5263, I agreed with you that 2BH is better for first serve returns, right? And other things as well.
The OP was should a junior 'choose' to develop a 1BH vs a 2BH. I think it's a great question and we can argue pro's and con's all day and I feel like the 2BH might come out net positive once the dust settles in such a debate.
Which is why it's so interesting to acknowledge that 1BH players seem to have a better 'rate of success' in terms of becoming professional tennis players than 2BH players. Possibly by more than 2x (if we can agree that <12% of aspiring juniors had 1BHs)
And on your question of choice or force - I think forced. But does it matter?? Probably less ability to just crank a winner on one side 'forces' a player to learn the game at a deeper...or at least different...level.
I don't know why...but looking at the number of pros with 1BHs - there's something about a 1BH that definitely does NOT DOOM a players prospects...but curiously, seems to increase them when you consider the rate of success of players with 1BH vs 2BHs.
For the record, I just looked at current rankings and 7 of the ATP top 25, or 28% have 1BH. And yesterday I looked at 9 of top 20 (45%) in ATP doubles rankings have 1BH.
I just think there's something going on that we can't put our finger on because in most debates, the 2BH camp seems to come out on top. But it's undenyable that when you look at aspiring juniors, far less than 28% have 1BH....which clearly indicates that 1BH juniors have a higher success rate than 2BH juniors. And that is a fact that applies directly to the OP.
Last edited by BirdieLane : 11-21-2012 at 09:26 PM.