Originally Posted by CoachingMastery
I don't really see why there is such subjective arguments here. (Especially trying to "Blame" lazy pros for teaching the shot that the VAST majority of top players now use!)
Yes, there are indeed lazy, ignorant, close-minded pros teaching tennis out there. But, to say it is the lazy pro that teaches two handed strokes makes no sense.
While there are still a number of very solid players on tour with one-handed backhands, the propensity of numbers (now around 92% of the top 100 women and about 77% of the top men), shows the two-handed backhand is the dominant stroke.
That said, I've never had a problem with a player who has indeed mastered the one-handed backhand.
(I'm as objective as they come: I've taught 35 years, personally use a one-handed backhand, taught one-handed backhands for the first almost ten years of my career...and now teach all beginner--regardless of them wanting to become pros or not--two-handed backhands.
Read my earlier post too: It is EXTREMELY rare to see a player first learn to hit two-handed not be able to hit one-handed backhands well. Nor do I find it a difficult transition for two-handers to move to a one-handed backhand if they find they just feel that is their stroke. HOWEVER, I have seen hundreds of players who first learned one-handed try to learn two-handed backhands with far greater difficulty and usually with most reverting back to their inferior but more comfortable one-handed backhand.
I won't label one backhand "superior" to another. However, I think I have enough experience to be able to say with certainty, that as a general learning pattern, the two-handed backhand works not just for those kids in the 8's, 10's and 12's be more successful, but that the stroke works for most players of all ages, far better than teaching the one-handed backhand.
If you talk to any qualified pro who has been around for a while and has produced successful players, ask them if they had 100 players and wanted to give all 100 the best chance at hitting backhands well, which shot they would teach.
Almost without exception, these pros would teach the two-handed backhand to those 100 students.
So I was listening to some Eric Clapton and now just sort of browsing oldie but goodie threads.
I have a question on this. On the surface, it's hard to question the 1BH v 2BH. Everybody has 2BH so it must be better. And Nole just gave us more proof yesterday, right?
But when you consider the math behind the 77% quoted above, wouldn't it go something like this?:
What is percentage of serious junior boys with 1BH? I don't know, so let me make an ambitious guess. Lets say 10% (which I think is a high guess).
So, lets pretend the top 100 players came from a pool of 100000 players (for the point I'm making, doesn't matter if I'm close or not on this)
So of our 100000 players, 10000 have 1BH and 90000 have 2BH.
So at the pro level players that made it are:
1BH: 23/10000 = 0.2300%
2BH: 77/90000 = 0.0856%
So, with my (inflated?) 10% of juniors playing with 1BH assumption, the 1BH player has a 3x better chance of making top 100!? (More if my 10% is high, less if my 10% is low)
Im sure there are flaws here, so have at it.
Also, yesterday, it seemed that the Fed 1BH held up ok. Seems more like the FH let down Roger actually. Looking at some stats now. He played two tight sets with Nole, total points was 96 Nole, 95 Fed; So close yet Fed had only 8 FH winners and 24 FH errors. And when he served for 2nd set, he was up 40-15 and missed 4 straight FHs. So again, looking under the hood a little it seems that the FH cost Roger. So I don't think Nole's win is a win for the 2BH v 1BH is it?