Originally Posted by BMC9670
Sure, I agree with that. All I'm saying is that the vibe on the 1H vs 2H discussions are usually 1H is superior and 2H is easier and that is why its prevalent in today's game. I think that's over-simplifying it. While I do think it's easier to learn and win early with a 2HBH, I think it's as good, or for many players better than a 1HBH, especially with the pace of the game today.
Take an example like Djokovic, who has been trained to be a pro since an early age. I would bet his parents and various coaches discussed which to play, but 2HBH was taught, and I'm convinced it was for more than the fact that it was easier or made him win early. That's all I'm pointing out.
Just to clarify, I don't think 1H is superior to 2H. I think 2H provides more relliability and stability whereas 1H allows more room for versatility.
Yeah..I don't think it's the entire reason, but I won't doubt if it is part of the reason. Some players do switch from 2 hander to 1 hander (Dent, Edberg etc). But, it would be difficult to see a junior with a mediocre 2 hander at 14 or 16 years old trying to switch to one hander unless the transition happens very quickly with success.
Take Roddick, who's got a mediocre 2 hander. Would he have benefited from a switch to one hander?
I think it's safe to say one hander usually takes longer time than 2 hander to achieve the same level of consistency and solidity. And, players do stick with 2 hander and may not change because of the difficulty of transition or mastering the stroke. I am not saying anything about superiority.