PDA

View Full Version : If federer had a two-hander...


Tenniswithtea
02-12-2006, 11:09 PM
Some people say Federer's backhand is his only "weak" spot
Do you guys think if he had gotten a two-hander as good as Agassi's or Safin's, he would be even more dominant than he already is? :p

Lee
02-12-2006, 11:25 PM
I simply cannot imagine Federer with a 2 hander.

His game prides itself in variety. With a 2 handed backhand, one would not be able to produce a myriad of shots so easily.

A lot of Federer's backhand is impromptu, he has a lot of creative juice flowin when he is on the run, it's so beautiful! So I guess if he has a 2 hander he would not have the reach to make those crazy passes.

Totally up to your imagination :)

VictorS.
02-12-2006, 11:54 PM
I think the one-hander lends itself to a more complete game. Players who utilize the one-handed backhand usually have better slice backhands. This allows for a better transition to the net. In addition, most players with the one-handed backhand also tend to hit their backhand volleys more cleanly.

There are indeed exceptions to the rule. Radek Stepanek and Mahesh Bhupathi for example are two guys that have excellent volley games and have twohanded backhands.

kabob
02-13-2006, 12:37 AM
You're about 2 years behind. Federer's backhand used to be the weak spot that everyone picked on. He's improved it so much in the last 2 years, it is now a chief offensive and defensive weapon. Name one player with a better backhand, most especially spin generation and shot-making variety on that wing, and I'll ship you a batch of your favorite cookies.

sandiegotennisboy
02-13-2006, 12:48 AM
umm.... fed doesn't have a weak side. yes, the forehand is superior, but his backhand is awesome too. i dont think fed's backhand side is something a player can exploit really....unlike the soon to be replaced best player of all time....but thats another thread.

arnz
02-13-2006, 05:34 AM
To quote Agassi : there is nowhere to go with Fed

He rates in the top 10 at everything I think, backhand, forehand, volleys, speed, variety, intelligence on court, mental toughness...put them all together its the Fed express..guaranteed delivery :)

babbette
02-13-2006, 06:29 AM
He'd be even more of a master than he is today:p Ahh the thought:p

oscar_2424
02-13-2006, 06:41 AM
i dont think Federer has a weak shot

vllockhart
02-13-2006, 07:35 AM
Some people say Federer's backhand is his only "weak" spot
Do you guys think if he had gotten a two-hander as good as Agassi's or Safin's, he would be even more dominant than he already is? :p

How much more dominant does a guy need to be? I think his one-hander is beautiful and perfect for him. He'd probably look funny hitting a two-hander.

Warriorroger
02-13-2006, 07:38 AM
If he had a two hander, he couldn't scratch his nuts during play. As every man here can agree with.

VGP
02-13-2006, 07:50 AM
If he had a two-hander and was five years younger, he'd be Baghdatis.

JackRabbit
02-13-2006, 07:54 AM
http://youtube.com/w/Federer-Warming-Up?v=NerzTwxbAiA&search=federer

Here's Federer hitting a two hander messing around in practice. Doesn't look awkward at all, actually. I'm guessing that if Federer had chose to go with the two hander, he could have developed that into as much of a weapon as his one hander is now.

joe sch
02-13-2006, 08:19 AM
http://youtube.com/w/Federer-Warming-Up?v=NerzTwxbAiA&search=federer

Here's Federer hitting a two hander messing around in practice. Doesn't look awkward at all, actually. I'm guessing that if Federer had chose to go with the two hander, he could have developed that into as much of a weapon as his one hander is now.
That video is a great conclusion to this debate.
No tennis sane coach would consider tampering with his 1H BH

arnz
02-13-2006, 08:34 AM
If he had a two-hander and was five years younger, he'd be Baghdatis.

When Roger was five years younger, he was already being touted as a guy that can be better than Sampras, and everyone knew he was going to be great. Who knew Baghdatis before the AO??

Lets see how he does this year first before making comparisons to the best players of all time

Rabbit
02-13-2006, 08:38 AM
If Federer had a two-handed backhand, it might be more of an offensive weapon. The trade off for that, however, would be a weaker backhand volley. I don't think overall he would fare any better.

VGP
02-13-2006, 08:44 AM
Don'cha y'all know that a 1HBH is just better than a 2HBH?

VGP
02-13-2006, 08:47 AM
When Roger was five years younger, he was already being touted as a guy that can be better than Sampras, and everyone knew he was going to be great. Who knew Baghdatis before the AO??

Lets see how he does this year first before making comparisons to the best players of all time


Uh, I enjoyed Baghdatis at the '04 USO when he played Federer. Lots of game back then.....

Five years ago, Federer had loads of talent, but was a bit of a head case...

Obviously he's worked on it.

Isn't this thread about speculation? Implying Federer having a 1HBH is big speculation to me.

Carley1986
02-13-2006, 08:50 AM
IMO it won't suit him if he had a double-hander. The way double-handed backhands are hit is different to the single-handed. Double-hander relys more on the hip rotation and power from the legs. As for single-hander i think rely more on the shoulder, hip and triceps. I think there's always good or bad in each stroke.

For example, my backhand is my best shot, I can generate all my power into the shot, but for some reason i couldn't really hit a good one-hander. My brother he hits his one-hander really hard, way harder than mine but if you ask him to hit a double-hander he couldn't even get it over the net. So I guess, it's really preference, who knows roger couldn't even hit a double-hander?

For some reason, I think Andy Roddick should change to a single-hander. I think he shoulders his backhand too much, that he loses power due to the restriction. I guess we'll never see him changing to a single hander. But Sampras tried and had success with it. I want to see Andy Roddick change too!

Ripper
02-13-2006, 08:53 AM
Some people say Federer's backhand is his only "weak" spot
Do you guys think if he had gotten a two-hander as good as Agassi's or Safin's, he would be even more dominant than he already is? :p

What is this ??????????!!!!!!!!!! Can it be possible? A 2 hand backhander that has found a way of justifying his use of a 2hbh, eventhough the world's best player uses a 1hbh? Gosh! What's even worst is he's saying that Federer's backhand is WEAK! What are we going to see next? That he would be still better with a western grip?

jBayjoey
02-13-2006, 09:05 AM
Federer would not be any more successful with a two-hand backhand. In fact, he would probably be less successful. The one-hand backhand suits Federer's game on so many levels. Although it would be impossible to make a hypothesis as to what Federer's game would be like with the two-hand backhand, here is what he would be lacking:

1. Power. At the recreational level, a two hand backhand is always more powerful because most players lack the muscle strength and clean strokes that pro players do. At the professional level, a one hand backhand is more powerful for the same reason a one hand forehand is more powerful.
2. Control. To steal a line from Tennis For Dummies by Patrick McEnroe, when you're lifting a wrecking ball, you use two hands. When you're painting a self-portrait, you use one.
3. Variety of spins. One hand backhanders generally have better slices. In addition, topspin is more easily achieved. Less mass rests on the racquet so that imparts more spin control.
4. Disguise. ESPN2 did it a pretty telling side by side comparison of both Federer's topspin backhand and slice backhand. One traveled around 90mph bouncing around chest/shoulder level. The other traveled around 55mph and bounced around the thighs/knees area. This sets up Federer's game completely.
5. Volley. People with one hand backhands are more comfortable on the transition to volley.

Grigollif1
02-13-2006, 09:57 AM
If Federer had a 2 Handed What it would Look like ?

Here it is Sir: http://www.youtube.com/w/Federer-Warming-Up?v=NerzTwxbAiA&search=federer

Not that Glamorous...;)

asman
02-13-2006, 10:30 AM
When I had the pleasure to watch Federer last year in Montecarlo, half an hour before the big quarter final against Gasquet, he warmed up for a 30 minutes and I remember he did both backhand and forehand (!!!) with two hand, just for joking. Those shots were quite impressive, well executed. In an interview I red that Federer began tennis playing with two hands, on both sides. IMHO 1HBH is better for his complete all court game. In Montecarlo he did the ultimate complete arsenal of shots....2hfh, 2hbh, bh smash, approach Fh volley between legs, lethal dropshots. HE CAN DO EVERYTHING ON COURT. He was so natural, effortless, fast, his body seemed rubber-made and tennis never looked so easy to me!

Ripper
02-13-2006, 10:32 AM
Not that Glamorous...;)

Could you imagine Henin-Hardenne, just to give a different example, without her 1hbh? I'm not saying one thing is better than the other. There are cons and pros to both. What ****es me off is people saying things such as doing it MY WAY IS BETTER than yours... Talk about feeling insecure...

fastdunn
02-13-2006, 11:23 AM
Some people say Federer's backhand is his only "weak" spot
Do you guys think if he had gotten a two-hander as good as Agassi's or Safin's, he would be even more dominant than he already is? :p

I would say Federer does not really have a weak spot at this point
because it's all played from baseline. His 1HBH is good enough
and as good as it can be. Not quite as good as Haas or Kuerten IMHO
but no way a weak spot.

But more of future vulnerability is in his net game and 2nd serve.
Right now the whole tour is being played based on baseliner's
mentality. But when more varieties get restored with more
attacking frame of mind, his 2nd serve will be more exploited
and he will need more net game.

He will have to take more risk for his 2nd serves and have to
use net game forcefully, not as a supprise tactic.
When he get pushed that way, we will know what he really has
for his net game and serves. If he has those parts of the game,
IMO he is truely greatest of all time...

kbg
02-13-2006, 11:38 AM
In an interview I red that Federer began tennis playing with two hands, on both sides.

Imagine if he kept playing that way he'd be a bigger, more powerful Fabrice Santoro. Hehehe.

tenalyser
02-13-2006, 12:07 PM
If you want a proof of how good federers backhand is you should download the 2005 Wimbledon final against Roddick or the 2004 Us Open final against Hewitt. Federer hit during those finals a multiply of passing shot winners with his backhand and I saw one of the posters mentioning the tommy Haas backhand, granted that tommy has one of the best backhands in the game but in the Federer vs Haas match at the Australian Open Federer dominated Haas in the forehand and backhand department before he lost his concentration during the 3rd and 4th set. So you can't qualify Federers backhand as his weak spot no more.

habib
02-13-2006, 12:10 PM
Some people say Federer's backhand is his only "weak" spot
Do you guys think if he had gotten a two-hander as good as Agassi's or Safin's, he would be even more dominant than he already is? :p
What if he had a one-hander as powerful as Gasquet's? Besides, there are plenty of things he can do on his backhand side that Safin and Agassi can not.

Freedom
02-13-2006, 12:10 PM
Name one player with a better backhand, most especially spin generation and shot-making variety on that wing, and I'll ship you a batch of your favorite cookies.

Richard Gasquet.
Justine Henin-Hardenne.

I like Chocolate Chip. 2 batches, please.

quest01
02-13-2006, 12:31 PM
I believe if Federer had a 2 hander like Agassi he would be the best player by far. I believe the 2 hander is the better backhand. The 2 hander is better for power and precision while the 1 hander may be better for variety. I dont really think the variety comes into player as much as it used to because many players with 2 handers also use a 1 handed backhand slice.

Ripper
02-13-2006, 12:34 PM
I believe if Federer had a 2 hander like Agassi he would be the best player by far. I believe the 2 hander is the better backhand. The 2 hander is better for power and precision while the 1 hander may be better for variety. I dont really think the variety comes into player as much as it used to because many players with 2 handers also use a 1 handed backhand slice.

"Don't stop believeing..."

Grigollif1
02-13-2006, 12:45 PM
I believe if Federer had a 2 hander like Agassi he would be the best player by far. I believe the 2 hander is the better backhand. The 2 hander is better for power and precision while the 1 hander may be better for variety. I dont really think the variety comes into player as much as it used to because many players with 2 handers also use a 1 handed backhand slice.

Yeah , Marat Safin , Andre agassi and David Nalbandian some of the best 2 Handed Backhand right now, have really great slices...:rolleyes:

Midlife crisis
02-13-2006, 04:52 PM
I believe if Federer had a 2 hander like Agassi he would be the best player by far. I believe the 2 hander is the better backhand. The 2 hander is better for power and precision while the 1 hander may be better for variety. I dont really think the variety comes into player as much as it used to because many players with 2 handers also use a 1 handed backhand slice.

Then why do you hit a one handed forehand? Why not two hands off both sides if it is so much better for power and precision?

VGP
02-13-2006, 05:05 PM
This thread is getting dum.

Peeple hit the way that feelz mor cumfortable and the way that brings dem mor sucksess.

Max G.
02-13-2006, 05:05 PM
Because you don't need it off of the forehand side.

People aren't symmetrical - what is better on one side isn't necessarily so on the other.

buder
02-13-2006, 05:09 PM
his reach and court coverage would suffer and he would no longer be federer.
federer's ability to reach well beyond the range of a 2hander and flick a winner when out of position is what makes him dangerous.

monologuist
02-13-2006, 05:13 PM
Federer's backhand is not a weakness...it is just LESS DOMINANT....lol.

Best 1-handed backhands on tour currently :
1.Guga
2.Gasquet
3.Haas
4.Fed

whatever...he has the best Forehand in men's tennis, one of the top 5 1-handed backhand drives, one of the top 5 or so slices, one of the top 5 or so servers, one of the top 5 or so volleyers, one of the top 5 or so movers...etc, etc. etc., etc. The only areas where he may not be top 5 or so in the world are maybe lobs and dropshots...and he can certainly hit great ones if he is in a position where he ever needs to, which is rare...lol.

I can hardly think of any other players that have a stroke/weapon that is top 5 or so in more than 1 category, let alone multiple ones like Fed...there are a few hat might be in consideration in 2 categories, and most these are highly debatable : Nadal (forehand and movement), Dent (serve and volley), Roddick 2-3 years ago (serve and forehand), Agassi (forehand and backhand), Ljubicic (serve and forehand), Coria (backhand and movement), Blake (Forehand and movement), Safin (backhand and serve).

156MPHserve
02-13-2006, 05:27 PM
This is my take... Federer might be SLIGHTLY better if he had a 2 hander. The one hander is just hard shot to time and he does it as good as anyone else. However, just once in a while he'll get huge mishits. About once a set at least. Sometimes, not having the reliable shot will cost you as it did when he mishit on Safin's set point in the 4th set tiebreak semi at AO.

You guys all say Federer won't have the reach and the backhand volley. I don't think this is true. Federer would still be able to slice on the defense so he will have the reach. And slicing will work to help his backhand volley as well.

Look at Marat Safin, his backhand volleys are much better than his forehand side, but he uses a 2HBH so the theory that Federer's net game would suffer doesn't seem to be a good reason.

All in all, Federer is as perfect as they come... no need to change what is working perfectly. (In case you haven't noticed, his backhand isn't weak at all, he has good power and AMAZING precision with it, it's only shadowed by his Godly forehand.

FedererUberAlles
02-13-2006, 05:32 PM
Richard Gasquet.
Justine Henin-Hardenne.

I like Chocolate Chip. 2 batches, please.

Ljubicic's backhand is even better. Down the line and extreme cross court angles that are unbelievable.

Midlife crisis
02-13-2006, 05:52 PM
Because you don't need it off of the forehand side.

People aren't symmetrical - what is better on one side isn't necessarily so on the other.

Scientific studies have shown that "handedness" is mostly a preferential thing. If you train your off-hand, it can be as skilled as your primary hand, even if you still have the preference.

So, is it just a matter that people don't train correctly and need to hit a two-handed backhand (versus one handed or two forehands), or does it come back to being a matter of strength and desire?

Grigollif1
02-13-2006, 06:00 PM
I believe is very clear that, People that use the 2 Handed Backhand Here, are going to defend their Stroke and Say that Federer Would be a better player rather then using the One handed, and Vice versa...

Slazenger
02-13-2006, 06:22 PM
When I had the pleasure to watch Federer last year in Montecarlo, half an hour before the big quarter final against Gasquet, he warmed up for a 30 minutes and I remember he did both backhand and forehand (!!!) with two hand, just for joking. Those shots were quite impressive, well executed.

Off topic.
In the last French Open mixed double finals Gasquet hit a reflex 2handed swinging volley winner.

monologuist
02-13-2006, 06:23 PM
This is my take... Federer might be SLIGHTLY better if he had a 2 hander. The one hander is just hard shot to time and he does it as good as anyone else. However, just once in a while he'll get huge mishits. About once a set at least. Sometimes, not having the reliable shot will cost you as it did when he mishit on Safin's set point in the 4th set tiebreak semi at AO.

You guys all say Federer won't have the reach and the backhand volley. I don't think this is true. Federer would still be able to slice on the defense so he will have the reach. And slicing will work to help his backhand volley as well.

Look at Marat Safin, his backhand volleys are much better than his forehand side, but he uses a 2HBH so the theory that Federer's net game would suffer doesn't seem to be a good reason.

All in all, Federer is as perfect as they come... no need to change what is working perfectly. (In case you haven't noticed, his backhand isn't weak at all, he has good power and AMAZING precision with it, it's only shadowed by his Godly forehand.


well...for every one of those backhand mishits, when he curses loudly in German, there are like a half-dozen to a dozen screaming winners down the line or crosscourt....if he had a 2 hander, there would less mishits/errors, but also less winners. I think having the 1-hander, even though it is susceptible to breaking down for short periods (and it is never off for a whole match!...a set at most), goes a long way in setting up the rest of his game :

1. 1-hander is more powerful; i.e. he can hit winners just as easily of of both wings, or at least push his opponent around with his bakhand. There are not many 2-handers that can say the same...Agassi and Safin, maybe.
2. 1-hander takes more time away form the opponent, not just b/c it is more powerful, but it is hit further out front of the body, earlier, again making it a better as an attacking weapon.
3. The ability to generate winners with nearly equal ease from both wings from just about anywhere on the court allows Fed to transition from defense to offense instantaneously at just about any moment in a point...probably the single facet of his game that contributes most to his dominance.
4. Intimidation/surpirse factor : his explosiveness off the backhand wing via a 1-hander is intimidating to his opponents and can often take them by surpirse. They know that if they attempt to break down his backhand by repeatedly hitting to it, that they run the risk of his simply unloading a screaming winner if they let up for even a moment and give him enough time to set up. And it is scary how you can't really tell when he is going to rip one of those BH winners...the pace of 2-handed backhands seems to vary less, probably b/c of the limited range of motion and acceleration. Unfortunately Agassi has not caught onto this, as he insists on drilling shots at Fed's backhand repeatedly in hopes that he will force an error or mishit, without varying the pace, spin or angle, without mixing in a few downtheliners to Fed's forehand. Nalbandian and Safin on the other hand seem to have recognized this recipe for success against the Rog.
5. His forehand is so scary and has been for so long, that everyone has taken the tactic of hitting only to his backhand when possible, over the last few years. As a result, guess what?...Thanks to his opponents, he's been given the opportunity to practice his backhand, and now it is almost as good as his forehand! He has used his opponents, like Agassi, like human ball-machines for backhand drills, and what did you really expect a man of his athletic talent to do, regress? Honestly, of late (well only in the last few months), I feel like his forehand has been the more error-prone of the 2 wings. Maybe it's getting a little rusty from lack of use?!

Suffice to say, that generally speaking, a 2-handed backhand usually is superior as a defensive shot, as it does not require the same precision in footwork and timing, you can hit it later, you can hit it with a more compact swing, you can hit it with a more open stance, etc. The 1-hander is a better attacking weapon, as it can be hit with more pace, given the time and footwork, due to a longer range of motion without the second hand holding the handle, greater racquet acceleration, more shoulder and waste torque possible, making contact further in front of the bodyt/earlier, etc. Fed's entire game is based on taking the offensive when his opponent is either not expecting it or in a vulnerable position (and doesn't know it); he is not a counterpuncher..he is essentially an attacking player, always looking for the opening to step into the court, cutting off angles and taking away time from his opponents. Towards this end, a 1-handed backhand is preferable, hence his choice to use it..

BTW,
does anyone know what the heck Fed is saying when he curses in german after a mishit? It always cracks me up when he does it.

gaspard
02-13-2006, 06:33 PM
The only advantage of the two hander over the one is that it generally offers greater control and stability on the topspin drive. Other than this, there are no further advantages. Steffi Graf was a bit scared to hit her topspin backhand in match situations and Rusedski is still stuggling with the technique, due to the lack of stability that sometimes comes with the single hander. If Federer was experiencing similar problems, I would agree that a two hander would have been better, but this is not the case. He has total control on his backhand drive, no stability problems at all. Since he has no stability problems, there could be no further reason for him to adopt a two hander.

If you have control over the one hander, then it has all the other advantages. Better mobility on the backhand side. The ridiculous backhand running pass Federer hit down the line against Mirnyi in this Aus Open, would not be possible with a two hander. The greater leverage and extension on the one hander also enables you to potentially create more power and spin on the drive. There are the advantages to ones transition game and familiarity with the slice. Variety of spins. Benefits for defense and off balance shots. Better reach. None of these benefits come to fruition without control, but if one has control, then one gets all the advantages. Federer has control of the backhand and subsequently gets all the advantages.

Besides these practical considerations, federer's backhand is so stylish. It fits with the rest of his flair game. A two hander would not look as good.

Gaspard

West Coast Ace
02-13-2006, 06:43 PM
The one hander allows Fed to play defense until he can pounce on a weak shot and switch to offense. I know A lot of you kids on this board think the slice is boring (and the next defensive lob you hit will be your first) but it allows one to get back in a point - and because it stays low it can give 2 handed backhanders fits.

monologuist
02-13-2006, 06:44 PM
Besides these practical considerations, federer's backhand is so stylish. It fits with the rest of his flair game. A two hander would not look as good.

Gaspard

yes, yes...Roger is obviously VERY attuned to aesthetics. You can see it in everything from the way his strokes look down to his million dollar haircut. He is also very attuned to tennis history. I bet his reverence for the men's players of old weighed into his decision to use a 1-hander as well.

Rickson
02-13-2006, 07:14 PM
Some people say Federer's backhand is his only "weak" spot
Do you guys think if he had gotten a two-hander as good as Agassi's or Safin's, he would be even more dominant than he already is? :p
Federer can hit a 2 hander, but he chooses to use the one hander and who can blame him? Federer's backhand is better than most and he's one of the few players who can mix up slice with drives at will. Federer's 2 hander is obviously not as good as Agassi's or Safin's, but that doesn't mean his backhand is inferior to theirs. Federer's backhand is as good as any 2 hander's backhand so he made the right choice in using the 1 hander instead of the 2 hander.

jtreed2000
02-14-2006, 09:20 AM
Monologuist and Gaspard got it right. The 1H that has more variety, and it's is capable of being more aggressive for that reason. It's also inherently more powerful. The 2H is more defensive, but extremely reliable, which is why it's so common. I've used both and definitely agree that a 1H is more difficult to master, but it may be worthwhile in the long run (esp for players seeking maximum mobilty). I used a 2H once or twice when I played one summer in school, but used a 1H when I began to play seriously a few years ago. I've gone back to a 2H (termporarily permanent, lol?) b/c I could not execute reliable topspin drives, which seems pretty common to new/undeveloped one handers. I still have a nice slice, but it was obvious that topspin/drives are important on both wings and matches began to fall in my lap once I could execute them reliably on both sides. And as different as the strokes are, there are some simliarities in the mechanics lower body (stance more closed on 1H). Getting good flexibilty in the torso and using my hip/legs more were the only obstacles I had with two hands. The biggest reasons to use a 2H are reliability and taking the ball either on the rise OR late, but if you can have those with a 1H it would be the better of the two strokes because it requires slightly less mobility and gives you more options.

Federer would be limited by 1/2 a step to the left, which adds up during a rally, so he would lose some mobility. That is a key asset to him. He is already reliable enough with his one hander, so I don't think he would gain anything by going to two hands. He wouldn't shank those one handers every now and then, but we wouldn't get to hear those comical german outbursts during his matches either. Nadal is a player who can make the 2H work at the top level against a 1H, like Federer, so you can't say one is better than the other. I simply think that mobility becomes more crucial against a player who can master a 1H BH. Comparing the two in my opinion is a good basis for the 1H vs 2H debate. Their styles and limitations are classic examples of the pros/cons of each.

fastdunn
02-14-2006, 10:35 AM
AFAIK, Federer chose 1 hander simply because he couldn't
be really comfortable with 2 hander. He said he could never
feel comfortable with it.

bc-05
02-14-2006, 10:52 AM
well im just gonna speak behalf of federer and one-hander on this board.. im not gonna argue which backhand is the best or anything.. but for the double-hander that thinks double-hander is better and more powerful please explain to me why it is so? is it because the safins and the agassi are hitting it so good that you think its the best? or theres actually some tests that said double-hander are more powerful?

Speaking from experience myself.. im a single-hander myself.. and i have no problem watsoever hitting high balls, low balls, balls with a lot of topspins or kickserve.. i can generate power as hard as my forehand.. not a problem at all.. however sometimes when you're a bit late to the ball or ur not really focused or maybe u have a mishits.. and your muscle cant cope with the vibration.. the ball tends to spray everywhere.. which i can accept with ppl that says two hander are more reliable... yes it is very reliable.. and it is easier to control.. but as for generating pace? i just dont see it.. having to hit a double hander is like me hitting a double hander on the forehand.. u get control, spin, stability.. but power decreases..

most ppl these days hit with double hander because it is easier to teach and well easier to perform i guess... i mean ppl with double-hander (for example my friend), he has one of the biggest double-handed backhand but if u ask him to hit a one hander he can hit em so hard but only small percentage would go in but the pace is more.. so as for feds hitting a single-hander.. if he's strong enough to handle ppls spin or strong enough to control, why does he need to go to a double-hander, where he can hit much harder with a single hander?

VGP
02-14-2006, 10:59 AM
This thread is getting dum.

Peeple hit the way that feelz mor cumfortable and the way that brings dem mor sucksess.

bc-05
02-14-2006, 11:01 AM
my point being.. but i really want to know.. if the double-hander is really more powerful.. coz if it is.. damn ill switch myself.. dont worry about federer..

Ripper
02-14-2006, 11:01 AM
I believe is very clear that, People that use the 2 Handed Backhand Here, are going to defend their Stroke and Say that Federer Would be a better player rather then using the One handed, and Vice versa...

Dumb people defend things in that manner. Intelligent people don't.

jtreed2000
02-14-2006, 11:03 AM
bc-05, that is exactly my experience. You guys may not see it on the tube, but try it for yourself if you don't think a 1H is more powerful. They may not go in, but you can knock the daylights out of the ball with 2/3 the effort of a 2H. I simply use the 2H because it is most effective for my game. I'm comfortable with both, maybe more with the 1H, but the topspin drives spray quite often.

Ripper
02-14-2006, 11:11 AM
my point being.. but i really want to know.. if the double-hander is really more powerful.. coz if it is.. damn ill switch myself.. dont worry about federer..

This is not the place to ask this. Less if you're going to base a decision on the answer/s. 90% of the people who post here will reply that the one they're using is the one you should be using. Not with those words, but in essence.

PS: bc-05, what age are you? You sound very young. I think you should seek for advice with instructors and advanced players in your area.

bc-05
02-14-2006, 11:29 AM
lol nah im 19.. and im advanced player myself, i've played div 1 for 2 yrs now.. i also have a coach... im not really asking for advice really ripper.. wat im asking is physics.. like is it true that double hander can generate more power? coz from experience it doesnt.. but who knows theres science ppl that can tell us otherwise.. im just interested to know.. not that im seeking for advice

jtreed2000
02-14-2006, 11:36 AM
Lol, I will say it: 1H is more powerful!! ...and I am a 2 hander.

I can't prove it with tests, theories, etc at my disposal, but having used both and considering a few principles of physics it's easy to draw that conclusion. The biggest factor is the racquet is farther away from the body when only using one hand, so it will move faster given there is enough strength to move it. Some will say, two arms are stronger, but that strength is limited to a smaller arc and flexibility is limited.

The point of the thread was what if Federer used two. If that were the case, I believe he would be slightly less mobile, but still a top 5 player. Nadal would look funny with a one hander, though he certainly has the strength to do it (I don't really want to picture capri's and a 1H BH... scary). I would dare say Nadal has had fewer errors in their matches against one another. I know Fed had 60 or so in one of their matches. IMO, he is very close to Federer on a good day, and because Roger uses a 1H it doesn't mean anything. Roger is Roger and 1 or 2 hands he would be among the best. The fact that so many players use two hands now should show everyone here that there's a reason for it, and it's consistency. If you can be as consistent with a 1H, you should use it. If not, use two hands. It's that simple. Less mobility and power, but wicked consistency.

ta11geese3
02-14-2006, 11:38 AM
BB (iirc) says it's about the same, actually. The 2hb generates a lot of power in a very short amount of time with all that rotation, while the 1hb generates a lot of power from it being a longer stroke. Or something like that XD

on another note, I don't think Gasquet's backhand is better than Fed's. Fed has more variety and consistency... he just can't hit those screaming dtl's like Gasquet can. Which, I have to admit, are sooooo pretty =)

bc-05
02-14-2006, 11:42 AM
Lol, I will say it: 1H is more powerful!! ...and I am a 2 hander.

I can't prove it with tests, theories, etc at my disposal, but having used both and considering a few principles of physics it's easy to draw that conclusion. The biggest factor is the racquet is farther away from the body when only using one hand, so it will move faster given there is enough strength to move it. Some will say, two arms are stronger, but that strength is limited to a smaller arc and flexibility is limited.

The point of the thread was what if Federer used two. If that were the case, I believe he would be slightly less mobile, but still a top 5 player. Nadal would look funny with a one hander, though he certainly has the strength to do it (I don't really want to picture capri's and a 1H BH... scary). I would dare say Nadal has had fewer errors in their matches against one another. I know Fed had 60 or so in one of their matches. IMO, he is very close to Federer on a good day, and because Roger uses a 1H it doesn't mean anything. Roger is Roger and 1 or 2 hands he would be among the best. The fact that so many players use two hands now should show everyone here that there's a reason for it, and it's consistency. If you can be as consistent with a 1H, you should use it. If not, use two hands. It's that simple. Less mobility and power, but wicked consistency.


THANK U BROTHAAAA!! thats exactly wat ive been saying.. but just to make sure with the physics and the yeh science stuff

Ripper
02-14-2006, 11:44 AM
THANK U BROTHAAAA!! thats exactly wat ive been saying.. but just to make sure with the physics and the yeh science stuff

A 20 second search produced this:

http://tennis.about.com/od/backhandfaq/

Search for more. Read, read, read. Make your own conclusions.

jtreed2000
02-14-2006, 12:01 PM
It doesn't say which will make the ball go faster. It does say "requires less strength to generate power and keep racquet stable" for the 2H, but that doesn't mean the ball will go faster....

It's like gearing in a car:
The tighter the gears (2H backhand), the faster it will accelerate. Unfortunately those gears also limit top speed (swingspeed). With a more powerful engine (player), you can accelerate just as fast with wider gears (1H BH), AND have more top end (faster swing speed).

Any questions?

bc-05
02-14-2006, 12:05 PM
doesn't say anything about my question.. just said harder to generate power and keep racquet head stable.. the reason its hard is because as the racquet wobbles, power decreases.. hmm thats wat i said for ppl that doesnt have the strength double hander would be easier.. but if someone can just go hit both backhands and hit it as hard as they can without caring about getting it in or out.. i guess ud pull a muscle (back and hips) trying to muscle a two hander before even achieving the pace of the one hander

ta11geese3
02-14-2006, 12:09 PM
eh? safin's 2hb is as fast as any 1hb, if not faster, I'd dare say.

(actually, I don't know. but it's a scary shot!)

vkartikv
02-14-2006, 12:11 PM
If Fed had a two handed backhand I would have to stop watching tennis and go back to cricket and formula 1...

jtreed2000
02-14-2006, 12:30 PM
Yeah... if Safin could hit a 1H reliably it would be as fast as Andy's serves (joking). Probably 100mph would be possible or even common though. Not sure if it isn't already? Some of Gasquet's have to be close. Safin is a case where the disadvantages of a 2H don't matter as much. He's both powerful and can cover a lot of court because of his size.

Dude, I gave up on F1 when MS won like everything. So boring. Now that he's losing though, or retiring(?) I might go back to it.

Ripper
02-14-2006, 12:34 PM
Dude, I gave up on F1 when MS won like everything. So boring. Now that he's losing though, or retiring(?) I might go back to it.

RF is doing the same to tennis :(

jtreed2000
02-14-2006, 12:49 PM
I guess it could get boring eventually, but you have to like the guy. I mean he's not so cocky with hundreds of millions more to his advantage like MS with Ferrari. At least with tennis it's more visible and you can actually watch what's taking place instead of the hidden millions of R&D inside a Ferrari engine or chassis, lapping people ten minutes into the race, lol. With Federer there is some drama and he's very personable. The same can't be said of MS, although I always enjoyed the drama between MS and Hakinnen. I think Federer will reach the peak at some point and all the other guys will step up, just like with Tiger in golf. Granted he can still pull off some amazing shots and comebacks, but he isn't winning every week or every slam. I don't think Federer will dominate like this after another year or so. Yes, he may win many more slams, but there's room for improvement with lots of other players. He will have his moments and others will give him a challenge, just like last year. It's good to have players like him to encourage everyone else ot get better. Look at the standards a few years ago. I'm not saying Hewitt or Roddick are weak players, but it's surprising they reached the top and stayed for a while, IMO. I like Hewitt btw. Roddick I have issues with b/c he just seems brain dead sometimes. THAT is boring IMO.

Sorry to hijack this thread!

VGP
02-14-2006, 01:00 PM
MS's Ferrari is a paintjob.

gaspard
02-14-2006, 02:07 PM
One of the disadvantages of the single hander is the difficulty in learning how to get it reliable. I have a two hander because it is easier to hit with pace and control combined. I can actually hit a one hander with more power, but the control is not there as much. As a kid, Federer first had a two hander then changed to a single, just like Sampras. He said he used to get annoyed because, growing up, everyone would play to his single backhand, which naturally for a child is not going to be strong. But he persevered, and look at it now. His backhand is incredibly reliable. The beauty of it, is that there is no ceremony when he hits it. Watch him drive a return on a big serve on that side, totally natural and effortless, nonchalant even. I've heard people compliment Edberg's backhand. Edberg had a good backhand, but there was unbelievable ceremony before he hit it, early preparation, everything had to be in place and set up right, including his hair. Federer hits his backhand drive on a whim, like it's nothing. He can be off balance, leaning, stretched, on the run, out of position, rushed, it does'nt matter. Edberg could never do this with his single hander. Federer's backhand is so solid and grooved that he has no anxiety when he hits it, even if his footwork is not entirely in place. He gets incredibly zip on his drive and his control on that side is second to none. The control on his single hander is its most impressive quality. On both sides, it's like the racket is a part of his body and not some alien object. Of all the players out there, if I could have anyones backhand, it would be Federer's. In terms of allround qualities, no one elses backhand comes close.

I'm the opposite of some people here. I actually become more interested in a sport when someone demonstrates uncommon ability above and beyond the rest of the field. Ayrton Senna, Schumacher, Maradonna, Michael Jordan, Federer. These are the people that make sport more interesting for me, not the journeymen. Before Federer came along, my interest in watching tennis on tv was waning, apart from the occasional match up. Things are picking up again though with some interesting young guns coming up. I don't get off on tight matches for their own sake, I get off on outstanding tennis. If players cannot step up to Federer, that's tough.

Gaspard

jtreed2000
02-14-2006, 02:17 PM
On Edberg, ".... everything had to be in place and set up right, including his hair.
Lol, sounds about right. I agree about great athletes, etc. Roger is extremely versatile and that's what I like, b/c you don't see that with many players. Many players have the one or two shots, but his "arsenal" is loaded. I don't have a shrine of him in my home or anything, but it is amazing to watch. Anxiety free, as you said.

Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate talent and Michael Schumacher certainly has it, but that's more like a pro playing college matches. The insane budgets teams like Ferrari have offsets the competition so much that other teams can't compete.

VGP
02-14-2006, 02:18 PM
I've heard people compliment Edberg's backhand. Edberg had a good backhand, but there was unbelievable ceremony before he hit it, early preparation, everything had to be in place and set up right, including his hair. Federer hits his backhand drive on a whim, like it's nothing. He can be off balance, leaning, stretched, on the run, out of position, rushed, it does'nt matter. Edberg could never do this with his single hander. Federer's backhand is so solid and grooved that he has no anxiety when he hits it, even if his footwork is not entirely in place. He gets incredibly zip on his drive and his control on that side is second to none. The control on his single hander is its most impressive quality. On both sides, it's like the racket is a part of his body and not some alien object. Of all the players out there, if I could have anyones backhand, it would be Federer's. In terms of allround qualities, no one elses backhand comes close.

Have you actually watched many of Edberg's matches? Edberg's backhand was great. His slice was way better than Federer's.

gaspard
02-14-2006, 02:43 PM
VGP, I did'nt say Edberg's backhand was bad, I said it was good. There was just something very considered about it. Federer, on the other hand, hits his backhand like he's playing table tennis. I would take Federer's backhand, everytime, over Edberg's. Do you really think that Edberg has a better backhand?

Gaspard

allez
02-15-2006, 12:43 AM
IMO, Fed will not be as good if he has a 2hbh.

As the great Sampras observed, Fed "moves better" than anyone. The 1hbh gives Fed the reach and saves him a step and a two on every ball. Over the long run, that adds up.

That extra steps gives Fed the time to concentrate on hitting the good shots and turn defense into offence in a flash. You probably remember how composed and arrogance Fed looks from time to time. Hack, the extra steps he saves sure help.

Also, don't underestimate varienty. 2hbh balls are usually waist high balls you can really tie-off once get used to the pace and timing. The slice, the top spin, the back spin, the low bounce, and the side spin, etc. generated by the 1hbh can screw up folks' timing, including a lot of pros'. Those shots look defensive but can cause a lot of errors if one is not careful or if you are a power baseliner who relies on rythem and pace. If you observe Fed closely, you will realize that Fed waits for the balls hit off-balance by his variety and goes for the inside-out forehand. That is signature play; you just watch next time.

The 1hbh is lot more difficult to master and gives you a lot more options. The bottom line is: why Fed should move down if he already mastered something is more difficult and gives him much more benefits.

The 2hbh folks may argue that they can hit harder with the 2hbh. Don't forget, pace is not everything in tennis, as Fed's game had shown you, and the 1hbh is a key component for Fed's complete game. With a 2hbh, Fed will probably loose big portion of that complete game.

slice bh compliment
02-15-2006, 03:01 AM
...he would not have as many fans.

ssuHeartsRivald
02-15-2006, 03:05 AM
Federer looks like haa a weak backhand because you compare it with his huge forehand. Look, if someone came to the net, Fed's backhand will make the enemy a dead pace with the flat or spin ball. Well, look out what happened to Roddick in Wimbledon final '05. right, he often does unforced error from his one HBH but that doesn't mean he has a weak backhand.

If federer had 2 HBH, he would change it to one HBH as soon as possible.

bc-05
02-15-2006, 03:25 AM
eh? safin's 2hb is as fast as any 1hb, if not faster, I'd dare say.

(actually, I don't know. but it's a scary shot!)

yeh its his controllable power.. but if someone asks him to hit as hard as he can without any control.. just to break the speed barrier.. i can nearly bet that he'll get his left hand off the backhand and just smash it with 1 hand..

gaspard
02-15-2006, 04:59 AM
The 1hbh is lot more difficult to master and gives you a lot more options. The bottom line is: why Fed should move down if he already mastered something is more difficult and gives him much more benefits.

Exactly.

Gaspard