Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Tennis Tips/Instruction (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Why are there more players with 2HBH than 1HBH? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=177476)

Kokopelli 01-25-2008 10:39 AM

Why are there more players with 2HBH than 1HBH?
 
First of all, I enjoy reading the 1H vs 2H threads. This is not a knock against one or a praise for the other as I belong to neither group.

One undeniable fact is that there are more players (that grew up in the "graphite" generation - aka since the POG) use the 2hbh than the 1hbh.

1) This has to due with the evolution of the racket. With stability, forgiveness, flexibility and lesser weight of the modern racket, the TYPICAL players and weekend warriors can now generate higher racket head speed. Greater head speed results in more power, thus more topspin is needed to keep the ball in the court. 2) The grips are getting more and more extreme (eastern -> semi -> western). This all leads to more and more topspin. 3) The modern strings are more spin friendly. Sampras commented on Luxilon a while back. 4) The improvement of the strokes (the modern forehand, etc.).

Another thing to consider is the mechanics of the topspin backhand. The 1HBH's point-of-contact is further in front of the body and its striking zone is LOWER than that of the 2HBH.

Back in the wooden days, when most TYPICAL players slice and dice with the continental/eastern grip, the ball bounced much lower, thus making the 1HBH more suitable then. Now, it's just the opposite.

Nowadays, you have balls coming at you with greater velocity, thus giving you lesser reaction time. This makes it harder to contact the ball further out in front of your body which is required by the 1HBH. With the 2HBH, you can hit the ball a little bit later.

In addition, because the balls that come at you have greater topspin, they will bounce higher. When they bounce at chest level, it's way above the striking zone of the 1HBH, but not so in the 2HBH.

IMHO, the 2HBH popularity came about due to the evolution of the game. This doesn't mean that an elite player with a 1HBH couldn't do well. Again, I'm not talking about the elite players who have the athletic skills to dominate regardless of backhand techniques. I'm talking about the 95% of tennis playing public (aka us). With today's FASTER AND HIGHER bouncing balls to the backhand side, it's just easier for a TYPICAL player or weekend warrior lacking the athletic skills to handle them using a 2HBH.

Your thoughts?

tfm1973 01-25-2008 10:52 AM

Bokurano is an underrated series. Not just a poor man's Neon Genesis Evangelion.

Is there any definitive study with the number of people who use 2hb vs 1hb?

JavierLW 01-25-2008 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kokopelli (Post 2039302)
First of all, I enjoy reading the 1H vs 2H threads. This is not a knock against one or a praise for the other as I belong to neither group.

One undeniable fact is that there are more players (that grew up in the "graphite" generation - aka since the POG) use the 2hbh than the 1hbh.

1) This has to due with the evolution of the racket. With stability, forgiveness, flexibility and lesser weight of the modern racket, the TYPICAL players and weekend warriors can now generate higher racket head speed. Greater head speed results in more power, thus more topspin is needed to keep the ball in the court. 2) The grips are getting more and more extreme (eastern -> semi -> western). This all leads to more and more topspin. 3) The modern strings are more spin friendly. Sampras commented on Luxilon a while back. 4) The improvement of the strokes (the modern forehand, etc.).

Another thing to consider is the mechanics of the topspin backhand. The 1HBH's point-of-contact is further in front of the body and its striking zone is LOWER than that of the 2HBH.

Back in the wooden days, when most TYPICAL players slice and dice with the continental/eastern grip, the ball bounced much lower, thus making the 1HBH more suitable then. Now, it's just the opposite.

Nowadays, you have balls coming at you with greater velocity, thus giving you lesser reaction time. This makes it harder to contact the ball further out in front of your body which is required by the 1HBH. With the 2HBH, you can hit the ball a little bit later.

In addition, because the balls that come at you have greater topspin, they will bounce higher. When they bounce at chest level, it's way above the striking zone of the 1HBH, but not so in the 2HBH.

IMHO, the 2HBH popularity came about due to the evolution of the game. This doesn't mean that an elite player with a 1HBH couldn't do well. Again, I'm not talking about the elite players who have the athletic skills to dominate regardless of backhand techniques. I'm talking about the 95% of tennis playing public (aka us). With today's FASTER AND HIGHER bouncing balls to the backhand side, it's just easier for a TYPICAL player or weekend warrior lacking the athletic skills to handle them using a 2HBH.

Your thoughts?

If your whole point is that the 2 handed backhand is just easier to use for those "95%", and that they wouldnt be able to handle the pace with the 1HBH, I would agree. The 1HBH is hard.

But there are a lot of players who are even playing in 3.0 and 3.5 who are serious about their game and can adapt to the 1HBH if they want to. I still dont think it's correct to say that either of them are better than the other.

Sure technology is making the ball move faster, but it's still not moving THAT quickly at those levels.

The MAJORITY of players (if you want to point to the recreational ones), have all sorts of different aspects of poor form. Not that using a 2HBH is one of them, but my point is that it doesnt matter what the majority is doing. (probally most of them are not using it in the most efficient way)

I play 3.5 now, and I was playing 3.0, and when I was in 3.0 tournaments Ive had people tell me that Ive had the best backhand they've seen in 3.0. (and it's a 1HBH). I didnt see what you were describing until I played in a 4.0 tournament this year and met a guy that had appealed down from 4.5.

He hit the ball with so much pace and spin, that I had to resort back to the 2HBH because I couldnt read the ball in enough time to possibly get the ball back with the 1HBH.

But even given that, I wasnt hitting GOOD 2HBH, it just allowed me to block his shots back. I think if you are hitting an effective 2HBH against a very good player (not recreational) it has just as many elements of good footwork and preperation then any other stroke.

Commando Tennis Shorts 01-25-2008 11:06 AM

I always thought that the 2HBH was easier for women (because of hip rotation), while the 1HBH is easier for men (because of the strength and natural motion).

That being said, I haven't noticed more people using the 2HBH, at least not from the men's side. I actually thought it was the other way around.

Kokopelli 01-25-2008 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavierLW (Post 2039364)
If your whole point is that the 2 handed backhand is just easier to use for those "95%", and that they wouldnt be able to handle the pace with the 1HBH, I would agree. The 1HBH is hard.

But there are a lot of players who are even playing in 3.0 and 3.5 who are serious about their game and can adapt to the 1HBH if they want to. I still dont think it's correct to say that either of them are better than the other.

Sure technology is making the ball move faster, but it's still not moving THAT quickly at those levels.

The MAJORITY of players (if you want to point to the recreational ones), have all sorts of different aspects of poor form. Not that using a 2HBH is one of them, but my point is that it doesnt matter what the majority is doing. (probally most of them are not using it in the most efficient way)...

1) Of course, anyone can adapt and learn.
2) Of course, most of today's, yesteryear's, and future's players have bad/poor forms. That's not going to change just because time changes. It's all relative. For example, when one has bad forms, a person with those bad forms can still hit a 2HBH later than a person with the same bad forms hitting a 1HBH. Case in points, you had to resort to the 2HBH to handle the pace of a 4.5 player (which according to you was too fast, and that the 2HBH gave you more time and allowed you to hit the ball a bit later).
3) "Sure technology is making the ball move faster, but it's still not moving THAT quickly at those levels." Of course, it's all relative. Just as you had a hard time handle the 4.5 player's pace. A 5.5 player might think that the 4.5 pace was "not moving THAT quickly." But nonetheless, it was too quick for you. Again, it's all relative.
4) Of course, if one does have optimal forms and techniques, one can make a 1HBH a success, just as one could with a 2HBH. Again, I'm NOT talking about optimum. I'm talking about 95% of the tennis playing public (including you and me) with all of our inadequacies. My argument was that the speed and bounce of today's game lead to the popularity of the 2HBH. In other words, the 2HBH are more suitable for the typical players (with all our flaws) due to the speed and bounce of the ball. More popularity, more suitability do NOT equal superior.

Kokopelli 01-25-2008 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commando Tennis Shorts (Post 2039408)
I always thought that the 2HBH was easier for women (because of hip rotation), while the 1HBH is easier for men (because of the strength and natural motion).

That being said, I haven't noticed more people using the 2HBH, at least not from the men's side. I actually thought it was the other way around.

I used to live in Southern California, and attended local/regional junior tournaments regularly. From this scene, and amongst my friends (those that are 35 and under), 2HBH substantially outnumbered the 1HBH. The ratio in the professional game somewhat reflects my personal observation as well.

goober 01-25-2008 12:26 PM

My observations

For men

under 30 2HBH outnumber 1HBH

30-40- 1HBH>2HBH

40+ 1HBH >>> 2HBH



For women- 2 HBH seem greater in all age groups.

FH2FH 01-25-2008 12:35 PM

I remember seeing stats for the ATP and WTA in the last few years or so. It was 90% WTA, 70% ATP.

There are probably more using 2H now because it's taught more frequently (a guess). It's easier to learn (control and consistency) in my opinion. I think 1H takes more discipline.

Alexio92 01-25-2008 12:45 PM

Easy, 2 words : It's easyer.

Kokopelli 01-25-2008 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FH2FH (Post 2039701)
I remember seeing stats for the ATP and WTA in the last few years or so. It was 90% WTA, 70% ATP.

There are probably more using 2H now because it's taught more frequently (a guess). It's easier to learn (control and consistency) in my opinion. I think 1H takes more discipline.

Thanks for the stats.

The 2HBH might very well be easier to learn. This could be a true statement. But relatively speaking, if the 2HBH is easier to learn today, then it would also be easier to learn yesterday, 10 years ago, and during the wood era.

Then how come the majority of the players that grew up in the wood era (over 40 years old) have the 1HBH? I think the answer has to due with the style of the game. Back then, slicing is a much bigger component of the game. Thus, it's extremely difficult to hit a 2HBH when the ball bounces at your knee level. In other words, the game dictates the style and calls for a more suitable backhand. Back then, low bouncing balls favored the 1HBH. Today, high bouncing balls call for the 2HBH. Again, I'm referring to the the general public, and not the elite players who can create magic with good skills and techniques, regardless of styles.

Kokopelli 01-25-2008 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexio92 (Post 2039746)
Easy, 2 words : It's easyer.

Hey kiddo, how's your game coming???

35ft6 01-25-2008 01:16 PM

Because a two-hander is easier to hit for beginners.

Alexio92 01-25-2008 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kokopelli (Post 2039793)
Hey kiddo, how's your game coming???

Pretty good actually.
I just beat two people same rating as me 0 and 0 today :twisted: double bagel :) Thanks for asking.

JavierLW 01-25-2008 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kokopelli (Post 2039791)
Thanks for the stats.

The 2HBH might very well be easier to learn. This could be a true statement. But relatively speaking, if the 2HBH is easier to learn today, then it would also be easier to learn yesterday, 10 years ago, and during the wood era.

Then how come the majority of the players that grew up in the wood era (over 40 years old) have the 1HBH? I think the answer has to due with the style of the game. Back then, slicing is a much bigger component of the game. Thus, it's extremely difficult to hit a 2HBH when the ball bounces at your knee level. In other words, the game dictates the style and calls for a more suitable backhand. Back then, low bouncing balls favored the 1HBH. Today, high bouncing balls call for the 2HBH. Again, I'm referring to the the general public, and not the elite players who can create magic with good skills and techniques, regardless of styles.

One big factor is teaching. It's perfectly acceptable in most circles to use the 2HBH today (as well as different forehand grips).

I learned tennis in the late 80's and even then there were a lot of teaching pros who believed that somehow the two handed backhand was "bad". Even if you learned it at first, you were usually encouraged to change it if you could. (and that's with metal and graphite racquets)

Nowdays it's accepted that it's perfectly fine to use one, and a lot of the teaching pros are younger and they've grown up used to seeing it a lot.

Kokopelli 01-25-2008 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavierLW (Post 2040125)
One big factor is teaching... I learned tennis in the late 80's and even then there were a lot of teaching pros who believed that somehow the two handed backhand was "bad"...

Yup, I remembered how the "in-the-know" crowd put down the 2HBH back then.

Kokopelli 01-25-2008 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexio92 (Post 2039901)
Pretty good actually.
I just beat two people same rating as me 0 and 0 today :twisted: double bagel :) Thanks for asking.

Nice!!! Congrats!!!

speedtoburn 01-25-2008 06:43 PM

This is very interesting to me, because I'm fairly new to the sport and the single handed backhand came much more naturally to me so that is what I learned, but everyone I play with thinks it is very odd that I learned the shbh vs. the dhbh.

speedtoburn 01-25-2008 06:49 PM

Also, I'm the only one on my team that uses it, but now you guys have me a little concerned.

Should I dump it and learn the dhbh instead?

Jonny S&V 01-25-2008 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedtoburn (Post 2040973)
Also, I'm the only one on my team that uses it, but now you guys have me a little concerned.

Should I dump it and learn the dhbh instead?

If you are getting proper instruction, I wouldn't worry about it. If you are trying to teach yourself, the 2 hander is easier to self-teach.

speedtoburn 01-25-2008 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonny S&V (Post 2040987)
If you are getting proper instruction, I wouldn't worry about it. If you are trying to teach yourself, the 2 hander is easier to self-teach.

Thanks for the feedback.

I am in fact working with a coach, when we first started working together, he asked me what felt more comfortable (which was the shbh for me) and so he taught me the mechanics of that stroke vs. the dhbh.

From the thread it just sounds like the dhbh seems to be the stroke everyone recommends and that is what got me concerned.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse