To say 1handers are more creative is such an oxymoron, it is not even funny.

[nfor304]

Originally Posted by Ultra2HolyGrail

Well what other tournament actually makes the players 'play' tennis instead of just relying on big serves and forehands and fast points? The slower surface makes them have to grind out a point instead of relying on a fast surface to end points quickly. Not to say a one hander can't win there. But we are talking what stroke is better. And the two hander is clearly better for baseline grinding and is more reliable and consistent than a one hander. It's just a simple fact many don't accept. And that is the way the game is being played today. Hence why 99% of the top wta and atp use them.

What? Since when is tennis all about rallys from the baseline?

[nfor304]

Originally Posted by Ultra2HolyGrail

All invalid. Are you trying to tell me the one hander is suited to being a baseliner just as good or better than a two hander. Please get a clue. How many french opens does it take borg-nadal and the majority of two handers that wins there that the two hander is obviously clearly, undisputeably better? And all the great one handers of the past like Mcenroe-Edberg-Becker-Sampras-and countless others that never won there?

Federer is the the best baseliner on all surfaces of all time. He is the undisputed GOAT of hardcourts, on which he plays mostly from the baseline.

[Ultra2HolyGrail]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Yeah, tell Sampras that he sucks at tennis. The rest of the world laughs at you and considers him a GOAT

Since when does more than 1 player or players are considered goats? Goat means greatest, 1 person. Sampras never won the french. So nobody should consider him goat.

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

People don't serve and volley anymore because the equipment industry screwed up tennis with all of these ballistic missile launchers they call racquets, and with poly strings that create unnatural amounts of insane spin. If pro tennis went back to wood racquet and gut strings, I would guarantee people would serve and volley again

Even so, Stepank almost beat Djokovic (one of the best baseliners today) at Basel last week by serving and volleying (he had triple match point in the 2nd set), and Haas DID beat Djokovic at Wimbledon by serving and volleying this summer..

People don't serve and volley anymore because most players have two handed backhands and have great returns. Back in the stone age everybody used a one hander so it was easy to serve and volley. Since one handers have crap returns serve and volley was much more effective. Racquets and technology has zero to do with how good you return. The one handers still suck at returns and always will.


It's like talking to a brick wall. You will never stop posting retarded comebacks because that's the only way in your mind for you to 'win' at anything. Hence 25 million post's and argue's a one hander is 'better' than a two hander even though 100% top wta and 95% top 100 atp use a two hander. Your goats argument is laughable. Especially considering their backhand is a noted weakness. But please, go on some more with retarded comments. You need to 'win' at something in your mind.

[Ultra2HolyGrail]

Originally Posted by nfor304

Federer is the the best baseliner on all surfaces of all time. He is the undisputed GOAT of hardcourts, on which he plays mostly from the baseline.

I'm sure that guy nadal thinks different. Crushes him everytime at the french. Beats him at wimbledon and the australian open. 13-7 head to head against the 'goat' federer.. Needs only the usopen to complete the grand slam.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by Ultra2HolyGrail

Since when does more than 1 player or players are considered goats? Goat means greatest, 1 person. Sampras never won the french. So nobody should consider him goat.

"GOAT" could also mean one of the "Greats of All Time". Besides, the jury is still out on which of the three - Federer, Sampras, or Laver - is the "greatest", because they played in different eras.

Originally Posted by Ultra2HolyGrail

People don't serve and volley anymore because most players have two handed backhands and have great returns. Back in the stone age everybody used a one hander so it was easy to serve and volley. Since one handers have crap returns serve and volley was much more effective. Racquets and technology has zero to do with how good you return. The one handers still suck at returns and always will.

Wrong! Racquets and technology have EVERYTHING to do with how well you return. Try and hit the same returns with a standard sized wood racquet with your 2HBH and get back to me.

It has very little to do with 2HBH's! There were 2HBH players during the Borg/Connors era. There were 2HBH players during the Agassi/Courier/Chang era. There were 2HBH players during the Brugeura/Kafelnikov/Rios/Moya era. Yet, throughout all of these eras, people still served and volleyed and won doing it!

Just ask Courier how Edberg spanked him in the '91 US Open final.
Then ask Chang how Sampras spanked him in the '96 US Open final.
Then ask Agassi how Sampras spanked him in the '99 Wimbledon final (and in every US Open final they played).
Then ask Chang how Becker spanked him in the '96 Australian Open final.
Then ask Moya how Sampras spanked him in the '97 Australian Open final.
Then ask Agassi how Rafter spanked him in the '00 and '01 Wimbledon semis.
Then ask Wilander how Noah spanked him in the '83 French Open final.
Then ask Borg how Panatta spanked him twice at the French Open.
etc., etc.

So your theory that it's only because of 2HBH's and not the racquet technology that people don't serve and volley anymore is full of holes.

Originally Posted by Ultra2HolyGrail

It's like talking to a brick wall. You will never stop posting retarded comebacks because that's the only way in your mind for you to 'win' at anything. Hence 25 million post's and argue's a one hander is 'better' than a two hander even though 100% top wta and 95% top 100 atp use a two hander. Your goats argument is laughable. Especially considering their backhand is a noted weakness. But please, go on some more with retarded comments. You need to 'win' at something in your mind.

Well, I'd rather be a "brick wall" than be ignorant.

What's the use of a "strong" backhand if you can't win Grand Slams? So, no, they did not have "weak" backhands. Ask any 2HBH player on the pro tour if they would take a weak backhand if they also got 15 Grand Slams along with it and see how they respond.

BTW, I'm sorry that you play at such a low level that everyone you play against has such a bad 1HBH, because that is the only explanation why you think 1HBH sucks and you can't return serve with it. Don't worry, you'll get better after the first year.

[nfor304]

Originally Posted by Ultra2HolyGrail

I'm sure that guy nadal thinks different. Crushes him everytime at the french. Beats him at wimbledon and the australian open. 13-7 head to head against the 'goat' federer.. Needs only the usopen to complete the grand slam.

So now Nadal is the baseline GOAT? you've lost all credibility with that one.

[Ultra2HolyGrail]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

It has very little to do with 2HBH's! There were 2HBH players during the Borg/Connors era. There were 2HBH players during the Agassi/Courier/Chang era. There were 2HBH players during the Brugeura/Kafelnikov/Rios/Moya era. Yet, throughout all of these eras, people still served and volleyed and won doing it!

Just ask Courier how Edberg spanked him in the '91 US Open final.
Then ask Chang how Sampras spanked him in the '96 US Open final.
Then ask Agassi how Sampras spanked him in the '99 Wimbledon final (and in every US Open final they played).
Then ask Chang how Becker spanked him in the '96 Australian Open final.
Then ask Moya how Sampras spanked him in the '97 Australian Open final.
Then ask Agassi how Rafter spanked him in the '00 and '01 Wimbledon semis.
Then ask Wilander how Noah spanked him in the '83 French Open final.
Then ask Borg how Panatta spanked him twice at the French Open.
etc., etc.

So your theory that it's only because of 2HBH's and not the racquet technology that people don't serve and volley anymore is full of holes.

Looks like your's is too. Chang used a oversized prince racquet. Moya used a pure drive in 97. Rafter used a 98in Prince racquet. Agassi used his 107in racquet. What's left to blame now but the strings?

[Ultra2HolyGrail]

Originally Posted by nfor304

So now Nadal is the baseline GOAT? you've lost all credibility with that one.

So you think federer is even though nadal crushes him at the french and the only reason he finally won it this year is because nadal lost and did not have to play him? Everybody knew federer winning the french this year was a joke. Sad but true.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by Ultra2HolyGrail

Looks like your's is too. Chang used a oversized prince racquet. Moya used a pure drive in 97. Rafter used a 98in Prince racquet. Agassi used his 107in racquet. What's left to blame now but the strings?

Well, their 2HBH's certainly didn't help them against the serve and volleyers.

Yes, the strings help a lot as now you can swing out on the returns with less fear of hitting the ball out and you can create insane topspin on the returns which dip at the feet of the net rusher or an angled topspin return that goes past the net rusher but still dips inside the sideline.

But even today with the uber-powerful racquets and ultra high-tech strings, serve and volley can still work against 2HBH players (and very good ones at that) as guys like Stepanek and Haas have proved just this year.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by Ultra2HolyGrail

So you think federer is even though nadal crushes him at the french and the only reason he finally won it this year is because nadal lost and did not have to play him? Everybody knew federer winning the french this year was a joke. Sad but true.

Yes, because winning seven best of 5 set matches in a row on slow red clay in a Grand Slam is a "joke".

So when was the last time YOU did it?

And I guess anyone who wins the French Open without having to beat Nadal is a "joke"? Hmmm...I guess that makes Agassi a "joke". And Lendl was a "joke". Oh, and so was Borg. Yup, Courier was a "joke", too. And so was Bruguera. Of course, don't forget Wilander. And, you guessed it, Kuerten was the biggest "joke" of all.

[Golden Retriever]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

Well, their 2HBH's certainly didn't help them against the serve and volleyers.

Yes, the strings help a lot as now you can swing out on the returns with less fear of hitting the ball out and you can create insane topspin on the returns which dip at the feet of the net rusher or an angled topspin return that goes past the net rusher but still dips inside the sideline.

But even today with the uber-powerful racquets and ultra high-tech strings, serve and volley can still work against 2HBH players (and very good ones at that) as guys like Stepanek and Haas have proved just this year.

Stepanek is a 2hander and he does the "worm" with 2hands too. Now beat that BP.

[nfor304]

^^ A 1 handed worm would be far more creative than a regular two handed worm.