Originally Posted by luvforty
arche3 - 3 pages later you are still arguing blindly without fully understand the point I am making.
I think people do understand the point you are attempting to make.
1. You assert that the 1hbh is ill-suited for hitting on the rise. This premise seems questionable, but hey, let's go ahead and grant it.
2. You assert that pros with 1hbh generally stand 8 feet behind the baseline so they can hit the ball as it falls. This assertion appears to be inaccurate.
3. From this questionable premise and this dubious observation, you conclude that park players should not use the 1hbh, because if they they stand 8 feet behind the baseline they won't be able to get to drop shots. This conclusion seemingly ignores the fact that park players will not need to stand 8 feet behind the baseline to catch balls at or after their apex, because they won't be facing ATP levels of topspin and pace.
So even if we grant that assertions 1 and 2 are true (which they probably aren't), your conclusion is still totally faulty because it's based on the incorrect assumption that the incoming shots faced by rec players will be comparable to those faced by pro players.
I feel like if you'd subjected your own reasoning to a modicum of scrutiny before hitting post you might have realized this yourself.
Seriously, every now and then I see tennis being played at parks. I see quite a few 1hbhs. Somehow I don't see a lot of players getting driven 8 ft behind the baseline and then polished off with drop shots. Maybe I'm not going to the right parks... or maybe your idea is silly...