2hbh clearly superior to 1hbh?

[Ultra2HolyGrail]

No, but hitting a two-handed forehand will make your one-handed forehand volley worse, just like hitting a two-handed backhand will make your one-handed backhand volley worse. Think of the best backhand volleys throughout history, e.g., Edberg, Roche, Ashe, Rafter, Sampras, Laver, etc. None of them had a two-handed backhand. There's a very good reason why.

Yeah, and it isn't because they had two handed backhands. More like because they were baseliners. Most all two handers don't need to run to the net. So it makes sense the best serve and volleyers have been one handers. Again, how many one handers won multiple french and wimbledons?

I come up with this stuff because I am a WAY MORE experienced tennis player than you are and have been playing twice as long as you've been alive.

Just because you have been playing tennis in the park in the 70's emulating mcenroe with a dunlop and headband doesn't mean anything. How many backyard mechanics claim they have been wrenching on cars for 30 years? Would you take your car to them? Just because you have been doing something for a long time doesn't mean you are any good at it. Did you play usta junior tournaments? Did you play college? Did you play mens open usta tournaments?

Um....Laver, Roche, Rosewall, Emerson, Kodes, Panatta, Nastase, Noah, etc. all won the French Open.

Yeah, back in the stone age where everyone had a onehander. :roll:

Have you ever even seen Borg play tennis?

Yes, and he hit a two handed backhand, not a onehander like you say

And most 2HBH players are baseliners because they're bad at the net. And 2HBH players stay on the baseline because they would probably lose if they attacked the net. They are uncomfortable at the net because their volleys are not as good as one-handers. If a two-hander could hit one-handed backhand volleys like Edberg, do you think he would be uncomfortable at the net? Nope. But there are no two-handers that have a backhand volley as good as Edberg's. Never going to happen.

Umm, sampras and edberg had two handers. Do you really think they coould not volley at all when they had a two hander? Please go watch pete when he was a junior, he was still rushing the net and hitting great volleys and overheads. Having a two hander doesn't mean you cannot volley well. But you will never understand that from watching tennis on tv.

You think Nadal has a "great" one-handed backhand slice? You must be joking! It doesn't skid, it doesn't penetrate the court. All it does is slow down the pace and keep the ball in play. It's a totally defensive slice and not an offensive slice like good one-handers can hit.

So federer hits amazing penetrating slices? What do you think the slice is from the baseline, a offensive shot? The slice is mainly used as a change up or defensive shot to get back into position. Isn't it also funny many one handers slice only like rafter-graf-etc becasue they can't control a flat-topspin one hander?

 

[fuzz nation]

OH, THANK GOD!!! Another Fed/Nadal argument... just what we needed.

Hey, you guys should both send your mailing addresses to the OP so that he(?) can send you a thank you card for hijacking his thread. I'm sure he's just thrilled... I know I'd be.

 

[Golden Retriever]

Interesting subject for an interesting argument..........NOT.

BTW, the 2HBH is clearly superior.

 

[Zachol82]

Too many things going on in this post. I'll just summarize everything I've said.

A 2hbh is definitely better than a 1hbh. If you just list the pros and cons of each, you'll clearly see that a 2hbh has more pros compared to that of a 1hbh.

 

[NamRanger]

There is always been some very funny myth that the 2HBH is somehow superior to the 1HBH.



On faster surfaces the 1HBH reigns supreme, especially on low bouncing surfaces. On slower and higher bouncing conditions, the 2HBH is better due to the fact that it is easier to handle higher balls without having to slice, thus not getting you killed on clay.



The tour conditions at the moment favor the 2HBH player.

 

[GetBetterer]

Zachol82:

Too many things going on in this post. I'll just summarize everything I've said.

How about summarizing everything that you have read - or is there nothing of that?

 

[sennoc]

BTW, the 2HBH is clearly superior.

Where do you have your eyes and mind, man? Are you unable to think and watch? You have to copy urban legends?

2hbh superior? Where? The most obvious argument is statistics. The most obvious, because you can't discuss against facts. Facts say that there are 25-30% of 1hbhers in Top50 these days. This is significantly higher percent of 1hbhers than you can see between young players. If a technique allows 2-5x more people to reach Top50, is it a worse technique - in your opinion? What kind of logic do you use, man?

Biomechanically, properly hit 1hbh is much more powerful and multidimensional shot than 2hbh. Yes, many players do not have good 1hbh these days, but this is a serious fault in teaching process, not in biomechanics of the stroke. Modern tennis trainers are primitive and uneducated, that's all. They copy stupid, popular styles and are unable to teach 1hbh. They don't even understand that they can teach 1hbh at very young age, but without that stupid pressure on results. Results are not important if a player is younger than 15. What's important at this age is work on technique, tactics and athletic skills. And mind.

At 1hbh, you can use your forearm. This gives you huge advantage over 2hbh (try to hit good forehand without forearm...) - you can hit better topspins, wider angles, more powerful shots. If you have time, you can hit very strong flat strokes due to longer path of the racquet's head before contact. You can fluently change topspin stroke into slice - a thing which is unreachable for poor 2hbhers.

But the most important thing where 1hbh is superior over 2hbh is the fact that 1hbh produces complete tennis players, not morons who are able to hit topspin groundstrokes only.

Statistically (check if you do not believe) there are 3-4 times more allcourt players between 1hbhers than between 2hbhers. Statistically, there are many good volleyers between 1hbhers, while good volleyers between 2hbhers are exceptions and none of them was really great.

1hbh is harder to learn, that's why lazy players (or stupid players... or players with stupid trainers) choose 2hbh. At 1hbh, you learn many things during training. You learn how to move better. Your topspin backhand is not good at early stage, so you have to learn how to compensate that fact - you learn how to change speed of rallies, you learn how to slice, you learn how to go to the net. That's why, statistically, 1hbhers have much better slice backhand - faster or slower on demand, various rotations. Due to better slice, 1hbher have significantly less problems at volleys. His backhand volleys are usually very good, his forehand volleys are significantly better that those hit by 2hbhers because he has better timing and better understanding of biomechanics.

So, please explain, where do you see that 2hbh is superior over 1hbh? Because more players use 2hbh these days? Are you so naive that you believe that millions of people use things which are better, not things which are just... easier?

If 2hbh is so much better than 1hbh, why do not players use 2h forehands? 1hfh is biomechanically weaker than 1hbh, and 2hbh is biomechanically a perfectly symmetrical shot - a clear suggestion what to do...

So, why don't we see 2hfh invasion? Because it's easier to learn 1hfh than 2hfh.

2hbh is better than 1hbh at just THREE places. First one: it's harder to read the direction of the ball. Second one: it's easier to block. Third one: at young age, it is easier to win with 2hbh. That's all. From my point of view all those 2hbhers in Top50 are just players with their childhood habits frozen in time. Personally I call them frozen kids (special greetings for Nadal who is a real child frozen in time).

 

[Netspirit]

^ the argument about top 50 is rubbish. Top50 players were trained long, long ago, before the modern game made 1HBH obsolete.

 

[FTS]

It's funny that for years and years and years tennis was the same with 1hbh's at the top, but all of a sudden tennis is totally different.

 

[Manus Domini]

Stepanek? He isn't so old as to be forgotten already.

don't forget Goran, but he's a few years ago...

Look, it depends on the player. There are more 2HBH out there because that is what a lot of people are raised with. I can't hit a 2hander for my life if I want to get it in the court, 1HBH works for me. I would never trade my backhand either, as I now run around my FH for my backhand sometimes (depending on the shot in question).

and as for the 2hander being better, it ISN'T, if you can't hit it, you can still rally 1handed. You just need to know how (use slices and learn to hit it on the run). and if 2hander is so much better, why did Sampras have better game than Agassi, or Fed than Roddick and Djokovic and Hewitt? If the 2hander is so superior, why, in this modern game, did Sampras and Federer still prevail?

 

[BreakPoint]

^ the argument about top 50 is rubbish. Top50 players were trained long, long ago, before the modern game made 1HBH obsolete.

What rubbish! So you're saying that nobody in the Top 50 plays the modern game because all of them were trained so long ago? :???:

So either Nadal does not play the modern game or he's not in the Top 50. Which is it?

 

[BreakPoint]

1hbh is harder to learn, that's why lazy players (or stupid players... or players with stupid trainers) choose 2hbh.

Don't forget also uncoordinated players, weak players, inpatient players, undedicated players, unbalanced players, players with poor footwork, players without style, players who lack eye-hand coordination, players who lack variety in their games, players who are afraid to come to the net, players who are glued to the baseline, players who think hitting the ball hard from the baseline is the only way to win at tennis, players who lack skill, players who lack tennis smarts, etc., etc. They all choose 2HBHs, too. :shock:

 

[BreakPoint]

don't forget Goran, but he's a few years ago...

Goran was never a great serve and volleyer. Yes, he won Wimbledon but only because of his incredible serve. His volleys were nothing to write home about. That's why his name is never mentioned with the great serve and volleyers, like Edberg, Rafter, Laver, Sampras, Becker, etc.

 

[mathieu]

Don't forget also uncoordinated players, weak players, inpatient players, undedicated players, unbalanced players, players with poor footwork, players without style, players who lack eye-hand coordination, players who lack variety in their games, players who are afraid to come to the net, players who are glued to the baseline, players who think hitting the ball hard from the baseline is the only way to win at tennis, players who lack skill, players who lack tennis smarts, etc., etc. They all choose 2HBHs, too. :shock:

you like making life difficult for yourself, don't you?

 

[Manus Domini]

Goran was never a great serve and volleyer. Yes,m he won Wimbledon but only because of his incredible serve. His volleys were nothing to write home about. That's why his name is never mentioned with the great serve and volleyers, like Edberg, Rafter, Laver, Sampras, Becker, etc.

S&V just means follows serve to net. If the approach shot is good successful, you're volley doesn't need to be superb to put it away

 

[BreakPoint]

you like making life difficult for yourself, don't you?

Just telling it like it is, man.

The truth sometimes hurts.

 

[BreakPoint]

S&V just means follows serve to net. If the approach shot is good successful, you're volley doesn't need to be superb to put it away

But my point is that Goran never had great volleys because he had a 2HBH. That's why he's never mentioned as one of the all-time great volleyers - ALL of whom had one-handed backhands.

 

[sennoc]

^ the argument about top 50 is rubbish. Top50 players were trained long, long ago, before the modern game made 1HBH obsolete.

Yeah. During the era of Agassi & Bollettieri invasion. At the beginning of XXI there were also 90% of 2hbh youngsters. Are you to young to remember 90.?

 

[Netspirit]

My points should be easy to comprehend.

Only the blind would argue with the statement that tennis has changed. The modern game is very different from what was played in 90s.

The majority of top50 one-handers (Federer, Youzhny, Wawrinka, Haas, Almagro, Gasquet) are mature, accomplished athletes in their late 20s. They were building their style and climbing up various ladders early in 90s, preparing to play a game vastly different from what it has become.

The relative number of 1HBH players in top 50 currently exceeding that in top 200 is a lagging indicator of the change, just like Federer's majors. It says everything about the game of the past and little about the modern one. The whole argument about "top 50" is an example of how statistics can be abused. It is misleading and incorrect.

Unless the game changes again it will be over in just a few years. There will be no 1HBH players in top10, very few in top 50. Few (if any) majors will be won by one-handers. 1HBH will be seen as an anomaly, much like the Continental forehand grip (currently in the lead in terms of majors won with), or double-handed forehand.

It is a valid statement that the two-hander (being a better weapon) gets used more often and therefore leaves less time to perfect the slice and backhand volley. But this is just another argument in favor of is clear superiority.

 

[sennoc]

The modern game is very different from what was played in 90s.

Yeah, very. Less winners, more waiting for unforced errors. The same tactics over and over again, no matter do we play on clay, grass or hard courts. Many players - 2hbhers, of course - are rare guests at the net. Current number one do not know how to slice. Yeah, the game has changed - unfortunately, it is more primitive and more boring to watch. The increasing role of pure athletic training and decreasing role of technique and tactics turns modern tennis into more and more primitive sport.

The relative number of 1HBH players in top 50 currently exceeding that in top 200 is a lagging indicator of the change, just like Federer's majors.

Your interpretation of statistics is very naive.

First, your argument about lag could be valid at 5-7 years of delay. Unfortunately for you (and for tennis as a game), the invasion of 2hbh has begun in late 90. That's enough time to see the difference - significantly more than 10 years, one generation of players. And we have still 25-30% of 1hbhers in Top50.

Second. Modern 1hbhers are mature. True. They are mature. Tennis is a very complitacted sport. It's easier to learn serve, topspin forehand, topspin backhand and ONE tactics than learn everything. 1hbhers need more time to use their game with great success. That's why you see young 2hbhers in Top50 and older 1hbhers. Nothing unusual, 2hbhers will always be younger. But this is not a tight rule. As example, could you tell us, what kind of backhand is used by currently highest ranked teenager in ATP?

It is a valid statement that the two-hander (being a better weapon) gets used more often and therefore leaves less time to perfect the slice and backhand volley. But this is just another argument in favor of is clear superiority.

You can not be serious? Man, please tell me that's a joke?

Unless the game changes again it will be over in just a few years. There will be no 1HBH players in top10, very few in top 50. Few (if any) majors will be won by one-handers. 1HBH will be seen as an anomaly, much like the Continental forehand grip (currently in the lead in terms of majors won with), or double-handed forehand.

I have a lot of patience and a very good memory for stupid statements. We'll see your reaction in 2015.

 

[marosmith]

My points should be easy to comprehend.

Only the blind would argue with the statement that tennis has changed. The modern game is very different from what was played in 90s.

The majority of top50 one-handers (Federer, Youzhny, Wawrinka, Haas, Almagro, Gasquet) are mature, accomplished athletes in their late 20s. They were building their style and climbing up various ladders early in 90s, preparing to play a game vastly different from what it has become.

The relative number of 1HBH players in top 50 currently exceeding that in top 200 is a lagging indicator of the change, just like Federer's majors. It says everything about the game of the past and little about the modern one. The whole argument about "top 50" is an example of how statistics can be abused. It is misleading and incorrect.

Unless the game changes again it will be over in just a few years. There will be no 1HBH players in top10, very few in top 50. Few (if any) majors will be won by one-handers. 1HBH will be seen as an anomaly, much like the Continental forehand grip (currently in the lead in terms of majors won with), or double-handed forehand.

It is a valid statement that the two-hander (being a better weapon) gets used more often and therefore leaves less time to perfect the slice and backhand volley. But this is just another argument in favor of is clear superiority.

Federer, Youzhny, Wawrinka, Haas, Almagro, Gasquet-

What's funny about your idiotic premise is that all of these players other then Federer are dominant on their backhand side. They hit winners off that side. I would also add Lubicic to that list. And in WTA you could add Henin and to some extent Schiavone to that list.

The players that have 1HBH use thier backhand as their primary shot- they hit winners with it. They flatten the ball out and have increased pace then the 2 hander, but also it can produce more spin, back and top then the 2 hander as well (the classic clay court player used to be out of the 1 hander mold Guga for example).

Your prototypical 2 hand player is someone with a dominant forehand and their backhand sets it up (Nadal, Roddick, Soderling, Del Po, Djokovic...). Only a few of the 2 hand players are actually dominant on their backhand side, such as Nalbandian, Murray and prefer to hit their winners from that side.

You are wrong, ignorant, and arrogant and 1HBH players will likely be over-represented at the top of the sport despite the fact that 80-90% of the players now use the 2 hander.

 

[Ultra2HolyGrail]

But my point is that Goran never had great volleys because he had a 2HBH. That's why he's never mentioned as one of the all-time great volleyers - ALL of whom had one-handed backhands.

And how many of those great volleyers could serve like goran? Sampras is the only one.

Why is gorans serve so good if he hits a two hander? Is it just volleys-one handed slices they can't hit well because they have a two hander? It's funny two handers can pound their serves with one arm and hit 100mph one handed forehands, but they can't come to the net and hit volleys-overheads- or hit one handed slice backhands, because they use a two handed backhand? LOL

Again, to be a complete player takes practice and determination to get good at any shot. Most baseliners are happy to only come to net to shake hands.

Does it really matter anyway when you lose to what you consider a one dimensional player and you have a so called ''complete'' game? You can say agassi and sampras had one dimensional games. And, what style has won all the majors? Agassi,nadal,federer,all won from baselining. How many serve and volleyers won all four majors? Please go tell nadal you are more complete then him and he sucks

 

[BreakPoint]

Please go tell nadal you are more complete then him and he sucks

No need to tell Nadal. He already knows. That's why he worships Federer and constantly tells anyone that will listen that Federer is a better and more complete player than he is. That's why Nadal incessantly works so hard to improve his game - because he knows he's not yet at Federer's level. Smart kid.

 

[Ultra2HolyGrail]

No need to tell Nadal. He already knows. That's why he worships Federer and constantly tells anyone that will listen that Federer is a better and more complete player than he is. That's why Nadal incessantly works so hard to improve his game - because he knows he's not yet at Federer's level. Smart kid.

I agree, it's plainly obvious nadal bows down to federer and worships him. Especially all the times they played at french-2008 wimbledon-2009 AO :???:

 

[fuzz nation]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet, but let's acknowledge the irony in the fact that there are also plenty of pretty crummy two-handed backhands out there. Pretty hilarious considering that it's such a superior stroke, right?

Hey, I'm easily amused...

If I could smoke that shot like Marat Safin used to, heck, I'd run around my forehand all day just to show that thing off!

 

[sennoc]

It's funny two handers can pound their serves with one arm and hit 100mph one handed forehands, but they can't come to the net and hit volleys-overheads- or hit one handed slice backhands, because they use a two handed backhand? LOL

Why do you laugh? Because you don't understand that this is an artifact of their tennis education?

You could also understand that 2hbh is a totally different stroke from everything else you have in tennis. Totally different. At the same time 1hbhers learns many elements he can use at the net.

Agassi,nadal,federer,all won from baselining.

Federer won GS from baseline? Which matches have you seen? Those against Nadal only?

 

[Manus Domini]

Fed has the most complete game on tour, if not in history. I'm confused about how he won just from the Baseline. Anyone have any idea when the net was called a baseline?

 

[Pinkskunk]

No need to tell Nadal. He already knows. That's why he worships Federer and constantly tells anyone that will listen that Federer is a better and more complete player than he is. That's why Nadal incessantly works so hard to improve his game - because he knows he's not yet at Federer's level. Smart kid.

how does Nadal worship Federer when he holds a 2-1 record against Fed?

 

[pvaudio]

This thread is just filled with fallacy. It's down to the player. I was taught a 2HBH, and I always kept trying to use one hand on my backhand for some reason. I'm not even talking slicing, but just when playing, I would just end up using one hand. Eventually my coach realized it and decided that a switch to the 1HBH would be more appropriate. It feels 100% more natural to ME than the 2HBH ever did. I don't know if it's because I have fairly long arms or what, but whenever I would use 2 hands, I would always feel cramped and restricted. I would always resort to slicing no matter what the situation if I was in any sort of trouble when I had my two hander. Now, my 1HBH is my more consistent stroke, although my forehand has always been more powerful and may make more winners, but also makes more errors. My slice has improved immensely ever since switching as all I have to do is change my grip and not take an entire hand off of the racquet to hit it.

So if you get nothing else from the above, then just realize that the 2HBH is superior to the 1HBH if that person was meant to hit a 2HBH and the 1HBH is superior to the 2HBH if they were meant to do so. My sister is the former, and I am the latter.

 

[pvaudio]

how does Nadal worship Federer when he holds a 2-1 record against Fed?

Record or not, you have to be completely ignorant to not see that Nadal looks up to Federer. It's obvious. Nadal himself has said it. Other tour players say that Nadal is just ambivalent towards everyone but tries to ingratiate himself when Federer rolls through. It's not a function of their personal records; it's a function of what Federer has been able to achieve so easily whereas Nadal does in fact realize that his success has come at a much higher amount of effort and bodily cost, and that to better Federer's success, he now has to REPEAT his entire career again. Nadal isn't stupid and clearly knows this.

 

[pvaudio]

Fed has the most complete game on tour, if not in history. I'm confused about how he won just from the Baseline. Anyone have any idea when the net was called a baseline?

That's because people aren't using sense. Federer's game has no flaws. He can hit any type of serve, to any portion of the box and win points of aces just like the big servers can, but by using pinpoint accuracy instead of outright pace. He can hit his backhand to anywhere in the court flat, sliced, or TSed and can pass you like you're walking along side the highway. He can volley better than just about anyone else in the game right now (albeit that's not saying much), but more importantly, he actually likes coming into the net and doing work there if the situation calls for it. Then, his forehand, which is IMO the greatest shot the sport has ever seen.

 

[UncleRico.]

Federer could have been using a 2hbh and still dominate the tour like he did in his prime. And Nadal had his forehand changed to his non-dominant hand, and we all know how that ended up.

Using pros to explain the advantages and disadvantages of a tennis stroke is ********. These guys are world class athletes who could probably hit their non-dominant backhand (1hbh or 2hbh) better than anything. Federer could have learned a 2hbh and still had the same amount of skillful shotmaking. Nadal could have just stuck with his right hand and clocked 1b's all over the place.

Reach is not an issue, work on your speed, so you can 'reach' everything.
High balls are not an issue, work on your timing, so you can get balls at the height you want.
Volleys are not an issue, practice them so they become part of your muscle memory (your backhand groundstrokes have very little to do with volley technique)
Variety is not an issue, its not that you can't hit a certain shot, you just haven't practiced it.

If you put in the time, your can have a very good 1hbh/2hbh, weaknesses be damned.

All this name-calling and insulting is childish. And some people here are adults, which is a shame that they need to act like this as an integral part of their arguments.

And yes, I know this argument will never die, as long as tennis is around.

 

[Legend of Borg]

how does Nadal worship Federer when he holds a 2-1 record against Fed?

He can still admire and look up to him, regardless of personal records. Nadal realizes what Fed has achieved and he has to do quite a bit of winning to get to 16 slams himself.

 

[BreakPoint]

how does Nadal worship Federer when he holds a 2-1 record against Fed?

Have you ever listened to Nadal's interviews? All he talks about is how Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time and he himself is not even in the same league. He gushes at how great Federer is. If that's not worship, I don't know what is.