Originally Posted by martini1
And yet I have not seen a player who can hit flat 1hbh in the 90-100 mph range. One cannot take advantage of power train. Many can swing 2hbh like a left hand fh.
Federer routinely breaks 90 mph on winners. As for the 100 marks, I have seen Gasquet hit a 106 mph backhand winner against Murray at the French Open. Can't recall when it happened, but he did demolish the three digits -- probably even more than once during that same match.
However, great two handed backhands also get that high in terms of mph. I would say that hitting the one handed backhand might give you a slight edge in terms of hitting out on a ball purely and simply because of the muscles that are involved in the exercise... The real edge a two handed backhand has is consistency.
Players using two hands often outperform their forehands in terms of consistency, making fewer mistakes off their backhands. However, they also hit a lot less winners. As for power, it happens that I have seen players hitting big using either backhand technique as theirs. For one handed backhands, I might pick Haas as a notable example of power during rallies. He has shown greater consistency than Gasquet in that regard, doesn't stand ten feet behind the baseline to hit it -- like Gasquet. Federer isn't bad either and might look weaker than he is because of the opponents he often faces. For two hands, my favorite remains Nalbaldian. He just demolishes the ball with it...
If I circumscribe the question to amateurs, I am wondering where to draw the line. It's nearly impossible as a recreational player to be bothered by the heft of heavy spin and shoulder high balls given that virtually no one will hit that hard during an entire match. All things kept in proportions, amateurs would be more comparable to women than men wherein the one handed backhand may not be a liability, but an advantage.