Single handed backhand for juniors...

Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by Ash_Smith, Jun 19, 2011.

  1. Avles

    Avles Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Peak of Good Living
    I'm pretty sure that most of us here watch quite a bit of pro tennis on TV. But the fact that some pro players can hit monster topspin 1HBH returns tells us little or nothing about how the 1HBH and the 2HBH compare, in general, on service returns.

    Also, the idea that the 2HBH is a more versatile stroke on returns did not originate in this thread. Lots of very experienced coaches seem to hold this view. For example, here's a video on the subject by the head coach at BYU, 2012 USPTA professional of the year:

    http://www.tennisresources.com/index.cfm?area=video_detail&rv=1&vidid=2384

    So I don't think it makes sense to foreclose the discussion by saying "watch some tennis, players hit good 1hbh returns too" and "either one can work, it's a matter of preference." Sure either stroke can work, but the question is whether there's a difference in what they can do, and how readily they can do it.
     
  2. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,419
    Very nice link, thanks for posting that. Frisbee would do well to take his own
    advice. His Sampas vs Agassi/Stich example is full of holes.
    Sampras often talked of how key it was for him to keep the serves out of Andre's
    2hander zone and if you watch some matches on tv, you could see it
    in action. Stich didn't match up well against Pete due to his 1hander rtn, lol :)
    Nice try though.
     
  3. Avles

    Avles Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Peak of Good Living
    Stich did have some success against Sampras, but I don't know that his service return was the reason.

    I actually just glanced at Sampras's book "A Champion's Mind" (on Google Books). In his section on Stich he mentions Stich's second serve as a strength but says nothing about the return.

    And Pete says if he were creating an "ultimate player" from his opponents he'd use Agassi's return, but he'd also take a look at Hewitt and Chang's returns. So I don't think he'd agree with FrisbeeFool's take.
     
  4. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,419
    I went to a utube vid and watched Pete and Stich feast on each others 1 hander
    with just about any 1st serve they put there. Thought they should have used it
    more, but seemed to save it for bigger points.
     
  5. BirdieLane

    BirdieLane New User

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    81
    When looking at these return stats, you can't just say, look, there are more 2BH so there. That was what drew my first post on this thread. If you want to look at top X (lets say top 20), you need to understand the backhand profile of the pool of players that produced it.

    So if data is collected on 10000 players, and 10% of them have 1BH, then you'd expect to see 2 in the top 20. If you see three, you can argue that the 1BH is better. If you see one, you can argue that the 2BH is better.

    But taking a step back, and again, considering the 1BH as a path you'd put a junior on, I don't think you can dismiss it. Same point. If 10% of aspiring pro boys have 1BH but 25% of top 100 pros have have 1BH, it can be argued that the 1BH junior has a 2.5x better chance of being a pro.

    I tend to agree that 2BH is a better choice vs first serves. I think it's hard to put a finger on why a larger percent of 1BH make it thru to the top level. But I liked the point made earlier by NLBwell:

    So agree that a player w a 1BH approaches the game differently and uses the variety of his 1BH to set up the rest of his game. I think the point is that the 1BH player is less likely to depend on a simple game based on power and more often, look to set up their strengths.

    Interestingly, Nadal plays a game that is very much like a player with a 1BH would play. Against any sort of big or wide serve to the BH, he tends to go with the slice rather than his 2BH. And his footwork and determination to get FH shots are very much like most 1BH players.

    Also, I think players sometimes hurt themselves going after the 1BH because thats a predictable play and then the 1BH player is just playing on half a court. It seems like this is often the case for Fed. In fact, except for when Fed plays Nadal (who breaks down nearly everyones BH...not just Feds), the players who have success against him actually break down his FH and have either great xcourt FH (Del Potro) or great DTL backhands (Djoker).

    But on the whole, I'd also say that the rarity of the 1BH helps a player with a 1BH succeed since they are a different animal that requires different tactics and you are forced to hit different shots - some that are very uncomfortable (such as trying to hit a 2BH off a short chip return).
     
  6. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,419
    I don't agree, but it's a semi reasonable theory I guess. You can come up with
    a ton of reasons why pools produce one thing or another. Maybe the current 1 handers
    would be way better with 2 handers. We just don't know. Maybe your theory is
    right, but it doesn't agree with what I've seen or experienced. Like Frisbee says,
    watch a match and see how 1 handers fare against big 1st serves. It's not pretty.
    Maybe more players use 2 hands because they realize it is more versatile overall?
    We just don't know why. Likely mostly due to starting young and needing 2 hands
    to control the stick.

    I think you have to realize that we are talking of one narrow area where the 2
    hands is markedly better at doing a certain thing. Not saying it is better over
    all or that you should not choose to play with the one hander. If you don't mind,
    or even like going to the slice more often against big first serves, then by all
    means, consider the 1hander if you like it. I think the 1 hander requires less
    demanding movement and positioning than the 2 hander. Do you want to debate
    that idea of the 1 hander being better?
     
  7. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,419
    Approach the game different by choice or force??
    All the good players can volley and slice pretty much on par with most 1 handers.
    As you point out, some 2handers deploy a more varied approach to the tactics.
     
  8. BirdieLane

    BirdieLane New User

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    81
    5263, I agreed with you that 2BH is better for first serve returns, right? And other things as well.

    The OP was should a junior 'choose' to develop a 1BH vs a 2BH. I think it's a great question and we can argue pro's and con's all day and I feel like the 2BH might come out net positive once the dust settles in such a debate.

    Which is why it's so interesting to acknowledge that 1BH players seem to have a better 'rate of success' in terms of becoming professional tennis players than 2BH players. Possibly by more than 2x (if we can agree that <12% of aspiring juniors had 1BHs)

    And on your question of choice or force - I think forced. But does it matter?? Probably less ability to just crank a winner on one side 'forces' a player to learn the game at a deeper...or at least different...level.

    I don't know why...but looking at the number of pros with 1BHs - there's something about a 1BH that definitely does NOT DOOM a players prospects...but curiously, seems to increase them when you consider the rate of success of players with 1BH vs 2BHs.

    For the record, I just looked at current rankings and 7 of the ATP top 25, or 28% have 1BH. And yesterday I looked at 9 of top 20 (45%) in ATP doubles rankings have 1BH.

    I just think there's something going on that we can't put our finger on because in most debates, the 2BH camp seems to come out on top. But it's undenyable that when you look at aspiring juniors, far less than 28% have 1BH....which clearly indicates that 1BH juniors have a higher success rate than 2BH juniors. And that is a fact that applies directly to the OP.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2012
  9. 2ndServe

    2ndServe Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Messages:
    986
    2 handers definitely have better returns on the whole but 1 handers throughout history have had better transitional and net games. They also tend to be more offensive. I'm sure they develop better slices and probably a stronger hitting arm, shoulder and wrist from hitting one handers.
     
  10. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,419
    Great post IMO and I agree, choosing a 1 hander does not even approach doom.
    I agree it is a very reasonable choice if the right reasons are there. I now
    see you understand I was just picking the 2 hander if there was need for help
    with the choice due to the advantage against the very prevalent big serves
    of today. Also 2 handers of today transition and volley as well or better than
    the 1 handers, so that is not an up to date issue on this imo.
    I do think there are several great things about the 1 hander and it can be THE
    right choice as well.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2012
  11. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,419
    As to this issue, imo it's just that weaker players don't go with the 1 hander, as
    it is harder overall....partly due to the misunderstandings about how to coach it.
    Just look to the other thread going on 1 handers and you can see so many posting
    about it and don't have a clue how to teach it :)
    Stronger players may go with the 1 or 2 hander, as they can do what they like
    in the sport...at least compared to their peers. Among the better players, likely the
    numbers are more evenly split??
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2012
  12. WesternCK

    WesternCK New User

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    16
    First off, my apologies if someone has already pointed out what I'm about to say. I've read the first 6-7 pages or so but then only glossed over the next few pages.

    In my opinion, I think the reason that so many teaching professionals out there teach the two handed backhand is fairly simple. It has been touched on throughout this thread but as far as I know, no one has really stated it as being the main reason. Similar to the fact that "linear movement" has been replaced by "angular movement" when it comes to the modern game, I believe that the dominance of the 2 handed backhand in the modern era comes along from the same transition in the sport. As has been stated, the footwork necessary to execute a proper 1 handed backhand is more difficult than that of the two handed backhand. One can execute a 2 handed backhand with a variety of stances and still generate some type of aggressive shot whereas this is more difficult when executing say, a 1 hand backhand with an open stance. Tie this in with the POWER in the modern game and I believe that you have the reason that the 2 hander has become the predominant choice of both players who play on their own but more importantly teaching professionals who have fully embraced teaching the modern game.

    So to sum it all up, I believe that the power in today's game is the main reason that two hand backhands are the most predominantly taught stroke by teaching professionals, regardless of the age of their students. Obviously individual attention should be paid to those who exhibit solid footwork and prefer the one handed backhand, but to me it is no surprise that the vast majority of teaching professionals teach the two handed backhand, regardless of the age of their students.

    Now on to the original post... I think this is a very interesting idea, and I do think that you make a good point that with the lack of speed and power in mini tennis, this would be the perfect time to teach students a 1 handed backhand. With that being said, there are many children out there who take lessons at such an age and then for one reason or another never take lessons again. This is probably a small percentage of students, but the point is that I would rather teach children the more successful stroke in the modern game even when they are starting out. I do believe both strokes can be very efficient when they are produced to their potential, but rather than just having an "experiment" as the reason for deciding to teach young children the 1 handed backhand, I'd probably have to have some reasoning as to why it would be more beneficial than learning a 2 handed backhand.
     
  13. 5263

    5263 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    10,419
    Interesting post and it got me thinking. I think the 2 hander positioning/footwork
    is tougher, but maybe that is because I came to it from the 1 hander.
    Also I think the one hander is more powerful and is just as much as part of the
    modern strokes as the 2 hander. So while you made some interesting points,
    I don't think they hold up...at least imo.
     
  14. rkelley

    rkelley Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,385
    I agree that positioning and foot work on the 2hbh is generally more difficult. The 2hbh has a shorter contact zone and you're just generally more constrained with it. Low, short balls can be hard. But I think a key point is that when you are out of position with a 2hbh you can muscle the ball over more easily and still hit a decent, if not great shot. I believe this is the big draw initially for beginning players and players who never develop proper foot work and positioning.

    I think this is also the reason it's so good with return of serve. When someone's pounding a ball at you at +100 mph with different spins you often have to make last minute adjustments very quickly. It's a lot easier to do that with a 2hbh and still get some pop on the return.

    When you have time to set-up and let it rip it's pretty impressive how much rhs a player can generate with a 1hbh, which ends up as some combination of pace and spin.
     
  15. chico9166

    chico9166 Guest

    Having always taught in a northern climate, I can say that time constraints are a major issue here...The learning curve is typically longer with a one hander. Often times, significantly.

    If a 10 or 11 year old shows some promise, realistically, a coach has only a few years to get them to a level of higher caliber tournament play..Tough to do, whithin a couple hrs a week..

    Couldn't disagree more, with those that suggest the one hander is easier in terms of the footwork, especially with a child, who is both physically weak, and height challenged. The real disadvantage with the 1hander for such a player is the limited strike height available. They just can't operate much above the waist, whereas with two hands, they can absolutely crush chest to shoulder height balls. It just takes a lot longer for a kid (even with a high tennis I.Q) to work around this problem, and again, time is not really an option. Besides, it's not really that hard to teach a kid to volley (off the backhand) and learn to slice with one hand.

    I would maybe change my thinking, if working in an academy, or having access to a kid more than a few hrs a week. Just the reality of the situation for most.

    Having said this, I do think, if given time, the one hander is asthetically more pleasing, and has the potential to develope in a more well rounded way.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 23, 2012
  16. Ash_Smith

    Ash_Smith Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,909
    Location:
    A green and pleasant land
    This was the point of my original post, the height issue is reduced with the advent of mini-tennis balls - the rationale behind graduated mini-tennis is the ball is consistently in the players strike zone at whichever stage of development they are at. Therefore the same pro's and con's should apply at say mini orange as do at yellow - that's what i'd be interested to see.
     
  17. julian

    julian Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    Bedford,Massachusetts,US
    What next?

    The only issue left is like that-what do you do NEXT after you start with 1bh?
    Do you go to 2bh?
     
  18. doctor dennis

    doctor dennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    390
    In all the mini tennis I've seen there are only 2 boys that use the one hander. As lots of people have mentioned the ball very rarely is out of a comfortable strike zone for them. It is a perfect opportunity to get the mechanics drilled in.
    I don't know why more coaches don't utilise this opportunity.
    The way things are going, I think the one hander will be obsolete soon. (10 years) That is just my opinion though.
     
  19. julian

    julian Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    Bedford,Massachusetts,US
    Recovery

    Reading about recovery time would help
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2012
  20. boramiNYC

    boramiNYC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    2,365
    even with those balls, the contact point will vary albeit less so than regular ball. increasing versatility of the 1hbh stroke itself is the most effective way to boost the confidence for the players at any level. it's the common instructions that cause discomfort in dealing with higher balls. take a look at gasquet, almagro, guga, henin, and their take backs and arm coil, they deal with higher balls more effectively than most other 1hbh. I believe the high take back and flatter swing path (this doesn't mean flat shot) should become the main swing path in instructions, which makes torso and shoulder level balls normal range.
     
  21. boramiNYC

    boramiNYC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    2,365
    1hbh footwork and stance must be very precise for it to work properly. open stance is more detrimental to 1hbh than to 2hbh. in terms of footwork 2hbh is much more flexible esp in lower than pro level. but most pros don't settle with the flexible footwork instead they hit closed as much as they can, which becomes just as precise as 1hbh footwork at pro level. a lot of kids just cannot handle such stringent footwork requirement of 1hbh to begin with.
     
  22. julian

    julian Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    Bedford,Massachusetts,US
    Reading post #165 would help

    Reading post #165 would help
     
  23. julian

    julian Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    Bedford,Massachusetts,US
    A "balanced" reference

    please read
    http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.ph...e&catid=95:tennis-general-articles&Itemid=173
    The issue of "distance" covered overthere
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2012
  24. chico9166

    chico9166 Guest

    Agreed. Have no idea what those who suggest the footwork on 1 handers are somehow easier or more flexable are talking about...
     
  25. chico9166

    chico9166 Guest

    Right, and only time will tell. Pro's like myself will definately have to rethink there approach.. In my case, (working in a colder climate, will limited weekly access) I doubt i will teach many one handers (unless there are clear, mitigating circumstances) as it is quite obvious to me that the one hander has a longer learning curve.

    Besides, having watched thousands of college matches, the two hander is the overwhelming choice. The argument that the one hander constitues the highest percentage of the the very elite in pro tennis, is irrellevent to me.

    In most cases, I have a few years to get a kid into college level abilities (whatever division that may be) and the two hander is just (in most cases) much quicker to master.
     
  26. doctor dennis

    doctor dennis Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    390
    So if I've understood it correctly. Only talented kids can / are going to be taught the OHBH? Or only those within an academy playing regularly?
    Does this mean that the one hander is surviving by a thread then as there are not going to be many opportunities to find any kids thaf fit this criteria to teach.
     
  27. chico9166

    chico9166 Guest

    Just sharing my experience. And I can tell you this, that teaching well has little to do with one's own preference. Truth is, I play one handed, love the looks of a one hander, buy into the fact it can lead to, perhaps, a more well rounded game etc. But in my case, I would be doing an injustice to the kids if i forced that on them........just saying.

    The difference between arm chair theory, and building games in a relatively short time, within the time constraints mentioned is real.
     
  28. rkelley

    rkelley Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,385
    Julian, thanks for the response. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "distance." The word never appears in my post. I read the link that you posted and "distance" only appears once in reference to lateral reach. I never discussed lateral reach in my post.

    Interesting article. I don't agree with all of its conclusions. Specifically the section on "racket velocity." The article said:

    Racket Velocity: Which of the two backhand techniques is capable of producing higher racket velocities at impact? Historically, the production of high racket velocities was believed to require the radius of rotation to be as long as possible and the swinging movement to occur through the greatest arc; characteristics clearly favouring the one handed technique. However, the shorter hitting radius of the two handed stroke provides for greater angular velocities of the racket head at impact, and potentially higher linear velocities (and therefore post-impact ball velocity) at the impact position.

    The article references radii of rotation the key element to raquect velocity, and then makes the point (that to me seems unsupported) that " . . . the shorter hitting radius of the two handed stroke provides for greater angular velocities of the racket head at impact." I don't think this is good analysis. I think the physics and biomechanics of a human swinging a racquet are far more complicated than looking at one factor like hitting radius.

    Given that we're not writing a treatise on the biomechanics of generating maximum racquet speed, I think a better way to think about this is to go to some life experience. If a person swings a thin, light stick, I think most people would say that they could swing it the fastest with one hand, not two. I think this is because the freedom provided by one hand will allow a person "whip" the stick. OTOH, if a person swings a heavy baseball bat, most people would say that they could swing it the fastest with two hands, not one. I think this is because while all of the freedom of one hand is still available, the bat is too heavy for a person to whip it with one hand. The extra strength and leverage that someone gains by using the other hand outweighs the loss of freedom of movement.

    A tennis racquet, I think, is kind of in a transition zone with respect to whether it's a stick or a bat. IMO (with all of the lack of scientific experimentation and analysis that is implied in that statement), for the average adult male, if the only consideration is generating maximum racquet head speed, a tennis racquet is more like a stick than a bat. With proper technique an adult male can generate more racquet speed with one hand than two on the backhand (or forehand). I'm not so sure about the average female, though I suspect for a lot of women the same would be true.
     
  29. rkelley

    rkelley Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,385
    Back when I was learning the same was true of the one hander. After several years in junior high and high school of hitting a lousy one hander (no instruction - I knew it wasn't right but I didn't know what to do to fix it), I switched to a 2hbh. Like most I had immediate success with it. 30 years later everyone hits a 2hbh now. Cool, but it might switch back.

    I know how to hit both now. I still use a 2hbh but I think I could make either work well for me. As 5263 said the one area where it's hard not to see a disadvantage to the 1hbh is return of serve. Against a good serve you only have a few hundred milliseconds to set-up, and good servers can make things happen after the ball bounces that you have to adjust to.
     
  30. julian

    julian Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    Bedford,Massachusetts,US
    Speed of two handed backhand

    Greetings,
    1.Let say that the backhand is modeled after
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPBM-hE1Dhw

    2.Let me rephrase your question if I may-
    what is a speed of the racket head AT THE CONTACT for the model described by the LINK ABOVE
    what is a possible racket head speed at the contact for the above video?
    3.The link above does NOT stress the RADIUS VARIABLE
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
  31. rkelley

    rkelley Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,385
    The link is Djokovic hitting his bh. He's got a great bh, but I don't see how this video address the question of maximum possible speed at contact. What am I missing?
     
  32. kopfan

    kopfan Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    223
    Some say 1hbh have disadvantages while returning serves. I use 1hbh and see this issue mainly with bigger and hh racquet user only. When using a mid or smaller head and very hl, there is lot of time to move the racquet to hit, push or slice return of serve. Plus.. there is a further reach point on wide bh serve return. 1hbh need a faster footwork to make up the slower time to prep for a shot.
     
  33. bhupaes

    bhupaes Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    957
    The thing about the 2HBH is that it recruits the same group of muscles as the FH, and uses similar body kinetics. If you look at Joker's left hand in the 2HBH video (posted by Julian), it resembles a Type 3 FH (as in the blog.tennisspeed.com thread).

    For whipping a 1HBH, I believe the main action comes from the deltoids and external shoulder rotation.

    Neither, if executed correctly, requires a huge backswing. So I guess it comes down to the qualities of these two different groups of muscles. I don't know for sure, but if I had to bet on something, I would choose the 2HBH for RHS.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
  34. julian

    julian Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    Bedford,Massachusetts,US
    A table of date

    Let me provide a "partial" reference.
    The title of THIS POST should be corrected as "A table of data"
    Sorry
    regards,
    Julian

    BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF TOP TENNIS PLAYERS
    Gideon Ariel, Ph.D.1 , Vic Braden1, Ann Penny1, John Probe1 ,Rudolf Buijs1
    and Alfred Finch2
    1Institute for Biomechanical Research, Coto Research Center, Coto De Caza California,
    2Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana, USA
    The purpose of this paper was to perform kinematic analyses of some of the top players
    in the World during a major competition using multiple view video images that were
    transmitted and digitized over the Internet. Backhand and serve stroke data for Federer;
    Clijsters, and Aggasi were selected for the present study.
    KEY WORDS: elite tennis players, tennis biomechanical analysis, Internet analysis

    http://www.arielnet.com/start/apas/s.../toptennis.pdf
    Please note that data are in KILOMETERS per HOUR,NOT MILES PER HOUR
    Some data around the contact are a bit suspect-I can elaborate but it will be a long one.
    Basically the quoted paper was NOT peer reviewed.
    There were some comments by Systemic Anomaly about this paper.
    Going back to your original question

    The best is to LOAD the pdf document specified in the link above
    Basically three important numbers for backhands are
    125 vs 83 vs 96.6
    for Federer vs Clijster vs Agassi
    ---> the "clumsy" table

    Table 1 Linear velocities of the hand, tip of the racket and ball velocities prior to and
    after impact with the ball (km*hr-1) and the peak racquet angular velocity

    Player Strokes Hand Prior Hand Tip Prior
    Agassi Backhand 22.5 28.3 96.6 ...
    Clijsters Backhand 27.4 27.2 83.4 ...
    Federer Backhand 125.2 ...
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
  35. julian

    julian Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    Bedford,Massachusetts,US
    Everything fine except of one definition

    ****deleted***
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2012
  36. rkelley

    rkelley Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,385
  37. julian

    julian Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    Bedford,Massachusetts,US
    The reference

    It is my fault.Sorry.
    Please try the string between quotes
    "www.sportsci.com/start/apas/studies/toptennis.pdf"
    Sorry again
    Please let me know whether it does work
     
  38. rkelley

    rkelley Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,385
    Thanks. I got it.

    I'll say that some of the values in the paper don't seem quite right. The serve numbers look particularly strange. Looking at the table, the ball before contact on a serve is moving at 47 and 22 kph (42 ft/s and 20 ft/s) for Clijsters and Fed respectively. That's a mighty high toss if that number is supposed to be right before impact. After impact Fed's serve is 141 kph (88 mph). That's a tad on the slow side for the men's game, especially if it was a first serve.

    All that said, the numbers in the article for the backhand would seem to support my position that higher racquet head speeds are achievable with a 1hbh. As you noted in your previous post Fed (1hbh) had the highest tip velocity before impact of the three players (125 vs 83 vs 96.6 for Federer vs Clijster vs Agassi).

    So, am I missing something?
     
  39. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    I hit 1HBH, I like the shot and I am not switching.

    However, I am teaching my kid 2HBH. One must be insane not to - considering that all top 1HBH pros (Federer, Youzhny, Haas, Kohlschreiber, Wawrinka, Almagro) were taught in 80s, they are currently in their late 20s / early 30s and are quickly approaching retirement.

    1HBH is dead, just like the Continental forehand grip.
     
  40. julian

    julian Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    Bedford,Massachusetts,US
    Djokovic

    Answering your last question:
    Djokovic generates much higher racket head speed than Clijster and Agassi
     
  41. rkelley

    rkelley Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,385
    OK. That's fine as long as we both realize that we're still back to one opinion verses another. Heck, I could be wrong, I'll admit that.
     
  42. julian

    julian Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    Bedford,Massachusetts,US
    Knudson

    rkelley,
    I will provide a quote from Knudson as well about 1hbh speeds vs 2hbh speeds.
    I just need couple of hours.
    Please try to see that everything in US takes time.
    We are sitting on the cliff.
    I hope you are NOT in US.
    I assume you have his book

    I am in a bit difficult situation because I am the party providing links and data.
    If you have any data about speeds for backhands you are welcome to provide.
    If you prefer an E-mail my E-mail address provided in my signature below.
    The state of opinions in US is that the speed of backhand by Djokovic is around the speed of his LEFT HANDED FOREHAND.
    regards,
    Julian
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2012
  43. julian

    julian Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    Bedford,Massachusetts,US
    A quote by Knudson-1hbh vs 2hbh

    "In the recent study of college players,there was no difference in raquet speed at impact between backhand techniques and BOTH Backhand used ..."
    Biomechanical Principles of Tennis Technique"
    Dave Knudson 2006 Page 101
    Dave Knudson,I believe,is quoting
    Reid Machar and Bruce Elliot (2002) .The one- and two-handed backhands in tennis
    Sports Biomechanics,1,47-69
    Couple of simple comments:
    1.I do NOT have an access to the quoted paper by Machar and Elliot
    2.Other pertinent references are
    1) Elliott, B. C., Marsh, A. P. & Overheu, P. R. (1989). The topspin backhand drive in tennis: a biomechanical analysis. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 16, 1-16.
    2) Groppel, J. L. (1978). Kinematic analysis of the tennis one-handed and two-handed backhand drives of highly-skilled female competitors. Thesis (Ph.D.), Florida State University.
    3) Groppel, J. L. (1992). High Tech Tennis. Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.
    4) Patterson, J. (1976). How to hit two-handed backhands. Tallahasse, FL: A. B. Dick.
    5) Reid, M. M. & Elliott, B. C. (2001). The One-and Two-Handed Backhands in Tennis. Journal of Sport Biomechanics, In press.
    6) Schonborn, R. (1998). Advanced training techniques for competitive players. Meyer & Meyer Verlag, Aachen, Germany.
    7) Wang, L-H., Wu, H. W., Su, F. C. & Lo, K. C. (1998). Kinematics of the upper limb and truck in tennis players using single-handed backhand strokes. In H. Riehle, & M. Vieten (eds.), ISBS XVI (pp.273-275). Taiwan: University of Konstanz.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2012
  44. julian

    julian Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    Bedford,Massachusetts,US
    Data

    Sports Biomech. 2002 Jan;1(1):47-68.
    The one- and two-handed backhands in tennis.
    Reid M, Elliott B.
    Source

    International Tennis Federation, London, UK.
    Abstract

    The study investigated differences in the one- (SH) and two-handed (DH) backhands when hit flat, across-court (AC) and down-the-line (DL), and with heavy topspin DL (TDL). The ability to disguise each of these backhands when hitting the above strokes was also assessed. Eighteen college-level male tennis players, identified as having a high performance topspin SH (n = 6) or DH (n = 12) backhand drive, participated in the study. Players were required to hit three AC, DL and TDL backhands from the baseline with their preferred technique, while being filmed with two high-speed video cameras operating at 200 Hz. The highest horizontal velocity backhand for each stroke was analysed. Results indicated that the sequential coordination of five body segments (hips, shoulder, upper arm, forearm, and hand/racquet rotations) was required for the execution of the SH stroke. The same number of segments were generally coordinated in the DH stroke (hips, shoulders, and varying degrees of upper arm and forearm rotations followed by hand/racquet movement).

    Mature players produced comparable racquet horizontal velocities 0.005 s prior to impact using either the SH or DH backhand technique.

    The SH backhand was characterised by a more rotated shoulder alignment than the DH stroke (SH: 119.1 degrees; DH: 83.4 degrees) at the completion of the backswing. At impact the ball was impacted further in front (SH: 0.59 m: DH: 0.40 m) and a similar distance to the side of the body (SH: 0.75 m: DH: 0.70 m). Players using the DH backhand technique delayed the horizontal acceleration of the racquet towards the ball (SH: 0.13 s: DH: 0.08 s prior to impact) and thus were capable of displaying a similar hitting motion closer to impact than players with a SH technique.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2012
  45. boramiNYC

    boramiNYC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    2,365
    nice study but mostly easily predictable findings I think. one question. "delayed the horizontal acceleration of the racquet towards the ball" could you explain?
     
  46. julian

    julian Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    Bedford,Massachusetts,US
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2012
  47. julian

    julian Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    Bedford,Massachusetts,US
    Comparable Speeds

    Quote from the article
    "Mature players produced comparable racquet horizontal velocities 0.005 s prior to impact using either the SH or DH backhand technique."
    How would you easy predict that speeds are "COMPARABLE"?
    Does rkelley agree with you?
     
  48. julian

    julian Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    Bedford,Massachusetts,US
    Federer vs Djokovic

    It is possible that results are so "easily predictable" that they are NOT TRUE
    See the title of the post
     
  49. boramiNYC

    boramiNYC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    2,365
    because rally shots and hardest hit shots by both are pretty comparable in a competitive match of pros.
     
  50. julian

    julian Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,278
    Location:
    Bedford,Massachusetts,US
    Just to be on the same page

    Just to make sure that we are on the same page
    The TENNIS Channel provides a value of a speed of ball
    The paper above refers to "racquet horizontal velocities".
    The word velocity refers to a velocity a tip of a racket.
    If my remark is too trivial I apologize.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2012

Share This Page