Originally Posted by VeeSe
About 14 months ago, I had no backhand at all. Over the last year, I've worked hard to get my two handed backhand to be serviceable, but I've sort of plateaued a bit in the last month or two. The motion still feels unnatural to me, and while I'm sometimes comfortable hitting it, I am naturally more comfortable hitting the one hander.
If we are speaking on how much potential each shot had without training, the one hander is by far better than what I naturally hit with two hands. If I made the switch, I'd definitely regress for about 8-10 months before it got as good as my two hander.
The only thing keeping me back is this: if I'm more comfortable and the shot has way more natural potential than my two hander had, does that make it the right choice to develop because it's likely that it can go further than the two hander?
What are your thoughts and/or past experiences with this? I'm not referring to the benefits/drawbacks of each type of backhand, as there have been lots of threads about that, and there's tradeoffs for everything. I just want to work on the best backhand for me.
For reference (I don't think it's important, but you might): I would rate myself as an above average 4.0. I was computer rated at 3.5 this year but I was sandbagging it big time (played up at 4.0 in singles league, went 5-0).
What LeeD said about it being totally up to you. Keep in mind that some of the greatest players of all time used 1hbh. Plus, current players like Tommy Haas, Nicolas Almagro, Philip Kohlschreiber, Richard Gasquet, Stan Wawrinska, etc., etc. Oh yeah, and R. Federer. The one hander does confer certain advantages over the two hander. If the 1hbh actually feels better to you, then it seems that it might be worth the time and effort to seriously develop it.