Originally Posted by rkelley
First off how you cut the data makes a big difference. In the top 10 there's only 1 1hbh (10%). What's the percentage in the top 30 or 50? (25% is the same number I get for the top 20 as of this week).
And then more importantly, is the 1hbh making these players more successful, does it not matter, or is it dragging them down and they would they be more successful with a two hander? The percentages alone don't really tell you that.
The one hander is a great shot. I don't think anyone is saying it shouldn't be taught. There is a good discussion on whether it should be taught first or not. Is it superior overall? I think that's really hard to know.
You're right in that the cutting of the data makes a big difference, but I think the top 20 is a relatively good barometer for how effective the stroke is. If I'm not mistaken, many of these players are on the edge of top 10, so its possible that they will dip inside at some point. As for whether the single hander is dragging them down, I think all of them (apart from Federer) have their backhand as their best shot (Gasquet, Almagro, Youzhney, Wawrinka), so I doubt that is the case.
It definitely has a steeper learning curve, but the rewards can be great. (more pace, more spin, more variety, at the price of less stability) I agree with you that it is a very complicated issue and hard to know.