Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by widmerpool, Jun 18, 2007.
I've heard it all now, now borg has a one hander LoL..
It doesn't matter what they were "considered". What matters is what they did to win the matches. Borg and Connors knew that serving and volleying was necessary to win Wimbledon back then so that's exactly what they did and that's exactly how they won. Federer doesn't serve and volley as much anymore because they have slowed down the courts at Wimbledon so much and so many of his opponents are using big, powerful racquets like the Pure Drive and stringing them with Luxilon resulting in huge returns of serve. But if you watch Federer's 2001 Wimbledon match against Sampras, Federer served and volleyed on almost every point.
BTW, I'm still waiting to see your list of "MANY" baseliners that have won Wimbledon.
BTW2, Borg entered the French Open only 8 times and won it 6 times. So who did the greatest clay court player that ever lived lose to those two times that he did not win it? Yup, to a serve and volleyer named Adriano Panatta - BOTH times!
Sampras would still serve and volley at wimbledon, i doubt roddick and his pure drive and the slower grass would make roddick win. Fed dont need to do this anymore as he is a excellent baseliner himself.
I give you borg-connors-agassi-hewitt- and you give Adriano Panatta as a excuse that serve and volley is gonna cut it at the french? One of those wins was also when borg was 16.
Why is it so hard to accept that baseliners with two handed backhands are more dominant at the french, and at the baseline. And one hander in this era need to be extraordinary to win the french, and serve and volley players with one handers have more of a advantage on grass. But as noted times changing and there really is not any true serve and volleyers that can win current wimbledon.
Martina Navritilova has even said she would teach the two hander to junior players.
No, Federer doesn't S&V anymore because it's not as effective anymore at Wimbledon. I mean come on, even clay court and baseline specialist extraordinaire Nadal got to the final last year.
Again, Borg and Connors DID NOT play from the baseline to win Wimbledon, therefore, they were NOT BASELINERS at Wimbledon. They served and volleyed mostly.
Because in the history of the French Open, A LOT more men with 1HBH's won than those with 2HBH's. In fact, if you just take the open era, 14 men with 1HBH's won the title, while only 10 men with 2HBH's have won the title.
Read it and weep:
McEnroe and others say the one area where players with two hands get a decided advantage is on the return of serve. That's because the extra arm helps stabilize the racket from the oncoming force of first serves and makes aggressive swipes on second serves easier.
"All things being equal, if I had to choose between a great two-hander and a great one-hander, I would take a one-hander," admits McEnroe, whose best shot when he played was his two-handed backhand.
I know 80 year olds who can still play a perfect one handed BH, so with all due respect to you, someone in their 40's is still a comparative chicken.
To get a bit back at the topic, my dad added a 2 hand topspin backhand at around 70 years old. He still uses the one-hander also. The only reason I see that a 2 hander would be worse for older players is if you get the wrist injuries that many 2 handers get on the non-dominant hand.
That is what Nadal has been doing to Federer.
What makes winning wimbledon as ultimate pinnace of tennis? There is a long tradition ..beyond that it is one of the 4 grandslams. Grass courts..in so many ways sucked in the past. A rally would barely last 3-4 shots. No setup...no crap. Seve big and come to net. Depending on the return
a) hit a good volley
b) dump the volley into Net
c) cant connect with opponents passing shots etc etc
There is barely enough jaw dropping shots.
That's _Patrick_ McEnroe, John McEnroe's little brother.
80 year olds who can still play a perfect one handed _top-spin_ backhand?
Shortly after WWI Bill Tilden was the 2nd best player in the world. He was beaten only by Bill Johnston. Then Tilden developed a topspin backhand, patching the one weak spot in his game, and then became #1 for a long, long time. However, I read in a tennis history book that as Tilden reached his late 40s he stopped hitting topspin off the backhand. The writer explained that the topspin backhand requires quite a bit of upper-body flexibility that is lost with age.
I can believe that; I've seen pictures of young pros at the end of their backswing prepared to hit a topspin backhand, with their strong shoulder _behind_ the chin! At 51, I cannot even get close to that position!
I once had a tennis instruction tape made by Bobby Riggs when he was in his late 70s or so. He confided that he used to have a good backhand, but not anymore. "My forehand is still pretty good, however."
On the other hand, the 2-handed backhand also requires a lot of upper-body flexibility, so maybe the one-handed _slice_ IS the best option for elderly competitors.
I learned a one handed topspin backhand for the first time two years ago. I'm 64. I have very little talent, so maybe that's a prerequisite? My backhand is actually my best shot. Also, the large size racquets and the new strings have made the shot a lot easier to hit. I recently went up in size to a 93" racquet and it has really improved my game. (I'm not kidding.) Maybe I'll go to 95".....And inch a year?
I think the forehand is and always has been the hardest shot in tennis after the serve. Well, FOR ME, that's true.
Nice post, Frank.
I learned to play w/2HBH in the 70's and have been playing with it ever since. I don't think many people in my region have "switched back" to a 1 hander as they got older...don't see the reasoning on that one. Its just what you learned and have tried to perfect over the years. I have, however, learned a nice (relatively speaking) one handed slice bh and go to one hand bh on occassion when stretched out wide, or short. If people think the 2H is "girly"..that notion is soon dispelled when I drill them with a service return, etc.
Those racquet sizes above are bollixed and I can't edit any longer. To clarify, I did play for awhile with the ROK (93 sq. in. and have tried many others), but I now play with a Vantage 90 and a Yonex 90. At my age it's a miracle I can remember my name some days.
It's not the reach that's tough. It's the knee-bend. Much more legwork with the 2-hander, gotta get down low and get under the ball. Effortless to hit a lazy slice, carving the top half of the ball.
It's an interesting question that the OP asks. I've hit a 2HBH all my life. Occassionly slice a one-hander. Now in my early 30's, I find myself slicing more... out of laziness.
The first two-handers I saw were Lorne Main and Pancho Segura. They were both well over 40 at the time and had no trouble whupping 99.9% of the juveniles out there.
Lorne Main is 76 years old and still winning.
Link to Lorne Main
Great link and very good story. Thanks a bunch for that!
Why is it the little guys always last? Gravity just isn't kind to larger people. Not fair. If I were elected President, I'd repeal 10% of the Law of Gravity for everyone over 6'.
Separate names with a comma.