Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Tennis Tips/Instruction (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Finally, evidence that the 1hbh can do something better than the 2hbh: topspin (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=468529)

tennis_hack 06-29-2013 08:12 AM

Finally, evidence that the 1hbh can do something better than the 2hbh: topspin
 
In the Wimbledon 2013 match when Gasquet played Tomic, a stat came up showing that Gasquet hits 48% of his topspin backhands with more than 3000rpm's of topspin. Obviously, this was recorded on grass as well - a lower bouncing surface where Gasquet might be inclined to hit flatter than usual.

I can't tell you how long I've been waiting for this stat - the stat compilers seem to think that all we want info on is Nadal's forehand and Federer's forehand like they're the only shots that exist.

Anyway, to contrast, that stat shows that Gasquet's average backhand is hit at around the same spin as Nadal's average topspin forehand which sits at 3300prm's. And the bulk of Tomic's (two-handed) backhands were hit with less than 1000rpm's of topspin.

Now it could be (and it probably is) the case that Gasquet hits an especially spinny 1hbh, but do you guys see any 2hbh players getting as high in the rpm stakes with their 2hbh as Gasquet's backhand (and, by extension, Nadal's forehand)? Would it even be possible for them to do so?

If we could compile an average rpm list of the topspin backhands of Gasquet, Wawrinka, Almagro, Youzhny, Federer and Haas and compare it to Murray, Djokovic, Gulbis, Nalbandian, Nadal, Berdych - which group do you think would have the higher average and peak topspin rpm?

fuzz nation 06-29-2013 08:51 AM

I certainly feel as though I can produce a lot of topspin with my one-hander, but I'm generally more comfortable with that style of stroke. Not trying to be a complete buzz-kill, but I try to avoid arguing the superiority of one style vs. another. Even if the one-hander has some empirical advantage for spin potential, that's no help for someone who is clearly more comfortable and competent with a two-hander.

Yahoo!!!

rkelley 06-29-2013 09:05 AM

I hit a 2hbh and I agree. Getting the same level of ts as I do on my fh is an issue - just doesn't happen. I can get good ts on my 2hbh when my form is good, but not like the combination of spin and pace I can produce off my fh.

I can get good pace in general with my 2hbh and punch balls back well when I'm in trouble. It's a good shot for me, but it'd be nice to get that fh level of spin.

tennis_hack 06-29-2013 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzz nation (Post 7548049)
I certainly feel as though I can produce a lot of topspin with my one-hander, but I'm generally more comfortable with that style of stroke. Not trying to be a complete buzz-kill, but I try to avoid arguing the superiority of one style vs. another. Even if the one-hander has some empirical advantage for spin potential, that's no help for someone who is clearly more comfortable and competent with a two-hander.

Yahoo!!!

Yes, I use a relatively extreme forehand grip with a vertical swing path, so it felt natural to me to replicate that vertical swing path on the backhand side - and the best way to do that was to use a 1-hander with an extreme grip. It seems you just have to swing more linearly with a 2hbh.

With so many pro's (and even recs) now looking to spin the ball as much as possible on the fh side (which is why the average fh grip is now semi-western instead of eastern) - we are now seeing pretty much the same shot combinations - heavy topspin forehand, and flat two-handed backhand. This means everyone ends up having the same strengths and weaknesses off both wings, homogenizing the tour - which is why it's great when you see a spanner in the works such as Tomic with his super-flat forehand, or Gasquet/Wawrinka/Almagro with their topspin-monster backhands.

sureshs 06-29-2013 09:35 AM

It is always known that 1 hander produces more topspin. But here is the catch: it can only produce topspin. It cannot reliably hit flatter shots without resorting to slicing.

10isfreak 06-29-2013 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureshs (Post 7548185)
It cannot reliably hit flatter shots without resorting to slicing.

That's unfortunately not true. Back in the days of wooden frames people majorly resorted to flatter trajectories and the 1HBH was an overwhelming favorite. Even in the late 90's, strokes were still pretty flat. Because of this, I would be inclined to think that 1HBH players tend to vary a lot more than their trajectories than 2HBH do. If you've ever watched a few tennis matches, you're perfectly aware that this is what happens on a court.

I'd say that, for some reason, the game 1HBH play is DIFFERENT than the game 2HBH players play -- i.e., they do not use their strokes for the same purpose.

Before Federer became a top player, there were analysts who thought that the slice backhand would become obsolete. It was a purely defensive gesture you would use when you're in trouble in their mind. After all, how can a puffy sitter disturb a top player? He'd run around that ball and he'd smack a forehand winner. Then, that Swiss guy came in and he was slicing the ball in the middle of a neutral rally. Federer has an astonishing forehand, especially when he plays it as an inside ground stroke, but without that slice, you would not have seen him play so many inside forehands in his career. I'd say that Federer minus his slice doesn't have 17 GS titles and I'd go as far as saying that Federer with a 2HBH wouldn't have that slice... at the very least, he wouldn't use it that way. Arguably, not staying in a backhand rally is what has cost him matches against Nadal. The biggest mistake Federer made, I think, was trying too hard to avoid a backhand rally against Nadal's forehand... it gave Nadal the space he needed and it provided him with too many useless unforced errors. Same in late career defeats against Djokovic: not committing himself to a backhand rally, not accepting a lasting neutral situation off that wing has cost him major points. I know both of these cross-court rallies are loosing bets, but there are always good and bad times to change direction, run around, etc. and Federer abused of these things, in my humble opinion. THERE, a 2HBH Federer would have won the matches. There, sticking a to a rally with a lot of simple cross-court strokes would have been a good thing. People remember defeats against Nadal when they think about the 1HBH. They don't think about how many titles Federer owes to his backhand simply because he doesn't finish the point with it and never obliterated anyone with it. However, it earned him the occasions to hurt his opponents with his forehand.

Of course, Gasquet, Wawrinka, Haas and others do not play like Federer since they are not Federer, but you still see them varying their trajectories a lot more than 2HBH do. Regardless of the reason, it seems like using a 1HBH or a 2HBH changes the way you approach a tennis match and that's as important, though less discussed, as the question everyone inquires about here (i.e., which objective advantages, if there are any, are there in using one backhand or the other?). In a similar perspective, tennis hack has a great point about match-ups and tactics.
Quote:

Originally Posted by tennis_hack
This means everyone ends up having the same strengths and weaknesses off both wings, homogenizing the tour [...].

When everyone plays the same game, difference becomes a weapon.

BreakPoint 06-29-2013 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureshs (Post 7548185)
It is always known that 1 hander produces more topspin. But here is the catch: it can only produce topspin. It cannot reliably hit flatter shots without resorting to slicing.

Maybe for you, because I can crush flat 1HBHs all day long.

Larrysümmers 06-29-2013 10:30 AM

thats why when the ball is low i crank a one hander, and when its up high i smack a 2 hander. best of both worlds.

tennis_hack 06-29-2013 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larrysümmers (Post 7548345)
thats why when the ball is low i crank a one hander, and when its up high i smack a 2 hander. best of both worlds.

It's probably more like jack of all trades, master of none, which is why you don't see anyone on the pro tour do it.

Anyway, one of the reasons I changed to a 1hbh is that I felt I could hit heavy topspin on head-height balls, whereas I'd need to drive a high ball flat with a 2hbh. To me, 1hbh is far more comfortable with to hit head height balls.

sureshs 06-29-2013 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10isfreak (Post 7548230)
That's unfortunately not true. Back in the days of wooden frames people majorly resorted to flatter trajectories and the 1HBH was an overwhelming favorite.

The flatter (non-slice) shots were possible with 1 hander because the balls did not have much spin on them. Today is different.

Also, hitting flat is different from crushing the ball flat. Latter is better done vy 2 hander.

Topspin Shot 06-29-2013 02:10 PM

Do you have any proof of this stat, or is it as reliable as your avatar that shows Nadal standing 50 million kilometers behind the baseline to return serve? Oh, and Tomic won the match.

tennis_hack 06-29-2013 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Topspin Shot (Post 7548885)
Do you have any proof of this stat, or is it as reliable as your avatar that shows Nadal standing 50 million kilometers behind the baseline to return serve? Oh, and Tomic won the match.

1). No, I'm not going to take a screenshot of the stat on TV, and upload it just to satisfy your cynicism - anyone who say BBC commentary of the match will have seen it and can confirm.

2). Don't hate on my avatar.

3). I didn't even get into the argument of whether the 2hbh is 'better' than the 1hbh or not (which Tomic winning the match wouldn't have even proved, as I'm sure Roddick has also beaten Gasquet - does that prove he must have a better backhand?) - I merely suggested the 1hbh is better at one facet of stroke production: topspin.

10isfreak 06-29-2013 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureshs (Post 7548833)
The flatter (non-slice) shots were possible with 1 hander because the balls did not have much spin on them. Today is different.

Contact points are higher now, but the game has changed, like the tactics. As far as I kow, some players do not have any problem hitting flat backhands off of high balls, but as I explained, the intention might simply be different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by suresh
Also, hitting flat is different from crushing the ball flat. Latter is better done vy 2 hander.

The later is most often done by 2HBH players, but it does't make it so hard to do with one hand on the racket.

filphil 06-29-2013 06:25 PM

[quote=10isfreak;7549298]Contact points are higher now, but the game has changed, like the tactics. As far as I kow, some players do not have any problem hitting flat backhands off of high balls, but as I explained, the intention might simply be different.[quote]

The taller players probably have an easier time flattening out their strokes than shorter folks when it comes to rallying against heavy topspin.

Topspin Shot 06-29-2013 06:50 PM

"Both a topspin shot and a flat (no-spin) lob will bounce high. However, one will bounce high because of spin, and one will bounce high just because it had a big distance to fall from.

Hitting topspin your racket face should be closed - but it's hard to exactly know if your racket face is closed at contact without filming yourself in slow-motion HD and replaying it.

So the way to know that you're hitting topspin and not merely spinlessly lobbing is if your shot skims the net by an inch or so, yet bounces 8ft high in the air when it lands - it's heavy topspin. If it clears the net by 16ft, and bounces 8ft high, you dinked a lob.

With really heavy topspin, your shot can barely skim over the net, yet bounce way over someone's head when it bounces."

Maybe the potshot about your avatar was a little out of line, but what I don't like to see on the boards is misinformation that will confuse people new to tennis who actually want to learn the game and will believe anything they see on here. Maybe your statistic about Gasquet's topspin is real, and maybe it isn't, but you have posted things like what I've copied and pasted above that are 100% BS. I don't want people new to tennis to hurt their development trying out things that aren't real. I don't want beginners insisting on learning a 1 hander that may or may not be right for them assuming that with it, they'll get great spin.

Avles 06-29-2013 06:56 PM

For the record tennis_hack is a troll (or possibly mildly mentally ill, not sure) and has been repeatedly banned under other usernames.

engage at your own risk

Topspin Shot 06-29-2013 06:58 PM

I don't normally engage with trolls, but this type of trolling upsets me because beginners can't tell it's trolling. When he goes and picks Almagro to win Wimbledon, there's no harm done. Even that Adam kid who wasted everyone's time with the Six-One 90 posts wasn't hurting anyone. But what happens here is some kid new to the game is going to try what Tennis Hack says and set himself back.

NLBwell 06-29-2013 07:23 PM

It is obvious from watching the match that Gasquet's backhand had far more topspin than Tomic's. That's not necessarily the best thing on grass. Yes, theoretically the one-hander should be able to generate more topspin because it has more freedom of movement, however, whether that is good or bad or even occurs at all is player and situation-dependent. As 10sFreak said, players hit different backhands for different purposes in their games.

Avles 06-29-2013 07:23 PM

Actually I suspect that the original post is right about the 1hbh tending to have more topspin than the 2hbh and I'm sure Gasquet hits his bh with massive topsin.

But the idea that the 1hbh is good because it allows you to "hit heavy topspin on head-height balls" sounds a bit off to me. How often are most players going be hitting a head-height ball with a topspin 1hbh? And is heavy topspin a realistic priority for a shot like that? It doesn't really make sense.

Tennis_hack and his earlier incarnations have a collective obsession with topspin and the 1hbh that borders on monomania... here's an example from one of his past lives , and here is another.

Topspin Shot 06-29-2013 07:33 PM

Well, he is right that 1hbhs can have more topspin than 2hbhs. But over 3,000 RPMs of topspin on a 1hbh on average? I'm not buying that, and I'm not buying the head high thing either. But there will be beginners who will buy that because they don't know enough about tennis yet to detect this sort of BS.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:21 AM.

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