1HBH vs 2HBH racquet poll

[Deleted member 742196]

I switched from 1HBH to a 2HBH for various reasons, but this was one of them.

Haha. You just echoed a thought deep deep in the back of my mind I haven't yet been brave enough to say out loud to myself.

I began as a 2H'er, transitioned to 1H'er and over the years at various times mucked about just for fun - for sure I know I can line up a 2H quite well. In fact I think a couple of years with 1H does wonders for the 2H.

 

[beltsman]

Haha. You just echoed a thought deep deep in the back of my mind I haven't yet been brave enough to say out loud to myself.

I began as a 2H'er, transitioned to 1H'er and over the years at various times mucked about just for fun - for sure I know I can line up a 2H quite well. In fact I think a couple of years with 1H does wonders for the 2H.

My 2HBH is still coming around, but I appreciate the different areas of strength. It takes time to adjust to having less reach, the awkward body motion, and you really miss the extreme power, spin, and beauty of the 1HBH. But, it's much more stable against heavy hitters and it's much easier to return serves aggressively. It's not as good for attacking, at least my style of attacking, but it's better at being a "neutral" shot. I let my FH do the attacking. Plus, the 2HBH allows me to use lighter racquets (although I play at 11.66 oz now, neither super heavy or light), and it allows me to use stiffness and tensions that would otherwise give me elbow problems.

 

[Shroud]

Actually my primary intent here is to bump up to a 95 or higher frame. Thus far I haven't really been able to nudge it past 90, and this needed a year.

But recently I've been thinking perhaps it's something about my technique that keeps me glued to the heavier rackets. Certainly this appeared to be the case with my FH - I let most of the drive/power come from the heft/mass of the PS85/90.

After working a bit on my biomechanics I realized I can use lighter frames like the DR98 or various tweeners - on the forehand. The backhand however feels awfully unstable with these frames.

I've come around to thinking that perhaps I'm also not really swinging freely on the backhand side, so can't make the modern tweeners work.

The 6.1 95's were available at a great price in Europe, both the 25th anniversary edition as well as the 2017 release. Whether or not it's my biomechanics, or finding the right frame or whatever - this year I'm definitely going to bump up. The PS90 is a nice frame, it does what you want it to - but obviously it needs someone more experienced and skilled than myself to turn it into the great weapon that it can be.

Imho you need high swing weight and the increased recoil weight that comes from it on the 1 hander. Perhaps you add weight to the tweeners until the bh gels?

Fwiw i bought into the RHS is king mantra but found for me a slower heavier racquet was best. It sounds like you developed letting the racquet do the work so the light sticks are a challenge. Same here

Personally i cant hit bhs with light racquets but seem to do ok with heavy stiff sticks like this leaded up Profile 95:

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

Racket doesn't really matter. But across the board it seems people here prefer "heavier" rackets. Though in my definition, a racket isn't really heavy until it hits 13+ ounces. For me, anything under 12 ounces is light weight, anything over 13 is heavy. Anything in between is mid-weight. The values would change if you allowed people to vote based on their perception of heavy rather than your own arbitrarily picked value, or if you changed the value to what someone else decided is "heavy".

 

[Deleted member 742196]

My 2HBH is still coming around, but I appreciate the different areas of strength. It takes time to adjust to having less reach, the awkward body motion, and you really miss the extreme power, spin, and beauty of the 1HBH. But, it's much more stable against heavy hitters and it's much easier to return serves aggressively. It's not as good for attacking, at least my style of attacking, but it's better at being a "neutral" shot. I let my FH do the attacking. Plus, the 2HBH allows me to use lighter racquets (although I play at 11.66 oz now, neither super heavy or light), and it allows me to use stiffness and tensions that would otherwise give me elbow problems.

This is gold.

The salient point of this thread was to discern if two handers enjoy larger variety of racquets/set ups, particularly the modern frames.

On the FH side practically everyone has moved on from continental, with Eastern and more it's fairly easy to use anything.

It's that BH though, whether technique or an actual limitation of the 1H, few 1H'ers are comfortable with sub 320 frames.

Your post gets into the nitty gritty differences between the two in this context. It's sort of the why that I am curious about at this junction.

Let me spend a few weeks with one of these tweeners hitting my 2H and see where that takes me. This seems like a good information gathering approach to the problem at hand.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Racket doesn't really matter. But across the board it seems people here prefer "heavier" rackets. Though in my definition, a racket isn't really heavy until it hits 13+ ounces. For me, anything under 12 ounces is light weight, anything over 13 is heavy. Anything in between is mid-weight. The values would change if you allowed people to vote based on their perception of heavy rather than your own arbitrarily picked value, or if you changed the value to what someone else decided is "heavy".

Yep, me too actually. 330 is light. I drew the heavy/light line looking at the equipment on offer nowadays - after the Aero Pro became popular 300-315'ish (unstrung) racquets seem to be the prototype modern racquets.

When you look at the pros [what they market anyway], it seems only the 1H'ers mainly using 320+ frames.

So this was the methodology. I guess what's heavy/light would end up as a subjective question secondary to the primary one of whether or not most 1H'ers seem confined to the heavier end of the spectrum.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Imho you need high swing weight and the increased recoil weight that comes from it on the 1 hander. Perhaps you add weight to the tweeners until the bh gels?

Fwiw i bought into the RHS is king mantra but found for me a slower heavier racquet was best. It sounds like you developed letting the racquet do the work so the light sticks are a challenge. Same here

Personally i cant hit bhs with light racquets but seem to do ok with heavy stiff sticks like this leaded up Profile 95:

The past year as I've been working on the forward swing - throwing that racquet with confidence/conviction initiating with my hip - I realize how dependent I've been on the mass of the racket on the FH side.

As I look around it isn't actually a unique problem - the less skilled players will compromise on the forward swing and abbreviate the motion. The backswing may look awesome, it might be a textbook wrist relax, but when the hip doesn't initiate there's no way you can really achieve a stable, confident and controlled forward swing - at contact point your wrist will likely end up doing something to compensate.

Oddly enough lighter racquets force me out of my comfort zone as I have no choice but to swing more effectively. When I look at really experienced players, particularly coaches, they can rip backhands and forehands with all sorts of racquets. I guess technique is my goal, we're all learning the game a different way.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Imho you need high swing weight and the increased recoil weight that comes from it on the 1 hander. Perhaps you add weight to the tweeners until the bh gels?

Fwiw i bought into the RHS is king mantra but found for me a slower heavier racquet was best. It sounds like you developed letting the racquet do the work so the light sticks are a challenge. Same here

Personally i cant hit bhs with light racquets but seem to do ok with heavy stiff sticks like this leaded up Profile 95:

Question?

For your 1H'er - does CC or DTL feel more natural to you? Which direction do you seem to rip more effectively? And when on the run, which direction do you have more confidence with?

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

Yep, me too actually. 330 is light. I drew the heavy/light line looking at the equipment on offer nowadays - after the Aero Pro became popular 300-315'ish (unstrung) racquets seem to be the prototype modern racquets.

When you look at the pros [what they market anyway], it seems only the 1H'ers mainly using 320+ frames.

So this was the methodology. I guess what's heavy/light would end up as a subjective question secondary to the primary one of whether or not most 1H'ers seem confined to the heavier end of the spectrum.

But the problem with this is that some pro stocks (notoriously Head) give you lighter than retail frames. There's no guarantee that they'll land at a weight higher than market value, let alone matching it (you could bet on it and make money off of it, but you wouldn't win every time).

Honestly, you should've just left it as a vague heavy/light and let the reader determine based on their own definition. It would give you a more accurate poll for what you're looking for.

 

[Shroud]

Question?

For your 1H'er - does CC or DTL feel more natural to you? Which direction do you seem to rip more effectively? And when on the run, which direction do you have more confidence with?

Yikes. Thats a tough question. DTL is more natural from a mental standpoint. For some reason cc seems such a little target yet DTL doesnt. Its mental not saying it really is the case. Passing is also down the line so i am more up for that

On the run its a crap shoot but in my vids i seem to go DTL more and have more winners dtl. Not sure why but cc is tougher. Look at the point at 2:36 and see the running bh

 

[Deleted member 742196]

But the problem with this is that some pro stocks (notoriously Head) give you lighter than retail frames. There's no guarantee that they'll land at a weight higher than market value, let alone matching it (you could bet on it and make money off of it, but you wouldn't win every time).

Honestly, you should've just left it as a vague heavy/light and let the reader determine based on their own definition. It would give you a more accurate poll for what you're looking for.

Fair enough - specs on paper/sites often differ to the actual product delivered. That's a point one would need to factor in equipment type exchanges.

I guess I'm not really as curious about what people believe they use. The two of us are good examples of one end, sub 12 oz would be "light". For some others the same might be heavy - quite precisely what you mentioned.

I'm more interested of what people are using in the context of the equipment on offer nowadays - particularly on the backhand side.

It would lend more conversation to this thread had people included their respective setups, perhaps I ought to have asked for it in my original post. It's just I wouldnt know how to compile or use the information in any meaningful way. Subjective perspectives are extremely difficult to work with.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Yikes. Thats a tough question. DTL is more natural from a mental standpoint. For some reason cc seems such a little target yet DTL doesnt. Its mental not saying it really is the case. Passing is also down the line so i am more up for that

On the run its a crap shoot but in my vids i seem to go DTL more and have more winners dtl. Not sure why but cc is tougher. Look at the point at 2:36 and see the running bh

Not sure if you're going to like this, as I saw your video it looks remarkably similar to my own 1H CC - controlled, held back and safe. Takeback is all good, trajectory seems in favour of neutral ball deep to the back of the cross court. Perhaps that is what you were aiming for in the session, perhaps this is what your default swing path is.

I've often wondered why it is I don't have the same oomph and drive on my CC 1H as I do with the DTL - I reckon somewhere in that forward swing is a lack of confidence to really go for it. Technically I don't come underneath the ball as much as I should to cover that long distance across the court and have a tendency to hit it more straight through - it's an abbreviated forward path that stems from a lack of confidence - which I'm theorizing a heavy racquet has allowed me to get away with.

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

Fair enough - specs on paper/sites often differ to the actual product delivered. That's a point one would need to factor in equipment type exchanges.

I guess I'm not really as curious about what people believe they use. The two of us are good examples of one end, sub 12 oz would be "light". For some others the same might be heavy - quite precisely what you mentioned.

I'm more interested of what people are using in the context of the equipment on offer nowadays - particularly on the backhand side.

It would lend more conversation to this thread had people included their respective setups, perhaps I ought to have asked for it in my original post. It's just I wouldnt know how to compile or use the information in any meaningful way. Subjective perspectives are extremely difficult to work with.

I mean, you could use a spreadsheet to calculate the average weight, swingweight, and balance.

And the original question is about whether lighter or heavier rackets are preferable for the backhand. What people believe they use relative to themselves is valuable since a player might take on as much weight as they could handle but came short of your line. It's still them using a heavier racket and preferring one to a lighter racket. Or a player might just universally think heavier is better if they can handle it, even though the heaviest they can handle is below your arbitrary value.

When you're looking for a general trend of "is heavier better", then the specific value doesn't matter. Just would you, out of rackets you can use, prefer heavier or lighter. The definition of "heavy" is subjective. But heavier vs lighter isn't. That's a very objective binary question which satisfies everything you want to know without throwing in an arbitrary value that can skew the results.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

I mean, you could use a spreadsheet to calculate the average weight, swingweight, and balance.

And the original question is about whether lighter or heavier rackets are preferable for the backhand. What people believe they use relative to themselves is valuable since a player might take on as much weight as they could handle but came short of your line. It's still them using a heavier racket and preferring one to a lighter racket. Or a player might just universally think heavier is better if they can handle it, even though the heaviest they can handle is below your arbitrary value.

When you're looking for a general trend of "is heavier better", then the specific value doesn't matter. Just would you, out of rackets you can use, prefer heavier or lighter. The definition of "heavy" is subjective. But heavier vs lighter isn't. That's a very objective binary question which satisfies everything you want to know without throwing in an arbitrary value that can skew the results.

But that's it - a spreadsheet that factors weight, swingweight, balance and likely personal information on the player as well - is not the sort of task I envisioned at the onset.

Admittedly it was my own arbitrary point of choosing - 320 unstrung. It wasn't completely without thought though, when the most popular frames nowadays seem to be in the 300-315 tier, 320 seemed like a reasonable demarcation.

I'm not sure if I'm right or wrong in thinking this way, perhaps I've superimposed my own criteria of the difference in equipment today.

The exercise was to broadly establish (principally for my own benefit) whether 1H'ers appear to be a bit more limited in their racket choices, in this regard I'm not alone in the problem. I am especially happy to learn some others here are using sub 320 racquets though, it's a threshold I don't want to feel hampered by.

All this is directed to what direction(s) I need to go with my tennising - notably in this thread, the choice of equipment that best complements the technical/mental journey I'm on.

It's true, your approach would be more exhaustive and probably be warranted as I reach higher levels - at my relative 4'ish phase, I'm still trying to learn some very basic things. To date I haven't really thought much about why I'm using whatever I do, this would be the first time.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

I suppose except my experience with club tennis is that it still is 75% 1HBH to 25% 2HBH. With the frequency of 2HBH's increasing with NTRP level. But that is a discussion for another thread.

Personally I think leverage and SW help all topspin groundstrokes. It's mostly a matter of whether you have the power to wield such heavy sticks effectively. A lot of pros use heavier frames with XL measurements. Because they have the power and timing to do so.

most of the players i run into with strong backhands have 2 handers... but those with strong 1 handers are often more well rounded players who feed off their backhand for inspiration.

I dont think its power so much as positioning and timing when it comes to 1 handers... it takes a lot more setup for a good 1 hander and i kinda LOVE those first few games of a match with a new opponent when they see I have a one-hander and they target it relentlessly only to see how i lock on and begin a demolition... its like my full eastern 1 handed backhand feeds the rest of my game...

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

But that's it - a spreadsheet that factors weight, swingweight, balance and likely personal information on the player as well - is not the sort of task I envisioned at the onset.

Admittedly it was my own arbitrary point of choosing - 320 unstrung. It wasn't completely without thought though, when the most popular frames nowadays seem to be in the 300-315 tier, 320 seemed like a reasonable demarcation.

I'm not sure if I'm right or wrong in thinking this way, perhaps I've superimposed my own criteria of the difference in equipment today.

The exercise was to broadly establish (principally for my own benefit) whether 1H'ers appear to be a bit more limited in their racket choices, in this regard I'm not alone in the problem. I am especially happy to learn some others here are using sub 320 racquets though, it's a threshold I don't want to feel hampered by.

All this is directed to what direction(s) I need to go with my tennising - notably in this thread, the choice of equipment that best complements the technical/mental journey I'm on.

It's true, your approach would be more exhaustive and probably be warranted as I reach higher levels - at my relative 4'ish phase, I'm still trying to learn some very basic things. To date I haven't really thought much about why I'm using whatever I do, this would be the first time.

Well, traditional players frames are dying out, and that rock solid feeling is harder and harder to find, but that doesn't necessarily mean 1 handers are getting butchered in racket options. Not as great as before, but Head is still around and Wilson still has relatives of the ProStaff line.

And focusing on your equipment isn't what higher level players do. They want something comfortable. Beyond that, they want consistency so all they have to worry about is their own technique. They're never going to ask if a lighter or heavier racket is better for their backhand. They'll just say their backhand sucks and work on it. Some people are quite involved with their equipment though, like Agassi. But all that came after taking his technique to a world class level.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Well, traditional players frames are dying out, and that rock solid feeling is harder and harder to find, but that doesn't necessarily mean 1 handers are getting butchered in racket options. Not as great as before, but Head is still around and Wilson still has relatives of the ProStaff line.

And focusing on your equipment isn't what higher level players do. They want something comfortable. Beyond that, they want consistency so all they have to worry about is their own technique. They're never going to ask if a lighter or heavier racket is better for their backhand. They'll just say their backhand sucks and work on it. Some people are quite involved with their equipment though, like Agassi. But all that came after taking his technique to a world class level.

Yip. I agree. Good/aspiring players would absolutely do this. Technique/competency first, equipment second. In a quest for my own competency I want to make sure I'm on the right path here.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

most of the players i run into with strong backhands have 2 handers... but those with strong 1 handers are often more well rounded players who feed off their backhand for inspiration.

I dont think its power so much as positioning and timing when it comes to 1 handers... it takes a lot more setup for a good 1 hander and i kinda LOVE those first few games of a match with a new opponent when they see I have a one-hander and they target it relentlessly only to see how i lock on and begin a demolition... its like my full eastern 1 handed backhand feeds the rest of my game...

Yeah, can agree with this. I wish I had more of an offensive CC with my 1H'er but yes, a big part of this is moving to an Eastern, right now I'm still somewhat continental'ish.

 

[2HBH-DTL]

My 2HBH is still coming around, but I appreciate the different areas of strength. It takes time to adjust to having less reach, the awkward body motion, and you really miss the extreme power, spin, and beauty of the 1HBH. But, it's much more stable against heavy hitters and it's much easier to return serves aggressively. It's not as good for attacking, at least my style of attacking, but it's better at being a "neutral" shot. I let my FH do the attacking. Plus, the 2HBH allows me to use lighter racquets (although I play at 11.66 oz now, neither super heavy or light), and it allows me to use stiffness and tensions that would otherwise give me elbow problems.

Coming from a 1 hander as well, yes it does take a little adjustment to get used to the "restricted" reach. I think on full blown winners, I have hit the 1 hander and 2 hander equally as hard. Last summer I was in an intense rally with a guy that ended with me absolutely bludgeoning the ball down the MIDDLE of the court for a winner on my 1 handed backhand side. I kid you not it was probably hit around 90-100 mph. one of the best 1 hander shots i ever hit in my life. Just a couple weeks ago, i played a good match against a local friend and had some opportunites to hit some hard 2 handers flat for winners and they were around the same pace so i know i didn't sacrifice power from switch.

now i DID lose spin for sure. definately not getting the RPMs i used to get but i'm hitting a flatter 2 hander anyway with limited spin.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Coming from a 1 hander as well, yes it does take a little adjustment to get used to the "restricted" reach. I think on full blown winners, I have hit the 1 hander and 2 hander equally as hard. Last summer I was in an intense rally with a guy that ended with me absolutely bludgeoning the ball down the MIDDLE of the court for a winner on my 1 handed backhand side. I kid you not it was probably hit around 90-100 mph. one of the best 1 hander shots i ever hit in my life. Just a couple weeks ago, i played a good match against a local friend and had some opportunites to hit some hard 2 handers flat for winners and they were around the same pace so i know i didn't sacrifice power from switch.

now i DID lose spin for sure. definately not getting the RPMs i used to get but i'm hitting a flatter 2 hander anyway with limited spin.

Haha, this talk on 1H'ers transitioning to 2H brings about another little thing I'm trying to grapple with.

My 1HBH is lousy on the return - 80% of the time I'll chip it back in because I don't have the confidence to take a real swipe at the ball on first serve.

On the FH side I can really step in and go for it, perhaps if I use 2H returns that might be a way forward. If I spend a few months tuning up my 2H then I might be able to add an additional dimension to my game. Nothing says you can't strategically use both 1H and 2H.

 

[2HBH-DTL]

with 1 handed returns esp on hard 1st serves. it's important to remember that not only do you need to just block it, but your follow through should be half of a normal follow through. you should extend out through the block but that's as far as it needs to go. introducing a full out follow through is too much movement (although you can do it at higher levels, i wouldn't recommend it even at a 4.5 level)

 

[Deleted member 742196]

So this afternoon I swapped my trusty PS90 with the Tanzanian guy I'm usually playing matches with while here on a visit - it's a 98 something - Ultimatum Transfer Technology something, something, something - extremely light.

The idea was whether I could rip backhands with the thing, surprisingly the frame was a heck of a lot easier than with my PS90. All it needed was a really good commitment.

I think all this heavy/light stuff is in my head; for the longest time I've not been really been swinging but used to a certain firmness at point of contact.

I can use anything apparently. The Yonex from god knows how long back, with god knows how old strings and a grip that's shredded just needs to be swung a little more than my PS90.

I guess for all of you this is common sense and silliness to devote a whole thread to it. For me though, I needed to arrive at this point by process. By feel. By learning what a full/complete swing is and then understanding what gets in the way. Sure I can do it with my PS90, it's just not always necessary. In fact it's scary how much power there is in the PS90 when I take full swings and perhaps in some way that's held me in check all this while. Or perhaps it's laziness, I can get away with abbreviated strokes with the heavier frame so why work harder?

 

[2HBH-DTL]

the higher up the NTRP rating system you go, the more you'll find players with heavier racquets though. light frames (anything lower than 11 oz IMO) just won't get the job done on serves and returns. or even groundstrokes.

 

[mhkeuns]

Heavy, HL balanced frames for both forehand & one handed backhand. I don't have the wristy strokes, so I need the plow. With tweener frames like the Pure Drive, Pure Aero, or Aeropro, it was tougher for me to hit flat backhands.

 

[2HBH-DTL]

With tweener frames like the Pure Drive, Pure Aero, or Aeropro, it was tougher for me to hit flat backhands.

right. i like hitting flat, hard backhands so tweener frames would never work for me.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

Yeah, can agree with this. I wish I had more of an offensive CC with my 1H'er but yes, a big part of this is moving to an Eastern, right now I'm still somewhat continental'ish.

that grip is also great on returns... a major part of my game is my return and i am very aggressive off both sides... as mentioned earlier by others the weight really helps 1 handers on return