Racquet balance for 1hbh vs 2hbh

[Nicholas Noker]

How does balance affect hitting a 1hbh vs a 2hbh? I assume you would need a more head light racquet for a 1 hander.
Curious on others thoughts.

 

[Rosstour]

How does balance affect hitting a 1hbh vs a 2hbh? I assume you would need a more head light racquet for a 1 hander.
Curious on others thoughts.

For sure.

The best 1H racquet I ever tried was the Sampras PS.

 

[Nicholas Noker]

Is it coincidence that Wawrinka and Fed both play 9 points hl?
Curious what is common ish with the 2hbh.

 

[3loudboys]

Here are the specs of Djoker, Nadal, Murray and Federer taken from Tennisnerd who got hold of one of each of their playing rackets. The two handers have the balance points closer to even with Djoker the most headlight out of them. Roger has the most HL racket being the only one hander in the list. When he started playing tennis the game was more S&V and all court dominated where the type of racket he used and now uses was more appropriate for that play style.

Djokovic

Head size: 95 sq inches
Length: 27.10 inches
Weight: 353 grams
Balance: 32,4 cm balance - approx 6 points HL
Swing weight: 360
String pattern: 18×19

Murray

Head size: 95 sq. in. / 613 sq. cm.
Length: 27 in. / 68.6 cm.
Strung weight: 12.4 oz. / 353 gr.
Strung balance: 332 mm - approx 3 HL
Stiffness: 58
Grip size: L3 (4 3/8)

Nadal

Head size: 100 sq. in. / 640 sq. cm.
Length: unsure whether 27" or 27.5"
Strung weight: 12.0 oz. / 340 gr.
Strung balance: 335 mm - approx 3 HL
Stiffness: not available
Grip size: L2 (4 1/4)

Federer - by no means the last on this list but wanted to put the two handers in first.

Head size: 97sq. in. / 625.8 sq. cm.
Length: 27in / 68.58cm
Strung weight: 12.9 ounces / 366 grams
Strung balance: 31.5cm / 9 pts HL
Stiffness: 68
Grip size: L3 (4 3/8)

 

[socallefty]

Many players on the pro tour likely play with racquets that are between 3 to 6 points headlight based on specs that have been posted here. I don’t think there is a good correlation with 1H or 2H BHs. If you come to the net a lot, you might prefer a very head-light racquet like Federer.

 

[Kalin]

Good points. It used to be that the majority of players' sticks naturally came to about 31.5 cm headlight when gripped and strung. Modern racquets' balance has crept towards the head to compensate for the overall lighter weight.

The 1HBH, which I use, is a strange beast. You can take two sticks with very similar specs and one will work wonders while with the other you won't be able to come over the ball to save your life. A head-light balance helps but things like gripsize and grip shape and even head shape seem to make a big difference too. No wonder proponents of the 1HBH consider it part skill and part dark art

 

[Dragy]

Some players find higher SW as advantage. However, to avoid the sluggishness, one needs to counterbalance. Meanwhile, getting too high in the static weight makes it cumbersome also to swing, though in a bit different manner (setup and early stage of the swing dominantly).
2HBH with 2nd hand on the handle compensates for lack of mass in the handle. FH side is more adaptive, so players can have beefy SW while maintaining serviceable static weight. For OHBH players though racquet must get around faster, hence lower balance is crucial for given SW. Lower polarization helps as well.
Now we have Thiem with rather high balance in his stick, much different from those of Stan or Roger. So all arguable and relative.

 

[Hansen]

dimitrov specs with strings:
weight: 355gr
balance: 329mm

 

[stephenclown]

Henin had an unbelievably good backhand and she used a head heavy racquet from what I can find. Thiem also uses a less headlight racquet.

I think it depends a lot on what a player grew up with and how their strokes developed with the racquet as well as guidance from coaches.

I would think that Tsitsipas is among the lower end of headlight on the men's tour due to the blade and Shapovalov more headlight as he used the six one 95.

 

[socallefty]

I think it depends a lot on what a player grew up with and how their strokes developed with the racquet as well as guidance from coaches.

This is absolutely true as you will see advanced players (4.5+, college, pro) of all playing styles playing singles and doubles with all kinds of racquets and different customizations. There is no correlation to indicate that one type of racquet is good for FH, 1HBH, slice, heavy topspin, returns, serves etc. Generally, you need a racquet that is stable enough against the weight/pace of shots from the opponents at your level, but even here you see quite a range of weights/swingweights even on the pro tour. I also believe that the correlation of what a player likes has more to do with what they grew up playing with.

If you played with heavy, flexible thin-beam racquets, that’s what you will like. If you played with lighter, thick-beam, head-heavy, stiff racquets, your swing is used to that and that’s what you will like. A player needs to figure out what is the range of swingweight (+/-10), beam-width (+/-3) and stiffness (+/-4) specs they roughly like and after that I think they can pretty much adjust to any racquet from any brand with those specs.

Players who are a couple of levels above another player (Top pro against a college player, 5.0 against a 4.0, 4.5 against a 3.5) can probably beat them with any racquet that is given to them with any strings - they’ll probably need only a few games to adjust. Heck, a pro player can probably beat most of us with a frying pan.

 

[Brady12]

I grew up using a ps6.1 and learned how to hit a 1HBH with it.

They don’t make many 10ptHL rackets anymore so hitting my backhand with other rackets is difficult without tail-weighing it.

 

[Dragy]

This is absolutely true as you will see advanced players (4.5+, college, pro) of all playing styles playing singles and doubles with all kinds of racquets and different customizations. There is no correlation to indicate that one type of racquet is good for FH, 1HBH, slice, heavy topspin, returns, serves etc. Generally, you need a racquet that is stable enough against the weight/pace of shots from the opponents at your level, but even here you see quite a range of weights/swingweights even on the pro tour. I also believe that the correlation of what a player likes has more to do with what they grew up playing with.

If you played with heavy, flexible thin-beam racquets, that’s what you will like. If you played with lighter, thick-beam, head-heavy, stiff racquets, your swing is used to that and that’s what you will like. A player needs to figure out what is the range of swingweight (+/-10), beam-width (+/-3) and stiffness (+/-4) specs they roughly like and after that I think they can pretty much adjust to any racquet from any brand with those specs.

Players who are a couple of levels above another player (Top pro against a college player, 5.0 against a 4.0, 4.5 against a 3.5) can probably beat them with any racquet that is given to them with any strings - they’ll probably need only a few games to adjust. Heck, a pro player can probably beat most of us with a frying pan.

I think there are pros and cons for particular strokes of particular player. Everyone looking for middle ground though. Same player may want to emphasize his weapon FH by extra power and spin, or by extra precision. Or get more confidence buff for his BH. Everyone settles somewhere, many, I agree, rely on what was familiar for years and decades. Provided there're no major mismatch between racquet features and player's style/particular strokes, it'll be serviceable. Sometimes, though, tweaking is fruitful, like we witnessed with Roger switch to 97 and some Rafa lead application.

 

[Lavs]

I used to use Head iPrestige Mid having 355g weight and 31cm balance. I had OK 1HBH but was hitting mostly flat. Now I use Babolat Pure Aero VS Original having 337g weight and 33cm balance. I would say my 1HBH now got even better but I hit with much more spin and my swing path got changed a lot. Do not pay much attention on your racket rather go and do more practice.
PS. Sampras himself used almost even balanced racket back in the day.