PDA

View Full Version : are one handed backhands often overrated?


dominikk1985
04-24-2011, 04:16 AM
I hear very often that a 1HBH is called "best BH in tennis". like gasquet,wawrinka or almagro now for example. a few years ago even many called federers BH the best (although he ran around 70% of his BHs).

I understand that they are aesthically pleasing and look better, but I think commentators don't give enough credit to the 2 handers.

of course every once in a while gasquet hits a 100 MPH BH winner down the line and all guys are in awe but if you consider consistency all the best BHs in the last decade have been 2 handers.

but I have hardly seen a commentator praising nalbandians, safins, novaks or murrays BH like they did with the one handers.

Is there a bias toward one handers because it's more "old school" and cool looking?

mandy01
04-24-2011, 04:20 AM
Who cares? We're all going to die anyway :shock:

billnepill
04-24-2011, 04:31 AM
Who cares? We're all going to die anyway :shock:

lol then why would u bother making 7,5 k posts? :)

on the subject: I think people gave praise to 2-handers as well. OP mentioned Nalbandian and his BH is his best shot. If he won 10 + slams, then it would have been named one of the best in history.

People also give more kudos to the aggressive shots, not the reliable ones. Borg had a reliable backhand, but it's that the first thing it pops up in your mind when you mention Borg? Not to mention that the 3 other main candidates for the crown of the greatest in history had an one handed backhands.

billnepill
04-24-2011, 04:52 AM
I hear very often that a 1HBH is called "best BH in tennis". like gasquet,wawrinka or almagro now for example. a few years ago even many called federers BH the best (although he ran around 70% of his BHs).

I understand that they are aesthically pleasing and look better, but I think commentators don't give enough credit to the 2 handers.

of course every once in a while gasquet hits a 100 MPH BH winner down the line and all guys are in awe but if you consider consistency all the best BHs in the last decade have been 2 handers.

but I have hardly seen a commentator praising nalbandians, safins, novaks or murrays BH like they did with the one handers.

Is there a bias toward one handers because it's more "old school" and cool looking?

oh and yeah - about the commentators - they are professional band wagoners. I remember the time when young Federer made some terrific shots and commentators were "meh, yeah, good shot". When he won 3-4 Slams commentators were praising virtually every single winner, calling him maestro and a magician.
The point is, they will praise whatever the public believes is of value.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-24-2011, 04:55 AM
lol then why would u bother making 7,5 k posts? :)


That's exactly the point. Why wouldn't he/she make 7.5 k posts? Since we're all going to die anyways. It doesn't matter either way. Not doing something is the same as doing something.

Manus Domini
04-24-2011, 04:58 AM
I hear very often that a 1HBH is called "best BH in tennis". like gasquet,wawrinka or almagro now for example. a few years ago even many called federers BH the best (although he ran around 70% of his BHs).

I understand that they are aesthically pleasing and look better, but I think commentators don't give enough credit to the 2 handers.

of course every once in a while gasquet hits a 100 MPH BH winner down the line and all guys are in awe but if you consider consistency all the best BHs in the last decade have been 2 handers.

but I have hardly seen a commentator praising nalbandians, safins, novaks or murrays BH like they did with the one handers.

Is there a bias toward one handers because it's more "old school" and cool looking?

Because the one-hander is better ;)

hisrob777
04-24-2011, 05:00 AM
The two hander is the most consistent and stable shot in my game. I think it's a main stay because of how hard people hit. The one hander is a beautiful looking shot though. But I would put my money on Safin's two hander over Gasquet's one hander. Consistency is key.

billnepill
04-24-2011, 05:09 AM
That's exactly the point. Why wouldn't he/she make 7.5 k posts? Since we're all going to die anyways. It doesn't matter either way. Not doing something is the same as doing something.

lol how can I argue with that?

If she cares about anything for the sake of doing something I would channel her energy into cleaning up the park nearby. :twisted:

DjokerIsTheBest
04-24-2011, 05:11 AM
lol how can I argue with that?

If she cares about anything for the sake of doing something I would channel her energy into cleaning up the park nearby. :twisted:

What's the point since no one will be able to use the park when the Sun burns out. :)

billnepill
04-24-2011, 05:18 AM
What's the point since no one will be able to use the park when the Sun burns out. :)

Me. I am immortal until proven otherwise.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-24-2011, 05:25 AM
Me. I am immortal until proven otherwise.

Look, I just proved it!

above bored
04-24-2011, 06:23 AM
I hear very often that a 1HBH is called "best BH in tennis". like gasquet,wawrinka or almagro now for example. a few years ago even many called federers BH the best (although he ran around 70% of his BHs).

I understand that they are aesthically pleasing and look better, but I think commentators don't give enough credit to the 2 handers.

of course every once in a while gasquet hits a 100 MPH BH winner down the line and all guys are in awe but if you consider consistency all the best BHs in the last decade have been 2 handers.

but I have hardly seen a commentator praising nalbandians, safins, novaks or murrays BH like they did with the one handers.

Is there a bias toward one handers because it's more "old school" and cool looking?
It's because a good 2 hander is much easier to learn, which makes it less impressive.

rommil
04-24-2011, 06:58 AM
I hear very often that a 1HBH is called "best BH in tennis". like gasquet,wawrinka or almagro now for example. a few years ago even many called federers BH the best (although he ran around 70% of his BHs).

I understand that they are aesthically pleasing and look better, but I think commentators don't give enough credit to the 2 handers.

of course every once in a while gasquet hits a 100 MPH BH winner down the line and all guys are in awe but if you consider consistency all the best BHs in the last decade have been 2 handers.

but I have hardly seen a commentator praising nalbandians, safins, novaks or murrays BH like they did with the one handers.

Is there a bias toward one handers because it's more "old school" and cool looking?

If for some strange remote reason you play tennis, give it a try and let us know what you think.

Gorecki
04-24-2011, 07:22 AM
Who cares? We're all going to die anyway :shock:

haw... c'mon mandy... i dont like Nadal anymore than you do, but that is a gross exageration!!!! :p

dominikk1985
04-24-2011, 07:27 AM
If for some strange remote reason you play tennis, give it a try and let us know what you think.

I admit that I'm a 2 hander but I can hit a half decent one handed topspin (I used it for about 3 months 2 years ago because I injured my non dominant wrist on a bike crash).

Just today I hit a one handed winner down the line because I could only get to it on the run. I like playing one handed and often do it when I play "social tennis". but against pace and depth I think the 2 hander is better (of course this is because I'm used to it).

one hander is better if you kill slow balls or against low balls at the knees.

mandy01
04-24-2011, 07:27 AM
haw... c'mon mandy... i dont like Nadal anymore than you do, but that is a gross exageration!!!! :p

Hmmm....this poster makes sense.
But because I like this picture..

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/24/orly_owl_new.jpg

Gorecki
04-24-2011, 07:34 AM
Hmmm....this poster makes sense.

i agree with this female 8-)

your edit!!! lmao...

bhallic24
04-24-2011, 08:00 AM
I think the opening poster is just jealous because he can't hit a beautiful one handed backhand a la Gasquet. Anyways, the commentators give tons of praise to two handed BH so I dunno what you're talking about.

Its just that theres so few one handed backhanders that whenever they mention the backhand you take note. Everyone nowadays hits 2hbh.

Pwned
04-24-2011, 08:03 AM
I hear very often that a 1HBH is called "best BH in tennis". like gasquet,wawrinka or almagro now for example. a few years ago even many called federers BH the best (although he ran around 70% of his BHs).

I understand that they are aesthically pleasing and look better, but I think commentators don't give enough credit to the 2 handers.

of course every once in a while gasquet hits a 100 MPH BH winner down the line and all guys are in awe but if you consider consistency all the best BHs in the last decade have been 2 handers.

but I have hardly seen a commentator praising nalbandians, safins, novaks or murrays BH like they did with the one handers.

Is there a bias toward one handers because it's more "old school" and cool looking?

Doesn't sound like you watch much. And prove it.

rfm29
04-24-2011, 08:35 AM
I think the opening poster is just jealous because he can't hit a beautiful one handed backhand a la Gasquet. Anyways, the commentators give tons of praise to two handed BH so I dunno what you're talking about.

Its just that theres so few one handed backhanders that whenever they mention the backhand you take note. Everyone nowadays hits 2hbh.

I agree with this. You notice the rarer thing the most, which is the one hander. But Wawrinka and Gasquet do have some of the best backhands in the game.

rommil
04-24-2011, 09:23 AM
I admit that I'm a 2 hander but I can hit a half decent one handed topspin (I used it for about 3 months 2 years ago because I injured my non dominant wrist on a bike crash).

Just today I hit a one handed winner down the line because I could only get to it on the run. I like playing one handed and often do it when I play "social tennis". but against pace and depth I think the 2 hander is better (of course this is because I'm used to it).

one hander is better if you kill slow balls or against low balls at the knees.

Ok knowing that you have an opinion and a bit of experience, next question is....which shot is easier to master and maintain a more penetrating shot? One handed or two handed?

dominikk1985
04-24-2011, 09:28 AM
Ok knowing that you have an opinion and a bit of experience, next question is....which shot is easier to master and maintain a more penetrating shot? One handed or two handed?

certainly two handed is easier. to develope a penetrating shot with one hand is not so much a problem if you have solid technique, the real problem with one hand is to deal with deep and hard shots to your BH. need great timing and balance to handle them because the one hander has the point of contact further out front.

if you are a little late on the one hander you are cooked while on a two hander the left hand can adjust.

rommil
04-24-2011, 09:30 AM
certainly two handed is easier. to develope a penetrating shot with one hand is not so much a problem if you have solid technique, the real problem with one hand is to deal with deep and hard shots to your BH. need great timing and balance to handle them because the one hander has the point of contact further out front.

Then there you go.....the answer to your original post.

dominikk1985
04-24-2011, 09:32 AM
Then there you go.....the answer to your original post.

yeah right but tennis is about results. Shouldn't an effective two hander get the same credit that a one hander gets?

after all the commentator didn't say "nice shot considering he is a one hander":D.

Devilito
04-24-2011, 09:43 AM
I hit both fairly well. 2hbh most of my playing life then most recently a 1hbh due to injury. I’m sticking to the 1hbh, even played a tournament with it. 2hbh is definitely easier and takes less skill to hit at a high level. It’s a simple shot. Take the racquet back, move it foreword. Ta-dah, you just hit a 2hbh and it works against any shot. Fast or slow. It’s a dummy shot really. It’s obvious why most juniors pick it up in favor of a 1hbh and just stick to it. The 1hbh is a give and take. It’s not as solid and takes better timing but it adds a few options the 2hbh doesn’t have.

In terms of the pro game a lot of 1hbh players use their backhand as a weapon while most 2hbh players use it as a consistent shot. It makes sense because the 1hbh is more prone to errors so you shouldn’t be going up against a 2hbh just trying to rally and hope the 2hbh makes an error. It won’t happen. So 1hbh players tend to go for aggressive shots more often on their 1hbh side. It’s how Federer basically destroyed Murray in the 2010 Aus Open final. If it works it genius, if it fails people talk about how the 1hbh is a dying shot.

rommil
04-24-2011, 10:06 AM
yeah right but tennis is about results. Shouldn't an effective two hander get the same credit that a one hander gets?

after all the commentator didn't say "nice shot considering he is a one hander":D.

Results? Right now as it stands, it would take the pool of the other active ATP players to equal the total number of GS titles of one pro that hits a one handed backhand.

dominikk1985
04-24-2011, 10:12 AM
Results? Right now as it stands, it would take the pool of the other active ATP players to equal the total number of GS titles of one pro that hits a one handed backhand.

Yes but this is due to the fact that the one hander dominated tennis for so long and later pete and federer (who won their titles with their FH and serve more than with their BH) won a lot.

If you only look at the top10 of the last 15 years I guess more than 80% were two handers.

rfm29
04-24-2011, 10:15 AM
yeah right but tennis is about results. Shouldn't an effective two hander get the same credit that a one hander gets?

after all the commentator didn't say "nice shot considering he is a one hander":D.

They talk about Murray's backhand a lot when he plays, and Novak's gets some solid credit from them. It just so happens that currently a couple people with one handers have some some of the top backhands. But so do some two handers (see above) and they get just as much credit.

BreakPoint
04-24-2011, 01:20 PM
I hear very often that a 1HBH is called "best BH in tennis". like gasquet,wawrinka or almagro now for example. a few years ago even many called federers BH the best (although he ran around 70% of his BHs).

I understand that they are aesthically pleasing and look better, but I think commentators don't give enough credit to the 2 handers.

of course every once in a while gasquet hits a 100 MPH BH winner down the line and all guys are in awe but if you consider consistency all the best BHs in the last decade have been 2 handers.

but I have hardly seen a commentator praising nalbandians, safins, novaks or murrays BH like they did with the one handers.

Is there a bias toward one handers because it's more "old school" and cool looking?
Because it takes a lot more skill to hit a great 1HBH than to hit a great 2HBH. Let's face it, the reason someone ends up using a 2HBH is because they had a weak 1HBH. If they could hit a 1HBH as well as a 2HBH, they would have stuck with a 1HBH.

BreakPoint
04-24-2011, 01:30 PM
Yes but this is due to the fact that the one hander dominated tennis for so long and later pete and federer (who won their titles with their FH and serve more than with their BH) won a lot.

If you only look at the top10 of the last 15 years I guess more than 80% were two handers.
That's false. It's the complete package. Without their 1HBH's, neither Sampras nor Federer would have won nearly as much. Having a 1HBH changes all of your other shots and how you play the game. Neither would have been nearly as aggressive players if they didn't have 1HBH's, and thus, would not have been as successful.

35ft6
04-24-2011, 04:49 PM
When hit properly, a one handed backhand drive is about the most beautiful shot in tennis.

I do think it's overrated in terms of reach. Yes, when you're stretched, a one handed slice backhand is your last line of defense, but most two handed players can hit that shot. To hit a one handed drive requires more precise footwork and a bigger shoulder turn than a two-hander. You can really run to your spot and pull a two hander off quickly. With an open stance, a super abbreviated motion, while turning on a dime. I would argue that a two-handed drive offers more reach in that it can actually be HIT under trickier circumstances, whereas the one handed guy has to go to the slice (a shot used by all players these days) more often.

Clay lover
04-24-2011, 05:01 PM
When hit properly, a one handed backhand drive is about the most beautiful shot in tennis.

I do think it's overrated in terms of reach. Yes, when you're stretched, a one handed slice backhand is your last line of defense, but most two handed players can hit that shot. To hit a one handed drive requires more precise footwork and a bigger shoulder turn than a two-hander. You can really run to your spot and pull a two hander off quickly. With an open stance, a super abbreviated motion, while turning on a dime. I would argue that a two-handed drive offers more reach in that it can actually be HIT under trickier circumstances, whereas the one handed guy has to go to the slice (a shot used by all players these days) more often.

Cannot agree more...the open stance 2hbh is a very good counter-punching shot and players like Nadal and Djokovic have used it to great effect...can't same the same for 1hbhs...

rommil
04-24-2011, 05:03 PM
Yes but this is due to the fact that the one hander dominated tennis for so long and later pete and federer (who won their titles with their FH and serve more than with their BH) won a lot.

If you only look at the top10 of the last 15 years I guess more than 80% were two handers.

You are not that stupid, as a matter of fact you know some things. You just dont know how to string them together.

BreakPoint
04-24-2011, 05:03 PM
Cannot agree more...the open stance 2hbh is a very good counter-punching shot and players like Nadal and Djokovic have used it to great effect...can't same the same for 1hbhs...

The open stance 2HBH is about the ugliest shot in tennis. Looks like you're chopping wood. :(

AtomicForehand
04-24-2011, 05:05 PM
Why don't people just hit both, choosing between the 1HBH and the 2HBH as necessary? I mean, two-handers hit a one-handed slice.

Clay lover
04-24-2011, 05:09 PM
The open stance 2HBH is about the ugliest shot in tennis. Looks like you're chopping wood. :(

ugly=/=ineffective, no?:oops:

eidolonshinobi
04-24-2011, 05:11 PM
Who cares? We're all going to die anyway :shock:

well that's one way to start a thread lol.

I personally love the jumping 2HBH.

BreakPoint
04-24-2011, 05:18 PM
ugly=/=ineffective, no?:oops:
Well, personally, I'd rather lose beautifully than win ugly. :)

FedExpress 333
04-24-2011, 05:30 PM
Are you kidding me? Did you see the miami match between nadal and federer? All they said was: oh, fed cant attack w/ his bh here like he could in the wtf, Oh, he missed that backhand cuz its a one hander, oh, he double faulted due to lost confiddence when he missed that bh, oh, he shanked that fh cuz his bh did not set it up right. I was like UGHHHHH this is stupid...

tennytive
04-25-2011, 06:12 AM
I hit a 1 hand backhand in tennis.
I save the 2 handers for squash, racquetball, badminton and ping pong.

Netzroller
04-25-2011, 08:11 AM
Because it takes a lot more skill to hit a great 1HBH than to hit a great 2HBH. Let's face it, the reason someone ends up using a 2HBH is because they had a weak 1HBH. If they could hit a 1HBH as well as a 2HBH, they would have stuck with a 1HBH.
:confused:
I think the opposite ist true - nowadays most people tend to stick with their 2HBH. The reson being, when young and short/weak, a 2HBH is the far easier shot. By the time they have sufficient strength and coordination to develop a decent 1HBH, they have been practicing hitten it with 2 hands for quite some time. Sacrificing this consistent shot for a 1HBH that will certainly throw you back and maybe it will never be as good as your 2HBH. So why change a winning team?

BreakPoint
04-25-2011, 11:42 AM
:confused:
I think the opposite ist true - nowadays most people tend to stick with their 2HBH. The reson being, when young and short/weak, a 2HBH is the far easier shot. By the time they have sufficient strength and coordination to develop a decent 1HBH, they have been practicing hitten it with 2 hands for quite some time. Sacrificing this consistent shot for a 1HBH that will certainly throw you back and maybe it will never be as good as your 2HBH. So why change a winning team?
My point is the same. Even players who started playing tennis with 2HBH's will at some point try to hit a 1HBH. Most will find that they can't hit a 1HBH nearly as well as their 2HBH. Thus, they go back to their 2HBH. But if they could hit a 1HBH as well as their 2HBH, they would have stuck with the 1HBH. :)

sureshs
04-25-2011, 11:47 AM
I hear very often that a 1HBH is called "best BH in tennis". like gasquet,wawrinka or almagro now for example. a few years ago even many called federers BH the best (although he ran around 70% of his BHs).

I understand that they are aesthically pleasing and look better, but I think commentators don't give enough credit to the 2 handers.

of course every once in a while gasquet hits a 100 MPH BH winner down the line and all guys are in awe but if you consider consistency all the best BHs in the last decade have been 2 handers.

but I have hardly seen a commentator praising nalbandians, safins, novaks or murrays BH like they did with the one handers.

Is there a bias toward one handers because it's more "old school" and cool looking?

Absolutely spot on.

Commentators are always praising the one-handed BH, even when the guy is getting crushed and spraying them wide.

It has to do with several factors. One is that one-handed backhands were looked up to in a previous era. Another is that negative comments about Fed's BH are taboo in tennis broadcasting. Third is that some feel it is still a shame for men to rely on 2 hands.

But as champions like Nadal and Djokovic prevail, there will be less and less of this.

BreakPoint
04-25-2011, 11:54 AM
Absolutely spot on.

Commentators are always praising the one-handed BH, even when the guy is getting crushed and spraying them wide.

It has to do with several factors. One is that one-handed backhands were looked up to in a previous era. Another is that negative comments about Fed's BH are taboo in tennis broadcasting. Third is that some feel it is still a shame for men to rely on 2 hands.

But as champions like Nadal and Djokovic prevail, there will be less and less of this.
Nah......People will always view 2HBH's as being girly. :)

eidolonshinobi
04-25-2011, 11:55 AM
Nah......People will always view 2HBH's as being girly. :)

That's my mentality lol.

No offense to you 2hbhanders out there

sureshs
04-25-2011, 11:57 AM
Nah......People will always view 2HBH's as being girly. :)

That is good, because I have a one-handed BH, though sometimes I will use 2 hands in a reflexive action against deep balls which suddenly creep up on me.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-25-2011, 12:03 PM
That is good, because I have a one-handed BH, though sometimes I will use 2 hands in a reflexive action against deep balls which suddenly creep up on me.

Homosexual fantasies?

Netzroller
04-25-2011, 01:27 PM
Because it takes a lot more skill to hit a great 1HBH than to hit a great 2HBH. Let's face it, the reason someone ends up using a 2HBH is because they had a weak 1HBH. If they could hit a 1HBH as well as a 2HBH, they would have stuck with a 1HBH.

My point is the same. Even players who started playing tennis with 2HBH's will at some point try to hit a 1HBH. Most will find that they can't hit a 1HBH nearly as well as their 2HBH. Thus, they go back to their 2HBH. But if they could hit a 1HBH as well as their 2HBH, they would have stuck with the 1HBH. :)
Of course their 2HBH ist better, they have been praticing that shot much longer.
To me it just sounded like you wanted to say "One hits a 2HBH because he/she has not enough skill to hit a 1HBH":
That, I think is not true. I'm sure some 2 handers could have great 1HBH but why should they bother to change, if they feel comfortable with their 2HBH?
Why invest all that time and expect no gain (other than mayble aesthetics)?
Humans are creatures of habit. If they all startet playing with one hand, we probably would have more one handers.
There might be some players, who think only one shot feel natural to them (I recall Fed saying he alwas wanted to play a 1HBH). But most probably just stick with what they startet with.

BreakPoint
04-25-2011, 01:41 PM
Of course their 2HBH ist better, they have been praticing that shot much longer.
To me it just sounded like you wanted to say "One hits a 2HBH because he/she has not enough skill to hit a 1HBH":
That, I think is not true. I'm sure some 2 handers could have great 1HBH but why should they bother to change, if they feel comfortable with their 2HBH?
Why invest all that time and expect no gain (other than mayble aesthetics)?
Humans are creatures of habit. If they all startet playing with one hand, we probably would have more one handers.
There might be some players, who think only one shot feel natural to them (I recall Fed saying he alwas wanted to play a 1HBH). But most probably just stick with what they startet with.
You have to ask yourself why people start with a 2HBH in the first place.

Hint: It's because they couldn't handle the 1HBH.

BTW, kids eventually switch from a 2-handed FOREHAND to a one-handed forehand. There's no reason they can't also do that on the backhand side except that most just can't manage hitting a backhand with only one hand.

namelessone
04-26-2011, 11:29 PM
Yes, they are often overrated because many times is loved just for the nostalgic appeal instead of its pure value.

There is no BETTER backhand, just what suits your needs.

A 2-hander is better at doing many things at once whereas the 1HBH is much better if you need reach and are adept at volleys.

Consistency is key in this modern era so of course the 2H-er rules.

Because it looks so good people often forget its flaws. The 1H is quite inconsistent, even in the hands of greats such as Fed and Sampras. I know people will say that they were GOATS but they were GOATS cause of amazing forehand and serves, not BH.

Being Romanian, one of my fav players was Pavel. He hit some sweet,sweet angled shots off his BH side, not to mention running passes. But if he would have a bad day with it, it was a really bad day. Vulnerable on return, susceptible to high balls and so on. Andrei didn't have an amazing fh or serve to back up his BH.

Anyway, I don't know how someone can look at Safin,Nalbandian,Murray,Agassi,Davydenko BH and tell me that it's a ugly stroke since beauty is also dicussed here, at least indirectly.

The only deficiencies for the 2H BH are short reach(fixable - see djoker's agility) and problems with low balls. But with it you have consistency,power and good returns(generally, not always).

Let me put it this way: a mediocre 2H BH is a much more solid weapon for a average player than a mediocre 1H. Even if it isn't as flashy it isn't as likely to break down. That's why many choose the two hander in the end, even after they are strong enough to hit a 1 hander.

I liked the analogy I saw a couple of days on TW: A 1-H is like a rapier whereas the 2-H is like a battleaxe.

Mick
04-26-2011, 11:38 PM
You have to ask yourself why people start with a 2HBH in the first place.

Hint: It's because they couldn't handle the 1HBH.



that's true for me. i had been playing with a 1hbh forever but last year i suffered TE and had to switch to a 2hbh. the cool thing about it was i couldn't hit 2hbh before having TE but now it feels very natural. in time, my TE went away but i kept the 2hbh.

sureshs
04-27-2011, 07:37 AM
Let me put it this way: a mediocre 2H BH is a much more solid weapon for a average player than a mediocre 1H.

This should be framed and hung on the wall

rommil
04-27-2011, 07:47 AM
This should be framed and hung on the wall

Make sure you have a strong fixture to hang namelessone on the wall, I am sure next to your array of other tacky wall ornaments.

iamke55
04-28-2011, 10:19 AM
Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, Berdych, Soderling, Del Potro... all of these guys have way better backhands than Gasquet.

Pwned
04-28-2011, 10:33 AM
Thanks for the laugh^.

mtommer
04-28-2011, 10:44 AM
Me. I am immortal until proven otherwise.

Run. Run now while you still can! :D

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/1/13340/300180-2161-duncan-macleod_super.jpg

mtommer
04-28-2011, 10:55 AM
You have to ask yourself why people start with a 2HBH in the first place.


When I was coaching parks and rec tennis in Ann Arbor we taught the 2HBH because it was easier to teach. I've also heard the same from many comments on many threads here. In my own experience, my 1HBH is my safety net whereas my 2HBH is my power shot and the 1HBH has always seem to be pretty easy for me to hit as opposed to my 2HBH.

Wilander Fan
04-28-2011, 10:55 AM
Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, Berdych, Soderling, Del Potro... all of these guys have way better backhands than Gasquet.

Big difference between Gasquet and Wawrinka's backhand from Federer's. The former play way back and try and muscle the ball through. From my own experience, 1hb is much better in terms of economy of movement than any other baseline shot including the forehand. Playing deep takes away from that. Federer still moves very well to his BH but has trouble covering his forehand side now. Playing deep with the 1hb makes no sense since you dont need that extra prep time and you lose that advantage of angles. Djoker and Nadal are beating Fed by punching balls through on his forehand side.

You notice these things when you get older. I wasnt able to recover in time with the 2hb but I find I can move around much better using a 1hb..better than my forehand side so its become my better side now even though i can really crank it on the FH. In matches you are usually hitting on the run so it makes a big difference.

Terre Battu
04-28-2011, 12:29 PM
Because the one-hander is better ;)

Very true!

A one hander is harder to time and to master, but it's also more versatile for different court transitions.

bhallic24
04-28-2011, 02:31 PM
Well from a personal perspective, when I started learning I learned/tried both the 1hbh and 2hbh. Had a 1hbh for a while, got frustrated, went with a 2hbh, had success, almost stuck with it, but then retried the 1hbh and after a little bit of learning, practicing, and getting better, it just felt more natural.

I hit with a 1hbh now. It just suits my body type and my game. It allows me to move a lot freer on the court and it is an effortless shot for me. Meaning, I can hit it all day without feeling like I exerted a lot of energy. Because if you think about it its a very fluid, efficient movement, unlike the 2hbh or even the forehand where you're really fighting to come around and coil around your body to hit it.

In my experience, I've tried both initially when starting out and the 1hbh can get you more reach, more angles, and it helps you develop a better slice. At times, it has been a very explosive shot for me, but its much much harder to time and learn. At times, if I'm off by just a millisecond it seems like my 1hbh will go astray so I definitely have to concentrate harder hitting it. The 2hbh is more stable, has more topspin for me, I don't have to hit it perfectly to get it back in play, but I have to work a lot harder to get in position to hit it and its more of a safe shot for me. The two hands just complement each other and if one is off by a slight bit, the other can help it out.

The 1hbh vs. 2hbh question is reall kinda like asking people what's your favorite icecream flavor chocolate or vanilla.

Walenty
04-28-2011, 09:41 PM
C'mon people, it's preference. Both have their pros and cons.

If the 1HBH is so much more challenging to master and employ then why would any pro in their right mind use it?.

Time for lots of moonballing to Fed's BH--it's clay court season.

borg number one
04-28-2011, 09:50 PM
I don't really think so. Jimmy Connors had what is widely acknowledged to be the best backhand ever.

http://www.bermansports.com/images/500-jimmyconnors01.jpg

BreakPoint
04-28-2011, 11:53 PM
If the 1HBH is so much more challenging to master and employ then why would any pro in their right mind use it?.

Making a living playing pro tennis is challenging to master and employ so why would anyone in their right mind become a pro?