what is the better stance for running two-handed backhand? open or closed

[1171]

I had asked earlier what is a better stance for two-handed backhand.

Most responses are closed is better than open, due to longer arm take back/ swing length.

I took the advice, switched to closed/square.

But now when I run to hit a two-handed backhand with a close/square, I don't seem to be able to generate much power. I plant my right foot, hit, follow through with my left foot swing.

Should there be less power hitting RUNNING two-handed backhand with closed stance? Am I just swing in a rotating axis without forward weight transfer?

 

[35ft6]

On clay, I see a lot of players slide with an open stance into their running 2-H backhands.

On hard courts, you should try to time it so that you hit the ball while you're left leg (if you're R-H) is striding forward, so at the end of the stroke you're in a completely open stance, from here you can push off back towards the court to chase down the next ball.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

I had asked earlier what is a better stance for two-handed backhand.

Most responses are closed is better than open, due to longer arm take back/ swing length.

I took the advice, switched to closed/square.

But now when I run to hit a two-handed backhand with a close/square, I don't seem to be able to generate much power. I plant my right foot, hit, follow through with my left foot swing.

Should there be less power hitting RUNNING two-handed backhand with closed stance? Am I just swing in a rotating axis without forward weight transfer?

For the twohander the best stances (since I use a twohander) are:

1. Semi-open

2. Open

3. Neutral or forward stance.

A lot of my shots I hit in the semi-open stance and on balls that I have time to setup for I will step into the shot and hit it hard.

Work on bringing the back foot around for recovery. Key to the twohander is training your non-dominant weaker side to take control. This means the toes, the legs, the stomach, the hips, need to perform very similar to the forehand on all stances. Make sure you relax the front arm/hand/wrist and push through with the top hand.

Keep the knees bent so your hips can swivel over them. Hit it hard.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Double post again - what happened to the delete button we used to have?!

 

[ReturnAce]

Hate to disagree with Bill, but...

I would have to say the best stance for a two-handed is closed. If you look at Safin's backhand, which is arguably the best two-hander in the game today, his stance is very closed. He has a big shoulder turn and a long swing pattern, which allows for heavy topspin and lots of pace. A very deadly shot.

Personally, I also use the closed stance, and my backhand is much better than my forehand. The biggest thing is getting your footwork right, you have to take lots of little steps before you plant with the closed stance.

As far as on the run is concerned, I wouldn't be the best one to ask. I'm very quick around the court, so it's a rarity I need to hit a backhand on the run. When I do, however, I make sure my shoulders are lined up to my target and my left foot (I'm a southpaw) is planted just before contact. I take a stabilizing step with my right foot after the shot, and push back to the middle.

Hope it helps.

 

[Sweden]

Short of time = Open stance
Much time = Closed stance

Oh sorry, didn't read the title carefully, sorry!

 

[Bungalo Bill]

I would have to say the best stance for a two-handed is closed. If you look at Safin's backhand, which is arguably the best two-hander in the game today, his stance is very closed. He has a big shoulder turn and a long swing pattern, which allows for heavy topspin and lots of pace. A very deadly shot.

I certainly don't mind you disagreeing unless you have no facts backing you up and when facts are presented to you, that prove otherwise, you take a stubborn position and head down the road of ignorance pulling out minor infractions to make your case seem larger then it really is.

You also have to define closed because closed to a twohander definetly needs to be taken with a grain of salt especially when it comes to blocking the hips.

The majority of shots for a twohanded backhand are really going to be mixed with the edge it seems going to a neutral stance maybe even going as far as the semi-closed stance. I can give you that. Film after film shows this to be true.

Although Safin hits closed stance backhands (as well as nearly every other pro), the neutral stance is more dominant and I would even go as far as the semi-closed stance if we are splitting hairs.

So unless you can prove differently, the stances are the stances. So do your studying (as I already have done mine) and prove differently.

 

[Keiltimall]

Bungalo Bill, what is a "neutral/ forward stance"? I thought a neutral was the same as the "ready" position which is just the same as the open.? Can you please describe it for a righty? Thanks.

 

[ReturnAce]

Heh.

I don't study tennis. I simply base my opinions on what I see and do as a player.

 

[Keiltimall]

I don't study tennis. I simply base my opinions on what I see and do as a player.

Never disagree with Bungalo Bill because he is the world famous online Tennis Guru. Your arguments can never discredit him, as he only speaks with relevance and reasoning.
j/k
He is the real deal though.

 

[Alexandros]

Bill is placing the onus to disprove him on ReturnAce, that ReturnAce should be the one who comes up with facts to dispute what he has to say. Yet he doesn't showcase any of the facts he himself claims.

Just an observation.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

I just love it when people challenge me, it is a rush!!!!

Bill is placing the onus to disprove him on ReturnAce, that ReturnAce should be the one who comes up with facts to dispute what he has to say. Yet he doesn't showcase any of the facts he himself claims.

Just an observation.

Some people just never learn. Haven't you learned by now? Haven't you learned that when someone makes a comment, I counter, wait for their counter, lead them down a path, then put up the proof?

The trick is I know the neutral or forward stance twohanded backhand IS the stance for the twohander. It is because I know it, I play with it, and I study it. You don't.

It is not to say that a twohander does not use a closed stance. It is also not to say they don't use an open stance, forward stance/neutral stance, or a semi-open stance. It is to say that if a twohanded backhand uses a closed stance (meaning the hips are closed) they reduce their chances to get their hips into the ball which is paramount to a successful and consistent twohanded backhand.

Guess what stance these are? These are examples of a neutral to forward stance. The hips are not closed and the player steps toward the line of the ball at most. This can be also considered a semi-closed stance which I mentioned above.

Guess what stance this is? Yaaaaaaaa, Yaaaaaaaa...got milk?

The point to my post and giving several stances is the twohanded backhand can be hit really from ANY stance with the best stances of those being the stances that do not block the hips.

Hey ho, here we go, Hey, ho, here we go....your turn...

 

[Bungalo Bill]

When you challenge me, I am like the Energizer Bunny, I keep going and going...

I don't study tennis. I simply base my opinions on what I see and do as a player.

Yeah, well it is time to put your money where your mouth is.

You mentioned one player and one stance, when in fact Safin uses several stances in his twohander. Are you saying he only uses the closed stance? You need to prove it is the better stance and why.

 

[arnz]

I had asked earlier what is a better stance for two-handed backhand.

Most responses are closed is better than open, due to longer arm take back/ swing length.

I took the advice, switched to closed/square.

But now when I run to hit a two-handed backhand with a close/square, I don't seem to be able to generate much power. I plant my right foot, hit, follow through with my left foot swing.

Should there be less power hitting RUNNING two-handed backhand with closed stance? Am I just swing in a rotating axis without forward weight transfer?

I'm a bit confused by this. Is there power in your closed stance backhand when you dont have to run for it? I would think that you should try to hit your backhand the same way you normally hit it most of the time. which to me would be getting there early so you can set up for it.

Wouldn't running when hitting your backhand mean you are trying to catch up to a fast shot or good angle by your opponent? In that case the first priority in my mind would be hit it anyway I can to get it back if I'm forced to run for it. Just my .02

 

[Keiltimall]

Bungalo Bill, what is a "neutral/ forward stance"? I thought a neutral was the same as the "ready" position which is just the same as the open.? Can you please describe it for a righty? Thanks.

 

[odessa]

Most coaches would call the forward stance a closed stance because the backfoot is clearly more to the right and behind.(see kafelnikov photo) the difference between a closed stance and a forward stance is the direction in which the foots are pointing. Is the forward stance a well establised concept in the us ? I only know it from Mark Pappas revolutionary tennis.
Thats the place where i would go for a detailed description of the stances, which makes a destinction between forward and closed stance.
http://www.revolutionarytennis.com/step3.html

 

[ReturnAce]

Did I ever claim to be an expert? No.

Put my money where my mouth is? Forgive me, but I never had any stake in this discussion. All I did was post my opinion as a player and casual observer of the sport. Unlike some people on the forum, I do not install my personal pride and sense of worth into every post I make. I don't need to prove anything, because it is my opinion and I am not trying to sell it to anyone. Since you have the time to kill, please feel free to throw proof in my face all day long, I won't lose any sleep over it. If you're looking for someone to fight with, please do me a favor and find someone who is as zealous as you are. I don't need it.

 

[Match Po¡nt]

Bungalo Bill, I have read a lot of your posts, even before I signed up as a member. I recall reading a thread where you describe that the Oscarr Wegar methodology is somewhat BS. Now I have a question. How do you feel about the teaching methods of "Revolutionary Tennis"? I use that philosphy as far as for footwork and shot preparation and would like to know if there is anything BS about it according to you. Thanks.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

Bungalo Bill, I have read a lot of your posts, even before I signed up as a member. I recall reading a thread where you describe that the Oscarr Wegar methodology is somewhat BS. Now I have a question. How do you feel about the teaching methods of "Revolutionary Tennis"? I use that philosphy as far as for footwork and shot preparation and would like to know if there is anything BS about it according to you. Thanks.

Let me clear up some things first MatchPoint. I appreciate your inquiry and how you phrased your question.

I may need to correct a few things about my "feelings" towards Oscar's tennis teaching. Many times I say "sparking" comments to see if the poster really knows what they are saying or if they are just repeating what someone told them.

The main area of disagreement was in how a pro prepares and his "seperatist" old school/new school mumbo jumbo.

I do think he has a lot of good things to say and adds a lot to tennis being a great player and knowing a lot about his own method and tennis in general. I use some of his tips for myself and my kids.

If you want to learn his way, I have no problem with that. What I don't like is when he says "other coaches ways" are stiff, old, and slow. So buy my stuff and learn tennis in 2 hours and play like the pros. Or that his followers deny strong evidence as to how a pro prepares. That is the BS. Other than that, I have no problem.

Your question: I think Mark's stuff on his footwork is excellent. I use a lot of his stuff not only in my own game but in my kids games. It is right on stuff. But again, his seperatist attitude about "the establishment" falls along the lines of Oscar. So what if pro players are not using his footwork patterns, they can crush those balls and are playing pretty damn good tennis to me. If they would just leave the Seperatist Reform Party I would not have any problems and would probably embrace their thinking more.

As you can tell I am not an OLD SCHOOL coach, I am an ALL SCHOOL coach. I think you can do no wrong by incorporating his footwork patterns, I do and my kids do. I also love that forward stance, lots of power in that stance and it is thee best stance for a twohander. I put that stance in the nuetral category but that is me.

Letting the ball come between the feet, learning what hitting in front means, is all good stuff. Also, I have happened to be on some phone calls with him, he is a nice guy.

 

[Bungalo Bill]

the difference between a closed stance and a forward stance is the direction in which the foots are pointing. Is the forward stance a well establised concept in the us ? I only know it from Mark Pappas revolutionary tennis.
Thats the place where i would go for a detailed description of the stances, which makes a destinction between forward and closed stance.
http://www.revolutionarytennis.com/step3.html

You are one smart cookie. Right on Mr. Odessa! The closed is just that CLOSED. There are stance hence my "semi-closed stance that can be in the general framework or FORWARD or NEUTRAL.

But the key is you do not step across your body as such to block your hips. The twohanders best stances are stances that allow the hips to swivel and open. Forward, neutral, good stuff.

 

[Match Po¡nt]

Let me clear up some things first MatchPoint. I appreciate your inquiry and how you phrased your question.

I may need to correct a few things about my "feelings" towards Oscar's tennis teaching. Many times I say "sparking" comments to see if the poster really knows what they are saying or if they are just repeating what someone told them.

The main area of disagreement was in how a pro prepares and his "seperatist" old school/new school mumbo jumbo.

I do think he has a lot of good things to say and adds a lot to tennis being a great player and knowing a lot about his own method and tennis in general. I use some of his tips for myself and my kids.

If you want to learn his way, I have no problem with that. What I don't like is when he says "other coaches ways" are stiff, old, and slow. So buy my stuff and learn tennis in 2 hours and play like the pros. Or that his followers deny strong evidence as to how a pro prepares. That is the BS. Other than that, I have no problem.

Your question: I think Mark's stuff on his footwork is excellent. I use a lot of his stuff not only in my own game but in my kids games. It is right on stuff. But again, his seperatist attitude about "the establishment" falls along the lines of Oscar. So what if pro players are not using his footwork patterns, they can crush those balls and are playing pretty damn good tennis to me. If they would just leave the Seperatist Reform Party I would not have any problems and would probably embrace their thinking more.

As you can tell I am not an OLD SCHOOL coach, I am an ALL SCHOOL coach. I think you can do no wrong by incorporating his footwork patterns, I do and my kids do. I also love that forward stance, lots of power in that stance and it is thee best stance for a twohander. I put that stance in the nuetral category but that is me.

Letting the ball come between the feet, learning what hitting in front means, is all good stuff. Also, I have happened to be on some phone calls with him, he is a nice guy.

Thanks Bungalo Bill. I just wanted you to confirm whether or not there was anything wrong with the Rev Tennis "mechanics". As far as you pointing out about the OW and Rev Tennis teachers seeming to have separatist views, I sensed that as well. With Rev Tennis, it's even more clear as you can clearly see that on the bottom of the web page lessons there are synopsises comparing "the old thinking" with the "new REV thinking". Thanks again for your feedback.