they said nothing about low balls nor slices nor hitting with spin, all of which are easier with one hand. It's really easy to crank up powerful 1HBH's on low balls. This is one of the reasons why Federer and Sampras have won so many Wimbledons on low-bouncing grass. :)Federer and Sampras? Come on! They're not average enough for a fair comparison. They probably use the 1HBH to fully utilise their *range* of shots.

And of the shots you mentioned, only the low balls would need powerful returns. As you'd have to bend to get to these, you won't be able to use all the power from you legs. So, again, it becomes more about skill than playing style. Plus, returns of serve are still a huge part of the game and the grass court season is quite short.

Harry_Wild
10-25-2009, 11:42 PM
You can be a GOAT candidate - just ask Sampras, Federer, Graf and Navratilova.

Justine Henin has the greatest one hand backhand in the history of the game! Even Federer was impressed!

Ultra2HolyGrail
10-25-2009, 11:57 PM
It's funny how people say two handers are taught because kids are not strong enough for the one hander. So how did all these one handed players learn the one hander as a kid? Did federer jsut run around his backhand as a kid? It's just a cop out. They are taught the two hander because it's the better more consistent shot.

Besides gasquet there are no one handers noted to having a great one handed backhand.

Ultra2HolyGrail
10-25-2009, 11:58 PM
Justine Henin has the greatest one hand backhand in the history of the game! Even Federer was impressed!


She's the gasquet of the wta.

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-26-2009, 12:34 AM
It's funny how people say two handers are taught because kids are not strong enough for the one hander. So how did all these one handed players learn the one hander as a kid? Did federer jsut run around his backhand as a kid? It's just a cop out. They are taught the two hander because it's the better more consistent shot.

Besides gasquet there are no one handers noted to having a great one handed backhand.

Its only a better more consistant shot if you can't hit a 1HBH ;)

I would put my 1HBH up against any 2HBH any day..

The fact is, that coaches have become lazy, and so has the game itself..

For me, I will sit and watch a Nadal Federer match. Why? Because it will have some variety. But I simply wont sit and watch a Nadal Djoka match. Why? Because it is simply mindless bashing in between the time wasting and mind games. Simply no variety at all....

Ultra2HolyGrail
10-26-2009, 12:41 AM
Its only a better more consistant shot if you can't hit a 1HBH ;)

I would put my 1HBH up against any 2HBH any day..

The fact is, that coaches have become lazy, and so has the game itself..

For me, I will sit and watch a Nadal Federer match. Why? Because it will have some variety. But I simply wont sit and watch a Nadal Djoka match. Why? Because it is simply mindless bashing in between the time wasting and mind games. Simply no variety at all....


It's not the two handed backhand that makes one boring it's their character. Agassi has no variety and was one of the most exciting to watch.

McBrat
10-26-2009, 12:49 AM
It's funny how people say two handers are taught because kids are not strong enough for the one hander. So how did all these one handed players learn the one hander as a kid? Did federer jsut run around his backhand as a kid? It's just a cop out. They are taught the two hander because it's the better more consistent shot.

Besides gasquet there are no one handers noted to having a great one handed backhand.I'd imagine he just worked a little harder.

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-26-2009, 02:04 AM
It's not the two handed backhand that makes one boring it's their character. Agassi has no variety and was one of the most exciting to watch.

Actually I couldn't stand watching Agassi....

The only 2Hder that I will watch and actually does have variety, is Hewitt.. Not what I would call a s&v. But he can attack when needs to and has an all court game.. He is also one of the better vollyers out there, if not in the top 2... Thats when he actually comes in of course..

Blinkism
10-26-2009, 02:16 AM
Not to mention its easier to disguise shots as well. Of course your opponent will kow if you're dropping or slicing if you're a two hander. As for your original question, no real problem with 2 handers, one handed is just harder to learn initially where footowkr is key. Crap footwork = no solid one hander.

Interesting, a lot of players with 2HBH's attempt to disguise their drop shots and slices by hitting into the shot with 2 hands and upon initial contact then letting go with the non-dominant hand.

Nadal, is an example, as is Djokovic...

I'm not talking defensive slices, ofcourse

But, to your point- a 1HBH is better to disguise, especially with the right grip and set-up.

BreakPoint
10-26-2009, 12:41 PM
It's not the two handed backhand that makes one boring it's their character. Agassi has no variety and was one of the most exciting to watch.
Agassi was just as boring to watch as Nadal and Djokovic, but at least Agassi stood on the baseline and took the ball on the rise.

Coaches today discourage kids from learning the 1HBH because it takes longer to develop and the kids and their parents want instant results or else they'll move on to a different coach.

nereis
10-26-2009, 07:51 PM
I used to have a one hander that I could crank harder than my forehand on some days. Problem was actually being able to do it. For every big flat one I could crank, I was shanking three into the stands. This forced me to hit loopy balls that were frankly, harder to execute well even though they were safer. While I am grateful I still have a good variety of slice and an attacking game, I've since switched to a two fisted backhand. Its a more compact swing and has has more leeway as far a contact point is concerned. Thanks to the work I've been putting in the gym, I can muscle balls past someone on the stretch or punch the ball back when I'm being jammed on a serve and moreover, I have more consistancy as far as just getting balls back deep. It will never be the amazing shot my one hander was when I was zoning, but at least now I can hang with the hot shot juniors from the baseline instead of being yo-yo'd.

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-26-2009, 08:58 PM
I used to have a one hander that I could crank harder than my forehand on some days. Problem was actually being able to do it. For every big flat one I could crank, I was shanking three into the stands. This forced me to hit loopy balls that were frankly, harder to execute well even though they were safer. While I am grateful I still have a good variety of slice and an attacking game, I've since switched to a two fisted backhand. Its a more compact swing and has has more leeway as far a contact point is concerned. Thanks to the work I've been putting in the gym, I can muscle balls past someone on the stretch or punch the ball back when I'm being jammed on a serve and moreover, I have more consistancy as far as just getting balls back deep. It will never be the amazing shot my one hander was when I was zoning, but at least now I can hang with the hot shot juniors from the baseline instead of being yo-yo'd.

Its all about technique.. I hit 95% in, and 5% out..

Obviously there are times when you play the lines and miss. But as an average stroke, my 1HBH when hit properly is a very reliable shot. If you are hitting too many out. Then that means that you are trying to go for too much too often, and dont have the technique to equate for that...

Pretty simple really..

wyutani
10-27-2009, 02:28 AM
2hbh, easy on high balls. 1hbh = NOT.

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-27-2009, 02:39 AM
2hbh, easy on high balls. 1hbh = NOT.

Ever heard of flat, bunt, slice returning of high bouncing balls to the back hand?

Why does everyone think that a 1HBH has to always be topspin?

Sheeshh

BreakPoint
10-27-2009, 03:16 AM
2hbh, easy on high balls. 1hbh = NOT.
1HBH, easy on low balls. 2HBH = NOT.

nfor304
10-27-2009, 04:12 AM
I used to have a one hander that I could crank harder than my forehand on some days. Problem was actually being able to do it. For every big flat one I could crank, I was shanking three into the stands. This forced me to hit loopy balls that were frankly, harder to execute well even though they were safer. While I am grateful I still have a good variety of slice and an attacking game, I've since switched to a two fisted backhand. Its a more compact swing and has has more leeway as far a contact point is concerned. Thanks to the work I've been putting in the gym, I can muscle balls past someone on the stretch or punch the ball back when I'm being jammed on a serve and moreover, I have more consistancy as far as just getting balls back deep. It will never be the amazing shot my one hander was when I was zoning, but at least now I can hang with the hot shot juniors from the baseline instead of being yo-yo'd.

I'm the opposite. I used to hit a 2 hander and switched when I was 16. The switch made me far better better player in the long run imo and my 1 hander is far far better than my 2 hander ever was.

sh@de
10-27-2009, 04:25 AM
1HBH, easy on low balls. 2HBH = NOT.

And the thing is, most balls are high balls when you're a kid, hence the 2hbh being taught more. And once it's taught, it sticks. That's why the 1hbh is disappearing... :cry:

Polvorin
10-27-2009, 04:46 AM
The only 2Hder that I will watch and actually does have variety, is Hewitt.. Not what I would call a s&v. But he can attack when needs to and has an all court game.. He is also one of the better vollyers out there, if not in the top 2... Thats when he actually comes in of course..

I think Murray also has some nice variety. He hits drop shots and volleys quite well.

sdont
10-27-2009, 05:59 AM
Do not talk about forces. Talk about energy and momentum, we have very good defined collisions and conservation laws here.

The kinetic energy of racquet head and its momentum are higher in 1HBH. Why? Masses are the same in both cases, the crucial point is velocity, which is larger in 1HBH because of:

1. longer radius of rotation of racquet head;
2. longer path of accelerating of racquet head - you have time to accelerate;
3. longer part of deceleration - you can accelerate more because you have place to decelerate;
4. rotation of forearm significantly increases kinetic energy of racquet head.

Sad (not for me, I'm onehander) but true: good 1HBH is always stronger than good 2HBH.

If you watch tennis matches in TV, you probably see many strong 2HBHs, but generally they are strokes where players use the power of the opponent.

Very interesting.

I think a good 1HBH can generate more pace on his own than a 2HBH. But the global pace of a shot is the combination of

how much of your opponent's pace you can redirect
how much pace you can add to it by your own swing

and I would say that a good 2HBH can redirect more pace than a 1HBH because I tend to think a 1HBH "absorbs" more pace. So, if you receive a weak shot on the BH, you can generate more pace with a 1HBH than with a 2HBH. On the other hand, you have more control of your opponent's pace with a 2HBH.

Basically, a 1HBH is better suited to be aggressive whereas a 2HBH is better suited to counterpunch. This could explain the fact that most one-handers are aggressive players, and that the best counter-punchers are two-handers.

I would add that from a control engineering point of view, I think a 2HBH is a more stable shot (which is why it's easier to learn) whereas a 1HBH is more performant but less stable so more subject to break-downs.

What do you think?

dropshot winner
10-27-2009, 06:16 AM
She's the gasquet of the wta.
Except that she doesn't choke all the time and has a great forehand.

dropshot winner
10-27-2009, 06:23 AM
The mechanics of the one-hander are too complicated, it needs a lot of preperation (footwork) and time (big swing), so there's a lot that can go wrong.

That's why it's pretty much dead in the juniors.

It's very difficult to return agressively with a one-hander, and it's just as difficult to handle all the pace and spin in the baseline rallys with just one hand. A twohander can generate far more power with a short swing and it's easier to adjust midswing.

As Murray and others have proven it's possible to have a good slice and volleys as a player with a two-handed backhand, so basically there's no need for one-hander.

sureshs
10-27-2009, 07:02 AM
It is quite simple - fast high bouncing topspins are difficult for 1 handers. That is why it is fading away. In the days of wood racquets, there wasn't this much bounce or spin. Balls were flat and low. To handle topspin, a 1 hander has couple of options - go under the ball with perfect timing and then meet it up to put counter spin on it - or to slice, which will get killed. A 2 hander requires less accurate timing and rhythm and is a more balanced shot. It also helps in aggressive cross court attacks, while the 1 hander has to loop.

Pwned
10-27-2009, 07:05 AM
It isn't fading away. It has been fairly uncommon for the last 20 years. It is still that way and will continue to be that way. But there will always be those who excel at it.

salsainglesa
10-27-2009, 08:15 AM
i dont know if this has been analised yet, but there are some more subtle, for a lack of a better term i will say advantages, to the 2 hander.
you work with both sides of your body, that translates into a more even distribution of working loads in the limbs articulations, specially in the shoulder.
regarding footwork, you learn to accomodate the feet, in several variations, and that is good for neuromuscular connections.
(try this, learn a weak hand forehand, and one of the hurdles is the footwork, because you will be making the samepatterns that you are used to in your dominant hand strokes)
3rd, the psicological advantage of feeling safer, and gives you confidence.this is important, if you feel confident on your bh side, your fh side wont have the preassure of carrying your game.
Tactical, and this is where many people agree, high bouncingballs to the backhand, are handled with slice by the one handers, and thats a liability, because you are limiting your options. you can decide with a 2hbh, to use a slice or topspin depending on the situation, rival and whatver strategy you will use. nd that transllates into confidence and a sense of mastery.
tactical positioning, the contact point is further to the back, so you have a little more space to hit a clean shot. think of andre agassi, his style wouldnt be possible with a one hander.
consider that, a good penetrating rally shot will always be going up while crossing the baseline, ifthis is the case, the one hander must be standing one step behind to hit the ball on the same place than a 2 hander would be. this could be corrected for the onehander, by standing a step back before every stroke, but thats one step further also on theforehand side, making it one step more demanding to hit the ball on the same depth.
when you hit a one hander, you hit it with the body turned sidewys, and that means your inertia isnt going forward, thats specially true when hitting a ball that angles away from you and you have to chase a couple of steps or even run to it, thus making recovery more demanding....
another thing, because the main articulation for the 1hbh is the front shoulder you have less variations on the swing path you can produce.
this is complex, but think about the forehand, and all the different ways pro players use it. thebackhand, if its a one hander, you have to hit it in a certain way or it just wont work.
one of thereasons for this isthe position of the hand in relation with the forearm, wich is fixed on the extension/flexion range of motion. there is a little deviation and there is pronation/external rotation, BUT, it can only generate top spin, when the arm is in horizontal position, and that is a very steep angle and it is difficult to generate an horizontal vector.
the 2hander has the same posibilities than a forehand, eventhoug, its important to acknowledge the diferences between them.

nat75
10-27-2009, 08:22 AM
Agassi was just as boring to watch as Nadal and Djokovic, but at least Agassi stood on the baseline and took the ball on the rise.

Coaches today discourage kids from learning the 1HBH because it takes longer to develop and the kids and their parents want instant results or else they'll move on to a different coach.

I think you nailed it.

sennoc
10-27-2009, 01:26 PM
i dont know if this has been analised yet, but there are some more subtle, for a lack of a better term i will say advantages, to the 2 hander.
you work with both sides of your body, that translates into a more even distribution of working loads in the limbs articulations, specially in the shoulder.
regarding footwork, you learn to accomodate the feet, in several variations, and that is good for neuromuscular connections.
(try this, learn a weak hand forehand, and one of the hurdles is the footwork, because you will be making the samepatterns that you are used to in your dominant hand strokes)
3rd, the psicological advantage of feeling safer, and gives you confidence.this is important, if you feel confident on your bh side, your fh side wont have the preassure of carrying your game.
Tactical, and this is where many people agree, high bouncingballs to the backhand, are handled with slice by the one handers, and thats a liability, because you are limiting your options. you can decide with a 2hbh, to use a slice or topspin depending on the situation, rival and whatver strategy you will use. nd that transllates into confidence and a sense of mastery.
tactical positioning, the contact point is further to the back, so you have a little more space to hit a clean shot. think of andre agassi, his style wouldnt be possible with a one hander.
consider that, a good penetrating rally shot will always be going up while crossing the baseline, ifthis is the case, the one hander must be standing one step behind to hit the ball on the same place than a 2 hander would be. this could be corrected for the onehander, by standing a step back before every stroke, but thats one step further also on theforehand side, making it one step more demanding to hit the ball on the same depth.
when you hit a one hander, you hit it with the body turned sidewys, and that means your inertia isnt going forward, thats specially true when hitting a ball that angles away from you and you have to chase a couple of steps or even run to it, thus making recovery more demanding....
another thing, because the main articulation for the 1hbh is the front shoulder you have less variations on the swing path you can produce.
this is complex, but think about the forehand, and all the different ways pro players use it. thebackhand, if its a one hander, you have to hit it in a certain way or it just wont work.
one of thereasons for this isthe position of the hand in relation with the forearm, wich is fixed on the extension/flexion range of motion. there is a little deviation and there is pronation/external rotation, BUT, it can only generate top spin, when the arm is in horizontal position, and that is a very steep angle and it is difficult to generate an horizontal vector.
the 2hander has the same posibilities than a forehand, eventhoug, its important to acknowledge the diferences between them.

Twohanded strokes are perfectly symmetrical, so many advantages, why don't you play twohanded forehand?

REBEL
10-27-2009, 02:35 PM
Call me a novice but what is wrong with a 2HBH?

Ok you are a novice.:shock:

BreakPoint
10-27-2009, 03:16 PM
2hbh, easy on high balls. 1hbh = NOT.
Both Olivier Rochus and Justin Henin are only 5' 5" tall. So EVERY backhand is a high backhand for them. Yet, both of them have great 1HBH's. Did you see the Stockholm Open?

Can you imagine how much easier it is for someone who's 6' 2" to hit those same high backhands if even someone only 5' 5" can do it so well?

Ultra2HolyGrail
10-27-2009, 03:23 PM
Coaches today discourage kids from learning the 1HBH because it takes longer to develop and the kids and their parents want instant results or else they'll move on to a different coach.


Makes sense to me. Go with the shot that's easier to learn, a proven more consistent shot, better for groundstrokes and returns. Why go with a shot that is inferior in every category
and difficult and literally impossible to master even for pro's? Many pro's have been so fed up with the one hander they have to retort to slice.

Ultra2HolyGrail
10-27-2009, 03:44 PM
Mom and Pop: Hey coach, are kid is shanking his one hander and can never get it in.

Break point: He is just to weak yet, he will grow into it.

Mom and pop: But all the other kids are beating him and have much better and consistent groundstrokes and returns.

Break Point: Do you notice how much better reach he has though?

Mom and Pop: No he is losing all the time.

Break Point: You do realize federer and sampras uses a one handed backhand don't you?

Mon and Pop: What's that have to do with are kid?

Break Point: You do realize John Mcenroe alos used a one handed backhand don't you?

Mom and Pop: Hmm

Break Point: Don't worry. If things go well and he get's stronger he will have a great one hander. It just takes time to develop.

Mom and Pop: How much time?

Break Point: You do realize federer and sampras uses a one hander?

Mom and Pop: Do they have a great one handed backhand?

Break Point: Richard Gasguet does.

Mom and Pop: Thanks for your time.

BreakPoint
10-27-2009, 03:50 PM
Very interesting.

I think a good 1HBH can generate more pace on his own than a 2HBH. But the global pace of a shot is the combination of
how much of your opponent's pace you can redirect
how much pace you can add to it by your own swingand I would say that a good 2HBH can redirect more pace than a 1HBH because I tend to think a 1HBH "absorbs" more pace. So, if you receive a weak shot on the BH, you can generate more pace with a 1HBH than with a 2HBH. On the other hand, you have more control of your opponent's pace with a 2HBH.

Basically, a 1HBH is better suited to be aggressive whereas a 2HBH is better suited to counterpunch. This could explain the fact that most one-handers are aggressive players, and that the best counter-punchers are two-handers.

I would add that from a control engineering point of view, I think a 2HBH is a more stable shot (which is why it's easier to learn) whereas a 1HBH is more performant but less stable so more subject to break-downs.

What do you think?
Good analysis. Well said.

I totally agree. :)

BreakPoint
10-27-2009, 03:54 PM
The mechanics of the one-hander are too complicated, it needs a lot of preperation (footwork) and time (big swing), so there's a lot that can go wrong.

That's why it's pretty much dead in the juniors.

But isn't the same true of the one-handed forehand? Yet, I don't see the one-handed forehand disappearing anytime soon.

Cesc Fabregas
10-27-2009, 03:57 PM
BreakPoint I have a question for you, would you take Federer's one handed backhand over a great 2 handed backhand lets say Safin?

BreakPoint
10-27-2009, 04:01 PM
It is quite simple - fast high bouncing topspins are difficult for 1 handers. That is why it is fading away. In the days of wood racquets, there wasn't this much bounce or spin. Balls were flat and low. To handle topspin, a 1 hander has couple of options - go under the ball with perfect timing and then meet it up to put counter spin on it - or to slice, which will get killed. A 2 hander requires less accurate timing and rhythm and is a more balanced shot. It also helps in aggressive cross court attacks, while the 1 hander has to loop.
Hmmm...Federer slices all the time and I don't see him getting killed. In fact, he won 15 Grand Slams by slicing his backhand. :)

LiveForever
10-27-2009, 04:02 PM
Hmmm...Federer slices all the time and I don't see him getting killed. In fact, he won 15 Grand Slams by slicing his backhand. :)
Feds slice backhand got munched up by Nadal so many times at the Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009.

Cesc Fabregas
10-27-2009, 04:05 PM
Hmmm...Federer slices all the time and I don't see him getting killed. In fact, he won 15 Grand Slams by slicing his backhand. :)

Federer's slice gets killed by Nadal. :)

BreakPoint
10-27-2009, 04:19 PM
3rd, the psicological advantage of feeling safer, and gives you confidence.this is important, if you feel confident on your bh side, your fh side wont have the preassure of carrying your game.
What if your 1HBH is better than your forehand? Then your forehand wouldn't be carrying your game, right?


Tactical, and this is where many people agree, high bouncingballs to the backhand, are handled with slice by the one handers, and thats a liability, because you are limiting your options. you can decide with a 2hbh, to use a slice or topspin depending on the situation, rival and whatver strategy you will use. nd that transllates into confidence and a sense of mastery.
How do you hit a topspin stoke with a 2HBH when the ball bounces up to your shoulder? You can't brush up on the ball when it's already at the limit of your reach.


tactical positioning, the contact point is further to the back, so you have a little more space to hit a clean shot. think of andre agassi, his style wouldnt be possible with a one hander.
consider that, a good penetrating rally shot will always be going up while crossing the baseline, ifthis is the case, the one hander must be standing one step behind to hit the ball on the same place than a 2 hander would be. this could be corrected for the onehander, by standing a step back before every stroke, but thats one step further also on theforehand side, making it one step more demanding to hit the ball on the same depth.

Not true. Most good one-handers stand closer to the baseline than two-handers do to take the ball on the rise as it's easier to hit 1HBH's when the ball is lower than when it's high at the peak of the bounce. 2HBH players can stand further back because they can take the balls at the height of the bounce. One-handers tend to stand closer in to take the ball right off of the bounce.

when you hit a one hander, you hit it with the body turned sidewys, and that means your inertia isnt going forward, thats specially true when hitting a ball that angles away from you and you have to chase a couple of steps or even run to it, thus making recovery more demanding....
Not true. You step into the ball when you hit the 1HBH and your arm swings out away from your body more than with a 2HBH, so your inertia is indeed going forward.

another thing, because the main articulation for the 1hbh is the front shoulder you have less variations on the swing path you can produce.
this is complex, but think about the forehand, and all the different ways pro players use it. thebackhand, if its a one hander, you have to hit it in a certain way or it just wont work.

Not true again. Most good 1HBH players have much more variety with their backhands than with their forehands. They can hit their 1HBH's many different way while they generally just drive their forehands all the time.


the 2hander has the same posibilities than a forehand, eventhoug, its important to acknowledge the diferences between them.
The 2HBH is a much more restricted stroke than the forehand. You always have more freedom of movement with one hand/arm than with two.

BreakPoint
10-27-2009, 04:21 PM
Makes sense to me. Go with the shot that's easier to learn, a proven more consistent shot, better for groundstrokes and returns. Why go with a shot that is inferior in every category
and difficult and literally impossible to master even for pro's? Many pro's have been so fed up with the one hander they have to retort to slice.
Because if you ever want to become the GOAT, like Federer or Sampras or Laver, you're much more likely to become a great with a 1HBH. :)

BreakPoint
10-27-2009, 04:23 PM
Mom and Pop: Hey coach, are kid is shanking his one hander and can never get it in.

Break point: He is just to weak yet, he will grow into it.

Mom and pop: But all the other kids are beating him and have much better and consistent groundstrokes and returns.

Break Point: Do you notice how much better reach he has though?

Mom and Pop: No he is losing all the time.

Break Point: You do realize federer and sampras uses a one handed backhand don't you?

Mon and Pop: What's that have to do with are kid?

Break Point: You do realize John Mcenroe alos used a one handed backhand don't you?

Mom and Pop: Hmm

Break Point: Don't worry. If things go well and he get's stronger he will have a great one hander. It just takes time to develop.

Mom and Pop: How much time?

Break Point: You do realize federer and sampras uses a one hander?

Mom and Pop: Do they have a great one handed backhand?

Break Point: Richard Gasguet does.

Mom and Pop: Thanks for your time.
Sampras lost all the time, too, when he switched from a 2HBH too a 1HBH as a junior.

The rest, shall we say, is history. :)

BreakPoint
10-27-2009, 04:24 PM
BreakPoint I have a question for you, would you take Federer's one handed backhand over a great 2 handed backhand lets say Safin?
Yes, any day of the week.

Why? It's simple math, really.

15 > 2

:)

BreakPoint
10-27-2009, 04:25 PM
Feds slice backhand got munched up by Nadal so many times at the Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009.
Federer's slice gets killed by Nadal. :)

15 > 6

:)

Federer has also beaten Nadal many times with his slice.

Ultra2HolyGrail
10-27-2009, 04:34 PM
Federer and sampras win but not because of their backhand. It's every other part of their game that wins. Anyone knowledgeable about tennis realizes that.

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-27-2009, 04:35 PM
Federer and sampras win but not because of their backhand. It's every other part of their game that wins. Anyone knowledgeable about tennis realizes that.

So you are saying that the 1HBH players have over all better games then......

Ultra2HolyGrail
10-27-2009, 04:41 PM
So you are saying that the 1HBH players have over all better games then......


We might be on to something here. Notice how great feds and sampras serve are? Maybe the one hander forces you to have a great serve? We all know what a great serve can do for your game.

BreakPoint
10-27-2009, 04:41 PM
Federer and sampras win but not because of their backhand. It's every other part of their game that wins. Anyone knowledgeable about tennis realizes that.
Anyone knowledgeable about tennis knows that if Federer and Sampras had weak backhands, they would never be the GOAT because EVERY opponent would be able to beat them by just hitting EVERY ball to their backhands.

Their 1HBH's is part of what makes their entire games so great. They are inseparable. Neither Sampras nor Federer would have been as great if they had 2HBH's. That's a fact.

Ultra2HolyGrail
10-27-2009, 04:44 PM
Their 1HBH's is part of what makes their entire games so great. They are inseparable. Neither Sampras nor Federer would have been as great if they had 2HBH's. That's a fact.


That's fiction. Imagine every time nadal hit heavy topspin to feds backhand and fed had a safin like backhand. He would of been unbeatable.


You think Borg would of been better with a one hander? Pass whatever you are smoking.

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-27-2009, 04:56 PM
We might be on to something here. Notice how great feds and sampras serve are? Maybe the one hander forces you to have a great serve? We all know what a great serve can do for your game.

I think Laver, Sampras and Federer are all great, because instead of just taking the easy way out and hitting mindless 2HBH ball bashing. They actually took the time to develop their games...

Hence my point about 10 pages back..

Kids today arelazy. And they are being coached by lazy coaches....

Thats why the 2HBH is popular.....

Max G.
10-27-2009, 04:58 PM
Their 1HBH's is part of what makes their entire games so great. They are inseparable. Neither Sampras nor Federer would have been as great if they had 2HBH's. That's a fact.

Really, BP? You're going to call that a "fact" - speculation of what players MIGHT have done if some part of their game had been different?

Ultra2HolyGrail
10-27-2009, 04:59 PM
I think Laver, Sampras and Federer are all great, because instead of just taking the easy way out and hitting mindless 2HBH ball bashing. They actually took the time to develop their games


Yup. Federer developed a good slice to compensate.

Ultra2HolyGrail
10-27-2009, 05:11 PM
How come Hass, blake, gonzalez, gasguet, etc etc are not goats like BP say's the key to being a goat is having a one handed backhand? Maybe they lack other parts of their game? They should atleast be in the top 5, no?

Ultra2HolyGrail
10-27-2009, 05:19 PM
I think Laver, Sampras and Federer are all great, because instead of just taking the easy way out and hitting mindless 2HBH ball bashing. They actually took the time to develop their games...

Hence my point about 10 pages back..

Kids today arelazy. And they are being coached by lazy coaches....

Thats why the 2HBH is popular.....


No, it's popular because it's the better shot for today's game. Look at the top 10. Only federer has a one hander. And again, it's not because he has a one hander.


1 Federer, Roger
2 Nadal, Rafael
3 Djokovic, Novak
4 Murray, Andy
5 Del Potro, Juan Martin
6 Davydenko, Nikolay
7 Roddick, Andy
8 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried
9 Verdasco, Fernando
10 Soderling, Robin

Falloutjr
10-27-2009, 05:49 PM
Also notice how lots of those players are more defensive/spin oriented games (Nadal, Murray) or have bigger serves than Federer (Roddick, Soderling, Del Potro). And if you watch Roddick play, he slices his backhands on a fairly regular basis. 1hbh suits Federer's all-court game, whereas other players use spins to slow down the pace and set up their 2hbh properly or hit the ball so hard that they force weak shots and inherently have time to hit a 2hbh. Federer's balanced style and moderate pace, compared to other players, calls for a 1hbh. Also, notice how he's the only top 10 player with a main 1hbh, but notice how he's also ranked #1 ;)

salsainglesa
10-27-2009, 06:10 PM
Anyone knowledgeable about tennis knows that if Federer and Sampras had weak backhands, they would never be the GOAT because EVERY opponent would be able to beat them by just hitting EVERY ball to their backhands.

Their 1HBH's is part of what makes their entire games so great. They are inseparable. Neither Sampras nor Federer would have been as great if they had 2HBH's. That's a fact.

no, its an assumption... a fact is something that really happens...

LiveForever
10-27-2009, 06:13 PM
That's fiction. Imagine every time nadal hit heavy topspin to feds backhand and fed had a safin like backhand. He would of been unbeatable.


You think Borg would of been better with a one hander? Pass whatever you are smoking.
its not that simple. If Federer had a beastly and powerful 2 hander like Safin, he would have had to comprise his incredible touch. How often have you seen Federer get to an impossible ball and backhand flicked it for a clear winner or amazing passing shot? A two hander would also have taken away from Federer's transition game which works really well for him on grass. Feds backhand might have clear holes in it but it certainly has some incredible qualities.

_maxi
10-27-2009, 09:01 PM
But isn't the same true of the one-handed forehand? Yet, I don't see the one-handed forehand disappearing anytime soon.
Nope. You have to compare it to the 2hbh, not with a forehand. See my point?

It's like choosing the best motorcycle and say.. mm, I dont think that this is the best motorcycle, that car goes faster.



However, you can hit a 1h forehand with less preparation time. Stability is not as critical as in the 1hbh.

Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt_W9xzl864

BreakPoint
10-27-2009, 10:08 PM
That's fiction. Imagine every time nadal hit heavy topspin to feds backhand and fed had a safin like backhand. He would of been unbeatable.


You think Borg would of been better with a one hander? Pass whatever you are smoking.
Then why can't Safin beat Nadal?

If Safin had a 1HBH, maybe he would have won 13 more Grand Slams? The fact is, Safin's 2HBH affects the rest of his game, making his overall game not as good as Federer's, just like Federer's 1HBH affects the rest of his game, making his overall game better than Safin's.

Oh, Borg does hit a one-hander. Only his takeback is two-hands. :shock:

And maybe if he hit a conventional one-hander like Federer's or Sampras' or Lendl's, he would have won the US Open. :-|

Blinkism
10-27-2009, 10:10 PM
^^

No and no

But no one's knocking you for trying, BP

:)

BreakPoint
10-27-2009, 10:43 PM
Really, BP? You're going to call that a "fact" - speculation of what players MIGHT have done if some part of their game had been different?
Yes, I call it a fact.

Sampras did play with 2 hands but switched to 1 in order to win Wimbledon. It certainly worked very well. Playing a 1HBH allowed him to develop his attacking style and his serve and volley game. If he had stayed with his 2HBH, I doubt he would have been any better than Ivanisevic (who had a better serve).

Same with Federer. His 1HBH allowed him to develop an aggressive style and have the variety to beat most of the 2HBH baseliners who are a dime a dozen on the ATP Tour. I'd bet almost everyone on the pro tour would rather play against just about anyone with a 2HBH than play against Federer.

BreakPoint
10-27-2009, 11:15 PM
However, you can hit a 1h forehand with less preparation time. Stability is not as critical as in the 1hbh.

I don't think that's true. I'm frequently hitting the ball late with my 1-handed forehand but almost never late hitting my 1HBH, even though of course, I hit my 1HBH further out in front of my body. It has to do with your racquet arm being forward facing the net when you turn sideways to hit a 1HBH versus your racquet arm being backwards facing the back fence when you turn sideways to hit 1-handed forehands.

BreakPoint
10-27-2009, 11:51 PM
How come Hass, blake, gonzalez, gasguet, etc etc are not goats like BP say's the key to being a goat is having a one handed backhand? Maybe they lack other parts of their game? They should atleast be in the top 5, no?
No, I didn't say that anyone could be a GOAT just because they have a 1HBH. I said a 2HBH would probably prevent you from becoming the GOAT. That's why the top GOAT candidates (e.g., Federer, Sampras, and Laver) all have 1HBH's. :)

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-28-2009, 12:19 AM
No, I didn't say that anyone could be a GOAT just because they have a 1HBH. I said a 2HBH would probably prevent you from becoming the GOAT. That's why the top GOAT candidates (e.g., Federer, Sampras, and Laver) all have 1HBH's. :)

And games that are more than one dimensional.

Max G.
10-28-2009, 12:26 AM
Yes, I call it a fact.

Then you have a horrible definition of "fact". Something that can't be verified in any way, because it's not possible to go back and switch out Federer or Sampras's backhands for another one and see how they do, is a "fact"? Really?

That Sampras and Federer won the Grand Slams they did is a fact. What they WOULD have done if some parts of their game had been different is speculation.


Sampras did play with 2 hands but switched to 1 in order to win Wimbledon. It certainly worked very well. Playing a 1HBH allowed him to develop his attacking style and his serve and volley game. If he had stayed with his 2HBH, I doubt he would have been any better than Ivanisevic (who had a better serve).

Same with Federer. His 1HBH allowed him to develop an aggressive style and have the variety to beat most of the 2HBH baseliners who are a dime a dozen on the ATP Tour. I'd bet almost everyone on the pro tour would rather play against just about anyone with a 2HBH than play against Federer.

And in both those cases, you're not saying that the backhand is better - you're saying that the backhand made them improve the REST of their game. The fact that Sampras and Federer both had great forehands isn't what this discussion is about.

. I said a 2HBH would probably prevent you from becoming the GOAT. That's why the top GOAT candidates (e.g., Federer, Sampras, and Laver) all have 1HBH's.

So if that's the argument you're making, would you also agree that a 1HBH would significantly lower your chances of making it on the ATP tour these days? Because a significant majority of today's successful ATP pros don't use a 1HBH?

The arguments sound about the same to me.


I don't think that's true. I'm frequently hitting the ball late with my 1-handed forehand but almost never late hitting my 1HBH, even though of course, I hit my 1HBH further out in front of my body.

And we've already established you're an anomaly - a majority of pros, even those who use one-handed backhands, have better forehands than backhands, and you've said you're the other way around. For every Richard Gasquet or Tommy Haas, there's a Feliciano Lopez or Ivo Karlovic and half a dozen Tommy Robredo types.

BreakPoint
10-28-2009, 01:50 AM
Then you have a horrible definition of "fact". Something that can't be verified in any way, because it's not possible to go back and switch out Federer or Sampras's backhands for another one and see how they do, is a "fact"? Really?
Yes, really. Because no 2HBH player in history has been able to achieve as much as Federer, Sampras or Laver even though 2HBH players make up over 80% of the pro tour today.


And in both those cases, you're not saying that the backhand is better - you're saying that the backhand made them improve the REST of their game. The fact that Sampras and Federer both had great forehands isn't what this discussion is about.
Their 1HBH's enabled them to become better overall players. It's the complete package. They would have been hindered from developing the complete package if they had 2HBH's.


So if that's the argument you're making, would you also agree that a 1HBH would significantly lower your chances of making it on the ATP tour these days? Because a significant majority of today's successful ATP pros don't use a 1HBH?
No, I wouldn't agree. What percentage of juniors use 1HBH? What percentage of pros use 1HBH? I'd say the percentage of ATP pros with 1HBH's is greater than the percentage of juniors with 1HBH's. That proves that you are more likely to make it to the ATP Tour if you have a 1HBH than if you have a 2HBH. And the most successful pros on the ATP Tour (e.g., Federer, Sampras, Laver, etc.) have 1HBH's. :)


And we've already established you're an anomaly - a majority of pros, even those who use one-handed backhands, have better forehands than backhands, and you've said you're the other way around. For every Richard Gasquet or Tommy Haas, there's a Feliciano Lopez or Ivo Karlovic and half a dozen Tommy Robredo types.
I have a good forehand as well. I just find hitting 1HBH's more fun. :)

And my point was that a good forehand takes as much preparation and timing as a good 1HBH. If it didn't, almost everyone would have a forehand like Federer's. :shock:

Darth_Timmaayyy!!
10-28-2009, 01:56 AM
Well for me. My backhand is spot on. My forehand is what gives me troubles...

nereis
10-28-2009, 03:44 AM
Quite frankly, the entire debate that centers on which player has more titles using whatever backhand is flawed insofar as choosing which backhand you will teach a child. Federer may have a good backhand, but it is by far overshadowed by his forehand, and always has been. Moreover, Federer is a once in a century talent. It is likely none here can come close to that level of talent. And even he can not deal consistantly with being pounded to the backhand by Del Potro, Nadal, Murray, Nalbandian et al. If you have a naturally good one handed backhand, great, good for you. But the arguments used to justify that decision aren't any better than "my favourite player uses it, so I'll use it too." Notice that in every French Open that Federer has lost to Nadal after 06, it has always been his forehand that lets him down, consequently crippling his game. His backhand has never been a bigger factor than his forehand as long as it isn't completely breaking down under pressure.

nfor304
10-28-2009, 04:53 AM
1hand Vs 2hand (imo)

high backhands: 2 handed

Low: 1 Handed

Mid height: Even

Slice: 1 Handed. Even though some players with 2 handed backhands have decent slice backhands, the best slice backhands have mostly been from 1 handed backhand players

Reach: 1 Handed

Running backhand: 2 handed

Returns: 2 Handed

Half Volley backhands: Even

REBEL
10-28-2009, 07:31 AM
1hand Vs 2hand (imo)

high backhands: 2 handed

Low: 1 Handed

Mid height: Even

Slice: 1 Handed. Even though some players with 2 handed backhands have decent slice backhands, the best slice backhands have mostly been from 1 handed backhand players

Reach: 1 Handed

Running backhand: 2 handed

Returns: 2 Handed

Half Volley backhands: Even


Topspin lob: two handed

Slice : one handed

Half volley one handed

Returns: even. (With one hand you can chip and charge)

darthpwner
10-28-2009, 07:39 AM
This argument over which backhand is better for high and low is ridiculous. Have you guys ever heard of Guga? That guy killed high one handers but struggled against low balls. Reason? He used a full semi-western backhand grip. Same for Henin. It's the grip that affects the difficulty of certain balls.

sureshs
10-28-2009, 08:25 AM
This argument over which backhand is better for high and low is ridiculous. Have you guys ever heard of Guga? That guy killed high one handers but struggled against low balls. Reason? He used a full semi-western backhand grip. Same for Henin. It's the grip that affects the difficulty of certain balls.

That puts enormous strain on the wrist. It needs to be factored into deciding which is better.

Ripper014
10-28-2009, 09:05 AM
I have not read te entire post but I will give my nickels worth. Simply put there is nothing wrong with a 2.HBH... just as there is nothing wrong with a 1HBH.

This was all put to rest I thought in the mid 70's when Chris Evert and Jimmy Connors ruled the world hitting 2HBH's and it became in vogue.

I am sure this all came about because they started playing at such a young age they needed both hands to manage the racket, back then they didn't have access to the lighter junior frames of today. The best that was available was probably a cut down Maxply or Jack Kramer.

I personally use a 1HBH and occasionally will mess around with a 2HBH, my peers will comment on the fact I can hit it pretty well and ask me why I don't use it. I quickly ask if there is something wrong with my 1HBH and they answer "good point". My backhand is probably the best and most consistant part of my game... The people that know me will play away from my backhand.

I find that with a 1HBH I have a lot more flexibility in my shot selection... I can lob (topspin/flat offensive/underspin defensive),I can hit groundstrokes (sidespin/chip/slice/flat/topspin), and I can do it (cross-court/down the line/inside out). What I find I can do maybe a little better with the 2HBH is to hold the shot a little longer creating more deception, but given a little more time on the ball I can do that with my 1HBH as well. The place where it would help me would be when I am trying to hold the shot off a return of serve, were I would be trying to hit the shot down the line or flick it cross-court.

Not that you can't hit all these shots with a 2HBH, I have watch Connors do it for enough years... but for me it took a lot more effort to achieve. I guess the bottom-line is that I found a 1HBH a lot more free flowing and easier to use.

Thinking about it... I guess what I am saying is that my personal feeling is a 1HBH would be akin to a paintbrush and a 2HBH a hammer. Though this player can hit a pretty big backhand with a paintbrush. ;)

coyfish
10-28-2009, 09:05 AM
I use an extreme eastern backhand grip on my 1HBH's. I can hit mid-high backhands well. The low backhands are much more difficult for me.

I don't think the high low thing applies very well. Nor the slice. Slicing is a completely different shot than a 1H or a 2H backhand. We all know that fed has a good slice but so does murray. Nadal has a good slice too but he doesn't use it often because it doesn't suit his style of play.

Only players I have seen with wrist injuries are 2 handed BH players . . . Williams, murray . . . .

BreakPoint
10-28-2009, 02:16 PM
Some people actually think that just because a guy like Safin can crush his 2HBH and that Federer slices his 1HBH at a slower pace than Safin's shot, that that must mean that Safin has a better backhand. Sorry but that's not the way tennis works.

Hitting the ball harder does not make one a better player. If it did, guys like Blake, Gonzalez, Soderling, Gulbis, Berdych, etc. would be multiple Slam winners, yet combined, they have won zero Slams while Federer has won 15 all by himself.

Falloutjr
10-29-2009, 04:50 PM
Exactly, and Nadal has 6 himself, and his forehand, compared to other players, has little pace. Crushing the ball doesn't make you a talented player, just a brute.

Gugafan
10-29-2009, 05:04 PM
This argument over which backhand is better for high and low is ridiculous. Have you guys ever heard of Guga? That guy killed high one handers but struggled against low balls. Reason? He used a full semi-western backhand grip. Same for Henin. It's the grip that affects the difficulty of certain balls.

Guga has the best backhand of all time!! Even Agassi said it after the MC win in 2000. I think Guga was one of the few players who could hit a jumping one handed backhand and deal with high balls with relative ease...I guess being 6 ft 3 helped.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeZMKObWUjo