Single handed backhand for juniors...

[TennisCoachFLA]

Originally Posted by tennisdad65

That's because the short term results are better with 2HBH, and especially if they need to have results by the end of the class! If you gave them a 10 yr project with a kid starting at 5, they would think a bit harder.

Where I am, FL. and where CoachingMastery is, CA, pretty much every kid we see has their own goals or parents goals to go far in tennis. We have plenty of time and the parents want us to give the kid the best chance at long term success. All of the coaches I know teach 2hb first.

When kids get older they obviously have the option of weighing the advantages and changing. Its not too difficult for a 12-15 year old to make the change. So its not like teaching a 2hb at age 5-9 is sticking them with it for life.

[NoQuarter]

Here is something that I have wondered throughout my tennis playing years....are coaches/teachers just teaching the 2HBH just because they do not hit a 1HBH? Or that they do not know how to teach it? Is the "they are too young to hit a 1HBH" just a crutch? Especially now that, as this thread is pointing out, one of the reasons have been eliminated?

[tennisdad65]

Originally Posted by NoQuarter

Here is something that I have wondered throughout my tennis playing years....are coaches/teachers just teaching the 2HBH just because they do not hit a 1HBH? Or that they do not know how to teach it? Is the "they are too young to hit a 1HBH" just a crutch? Especially now that, as this thread is pointing out, one of the reasons have been eliminated?

From what I have seen, many of the older coaches/teachers were 1HBH growing up, but now teach the 2HBH. Most of these coaches also know how to use the 2HBH, though I am not sure how good they are at 2HBH themselves.

[BMC9670]

Originally Posted by NoQuarter

Here is something that I have wondered throughout my tennis playing years....are coaches/teachers just teaching the 2HBH just because they do not hit a 1HBH? Or that they do not know how to teach it? Is the "they are too young to hit a 1HBH" just a crutch? Especially now that, as this thread is pointing out, one of the reasons have been eliminated?

An interesting question. I would think a qualified teaching pro should know how to teach both backhands, even though they may not play them both. That said, not sure how practical it is in reality. Anyone know how the USTPA and PTR handle this in stroke proficiency testing and stroke analysis testing for certification?

[CoachingMastery]

Originally Posted by tennisdad65

That's because the short term results are better with 2HBH, and especially if they need to have results by the end of the class! If you gave them a 10 yr project with a kid starting at 5, they would think a bit harder.

Why? Why would I choose a stroke that fewer and fewer top pros are using? That makes no sense.

In my experience, in terms of the vast majority of players who indeed did learn one-handed backhands, they are far more ineffective and always trying to "fix" their backhands.

So, in terms of long term "projects" it would make sense to teach the shot that not only proves to be a better shot in the long run but I go back to my original question: why would I teach a shot that fewer pros are using?

[TennisCoachFLA]

Originally Posted by NoQuarter

Here is something that I have wondered throughout my tennis playing years....are coaches/teachers just teaching the 2HBH just because they do not hit a 1HBH? Or that they do not know how to teach it? Is the "they are too young to hit a 1HBH" just a crutch? Especially now that, as this thread is pointing out, one of the reasons have been eliminated?

What reason has been eliminated? Sports doctors will tell you about the pulling of the spine from muscular imbalance with young kids. And it has been documented by USTA and other studies that it cause more tennis elbow cases.

http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/USTA...is%20Elbow.pdf

Not sure what you mean by "one of the reasons has been eliminated"?

[NoQuarter]

Originally Posted by TennisCoachFLA

What reason has been eliminated? Sports doctors will tell you about the pulling of the spine from muscular imbalance with young kids. And it has been documented by USTA and other studies that it cause more tennis elbow cases.

http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/USTA...is%20Elbow.pdf

Not sure what you mean by "one of the reasons has been eliminated"?

So you are saying that is the reason that the 1HBH is not being taught? If every kid was destined to get a spine injury/tennis elbow then I agree wholeheartdly.

[Ash_Smith]

Interesting debates here guys.

A few people have raised the point about 2h being easier and therefore allow more success for kinds at 8,9,10,12 etc, but my point was that with red balls and courts, orange balls and courts etc etc the disadvantages (ball bounce, less strength etc) are mainly removed. When taught technically well, with excellent attention to detail and adherence to the muscle memory principal from an early age (say 5/6 with a red ball) there will be none of the problems people have suggested in later life (players still chasing technical flaws etc).

Also, Dave brings up a great point that why teach something that 80% of pro's don't currently do, my question is do the pro's do it because they learned on a full size court with yellow balls and big racquets and had to deal with strength issues, high bounces, long courts and so on. The current crop of tour players wouldn't have come through mini tennis, so those problems would have been inherent in their development.

Maybe with mini tennis we'll see 80% of pro's with single handers in 10-15 years time?

Keep it going...

cheers

[TenFanLA]

Use 1hbh to look cool, manly and impress girls. Use 2hbh to win matches. When asked what shot he would like to have in his bag, Fed said the 2hbh. Navratilova says if she had to do it all over again she'd go with 2hbh. Fed would have at least 3 FO's with 2hbh. Bottom line is there is a reason why practically all the top women's and most of top men's pros play 2hbh, results. Nothing more, nothing less.

[CoachingMastery]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

Interesting debates here guys.

A few people have raised the point about 2h being easier and therefore allow more success for kinds at 8,9,10,12 etc, but my point was that with red balls and courts, orange balls and courts etc etc the disadvantages (ball bounce, less strength etc) are mainly removed. When taught technically well, with excellent attention to detail and adherence to the muscle memory principal from an early age (say 5/6 with a red ball) there will be none of the problems people have suggested in later life (players still chasing technical flaws etc).

Also, Dave brings up a great point that why teach something that 80% of pro's don't currently do, my question is do the pro's do it because they learned on a full size court with yellow balls and big racquets and had to deal with strength issues, high bounces, long courts and so on. The current crop of tour players wouldn't have come through mini tennis, so those problems would have been inherent in their development.

Maybe with mini tennis we'll see 80% of pro's with single handers in 10-15 years time?

Keep it going...

cheers

Ash, this is an interesting point you make. While I never have taught the two-handed backhand because of the strength issue, I'm sure many pros do. So, perhaps in time, with the quickstart program, more one handers may emerge.

[NoQuarter]

I am very interested in this debate because I grew up as a self taught tennis player. Learned by hitting against the side of a building in grass and watching tennis on TV. Still have not had a professional lesson. I have a 1HBH...and have attempted a 2HBH with absolutely no success. I have always thought that a 1HBH is something that people go to because it feels right to them instead of being taught. So along comes my daughter who shows some athletic ability. I try to teach her a 1HBH because I figure that she, like me, will find it comfortable...but she struggles. Showed her how to grip a 2HBH and it clicks with her. Has a great 2HBH. So....another one of my questions is....do coaches/teachers take what "feels" right to a person into consideration when they are learning either a 1 or 2HBH?

[FedExpress 333]

Well, a backhand that feels right over a backhand that brings early reults.... its obvious. Plus, im surprised that noone has mentioned the footwork needed to make a good 1hbh? it is a lot harder...

[junbumkim]

Originally Posted by BMC9670

Sure, I agree with that. All I'm saying is that the vibe on the 1H vs 2H discussions are usually 1H is superior and 2H is easier and that is why its prevalent in today's game. I think that's over-simplifying it. While I do think it's easier to learn and win early with a 2HBH, I think it's as good, or for many players better than a 1HBH, especially with the pace of the game today.

Take an example like Djokovic, who has been trained to be a pro since an early age. I would bet his parents and various coaches discussed which to play, but 2HBH was taught, and I'm convinced it was for more than the fact that it was easier or made him win early. That's all I'm pointing out.

Just to clarify, I don't think 1H is superior to 2H. I think 2H provides more relliability and stability whereas 1H allows more room for versatility.

Yeah..I don't think it's the entire reason, but I won't doubt if it is part of the reason. Some players do switch from 2 hander to 1 hander (Dent, Edberg etc). But, it would be difficult to see a junior with a mediocre 2 hander at 14 or 16 years old trying to switch to one hander unless the transition happens very quickly with success.

Take Roddick, who's got a mediocre 2 hander. Would he have benefited from a switch to one hander?

I think it's safe to say one hander usually takes longer time than 2 hander to achieve the same level of consistency and solidity. And, players do stick with 2 hander and may not change because of the difficulty of transition or mastering the stroke. I am not saying anything about superiority.

[junbumkim]

Originally Posted by CoachingMastery

Read my earlier post too: It is EXTREMELY rare to see a player first learn to hit two-handed not be able to hit one-handed backhands well. Nor do I find it a difficult transition for two-handers to move to a one-handed backhand if they find they just feel that is their stroke. HOWEVER, I have seen hundreds of players who first learned one-handed try to learn two-handed backhands with far greater difficulty and usually with most reverting back to their inferior but more comfortable one-handed backhand.

None of the guys with 2 hander I hit with could execute one hander very well...Guys from 5.0 to 4.0 level...

I have a one hander, started with one hander. And, when I tried 2 hander for the first time, it actually wasn't all that bad. Coaches have mentioned it looked pretty good and one has actually asked if I ever worked on it...

A few years later, I started to tinker with it a little bit here and there, and I didn't have much trouble with stroke production at all..Actually, it had gotten better. The difficulty came with footwork and movement with 2 hander, which was different from one hander. And, I didn't have the time or energy trying to switch..

My one hander gotten better and better somehow, and it's actually not too bad..

[slice bh compliment]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

...
Maybe with mini tennis we'll see 80% of pro's with single handers in 10-15 years time?

Keep it going...

cheers

One of my kids was raised on the orange ball. With yellow and green balls, he would do mostly 2handers. Good looking.
WIth orange balls, he's loving the one. He prefers it from a feel and freedom perspective.

He tries the 1hander with the yellow ball with good results on anything but a high ball. So he slices....or moves back a lot...or moves in to take it early. This is a process, obviously. Then he remembers his two hander is more effective at this age (10u), especially when taking a ball early (before it gets too high).

I think he's set no matter which one he uses...when he prepares well and moves well to the ball.
He saw a clip of Borg with me, during the Mac/Borg doc. He wanted to go out and try that release against the garage.

I don't want to confuse him, though. The 1hbh, the 2hander, the 2hander with the Borg/Youzhny release. This grip, that grip. The continental slice. I'm wondering if this mix is healthy or not. I think it is probably bad for success NOW. But good overall, for volleys, variety, etc.

[BevelDevil]

Originally Posted by CoachingMastery

It is almost always far more difficult for players who first learned with one hand on the backhand to switch later to a two-handed backhand.

2. I've NEVER had a two-hander not be able to hit a highly skilled one-handed backhand.

I wonder if there is a selection bias effect at work here. Perhaps this is in part because players with a 2hbh are more likely to have had coaching in the past? Or perhaps people who choose a 1hbh have lazy feet and are trying to stretch to the ball?


Btw, what kind of 2hbh do you teach? Bottom arm straight at contact?

[basil J]

This is an interesting topic. I played hockey my whole life and took up tennis in my late 30's. I shot lefty on the ice so as a right handed player I naturally went out there with a 2 HBH. After a year of lessons with a coach that played a 2 HBH, my backhand was mediorce at best. I switched pros and on the first day of practice, the pro noticed that I retunred serves with one hand , exclusively. He picked up on my natural inclination & it was a 1 HBH and within a month I was hitting it naturally, and now 12 years later it is my best groundstroke by far. I had a coach that was perceptive and found something that worked for me more naturally. I can't even hit a 2HBH now. It feels stiff & limiting. My point is that pro's should monitor their pupils and teach them what is the most natural for them.

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by CoachingMastery

Drak, I've seen many "golfer's elbow" (aka server's elbow) developed from poor mechnics on the forehands side...never tennis elbow. It is almost biomechanically impossible since there is almost no stress to the lateral epicondyle of the elbow on the forehand. There IS stress to the medial epicondyle of the elbow on the forehand.

Interesting. So when you see players completely contort their forearm that makes it painful to even watch, this doesn't put any stress on the outer elbow area of the arm? Interesting.

Originally Posted by CoachingMastery

I suspect that you may see players who developed tennis elbow via backhand issues and simply are unaware of how they got it or that when it hurts it can hurt on all shots, forehands included, when the inflamation is bad.

Once again, very interesting. So accroding to you, players can't possibly develop pain in any part of their arm (whatever you want to call it) by hitting forehands. But they can develop "tennis elbow" from not hitting backhands.

Call it whatever you want (golfers elbow, tennis elbow, dart throwing elbow, typing elbow, etc, etc. etc). Fact is, most people who play tennis mostly hit forehands (unless you are in an alternate universe) and especially in the beginner stages or lower stages of tennis, and they develop PAIN IN THEIR ELBOW REGION (satisfied?) because of poor mechanics and contorting their forearm in all sorts of ungodly ways in order to achieve more topspin. These are the same people that keep companies that make ELBOW brace grips in business.

Originally Posted by CoachingMastery

Why? Why would I choose a stroke that fewer and fewer top pros are using? That makes no sense.

In the same way, why would you choose to teach a stroke that does not produce grand slam titles at the same rate as one-handed backhands? I mean, if you want to throw out numbers, then isn't it interesting that with so many two handers (much more than one-handers in the ATP as you point out), much more than half the slams won in the last 20 years have been won by one-handed players?

Would you attribute this to coaches (who aren't lazy) just not teaching the two-handed back hand as well as those who teach the one-hander?

Originally Posted by basil J

This is an interesting topic. I played hockey my whole life and took up tennis in my late 30's. I shot lefty on the ice so as a right handed player I naturally went out there with a 2 HBH. After a year of lessons with a coach that played a 2 HBH, my backhand was mediorce at best. I switched pros and on the first day of practice, the pro noticed that I retunred serves with one hand , exclusively. He picked up on my natural inclination & it was a 1 HBH and within a month I was hitting it naturally, and now 12 years later it is my best groundstroke by far. I had a coach that was perceptive and found something that worked for me more naturally. I can't even hit a 2HBH now. It feels stiff & limiting. My point is that pro's should monitor their pupils and teach them what is the most natural for them.

Great post. To add, as I alluded to earlier; in your case, you didn't have a "lazy coach". In most other cases, coaches (as well as their students) are more interested in obtaining instant gratification, and just follow what they see on TV..........."80%??? of pros use two handers, so you should too and blah, blah, blah."

[CoachingMastery]

Originally Posted by drakulie

Interesting. So when you see players completely contort their forearm that makes it painful to even watch, this doesn't put any stress on the outer elbow area of the arm? Interesting.



Once again, very interesting. So accroding to you, players can't possibly develop pain in any part of their arm (whatever you want to call it) by hitting forehands. But they can develop "tennis elbow" from not hitting backhands.

Call it whatever you want (golfers elbow, tennis elbow, dart throwing elbow, typing elbow, etc, etc. etc). Fact is, most people who play tennis mostly hit forehands (unless you are in an alternate universe) and especially in the beginner stages or lower stages of tennis, and they develop PAIN IN THEIR ELBOW REGION (satisfied?) because of poor mechanics and contorting their forearm in all sorts of ungodly ways in order to achieve more topspin. These are the same people that keep companies that make ELBOW brace grips in business.



In the same way, why would you choose to teach a stroke that does not produce grand slam titles at the same rate as one-handed backhands? I mean, if you want to throw out numbers, then isn't it interesting that with so many two handers (much more than one-handers in the ATP as you point out), much more than half the slams won in the last 20 years have been won by one-handed players?

Would you attribute this to coaches (who aren't lazy) just not teaching the two-handed back hand as well as those who teach the one-hander?




Great post. To add, as I alluded to earlier; in your case, you didn't have a "lazy coach". In most other cases, coaches (as well as their students) are more interested in obtaining instant gratification, and just follow what they see on TV..........."80%??? of pros use two handers, so you should too and blah, blah, blah."

Considering you don't understand the difference between tennis elbow (lateral epicondylitis) and golfer's elbow/server's elbow (medial epicondylitis), or that they are two very different injuries, then you would not be expected to then understand how the forehand and backhand offer different propensities for injuries. The forehand would create and/or aggrevate golfer's elbow...not tennis elbow. The backhand creates and/or aggrevate's tennis elbow, the most common "elbow problem" tennis players encounter. (Satisfied?)

If you take out two players over the last twenty years, (Sampras and Fed), then we would see a different percentage of two-handed wins. I don't discount that one-handed strokes can be taken to the highest level. Yet, if we want to look at numbers, let's not stop at just looking at grand slam championships...let's look at NCAA championships, women's WTA championships, and just the fact that percentages of ALL professional players that use two hands is revealing too.

But, I'm certainly not going to waste my time arguing the point with you. You are more than welcome to your opinion and I welcome that. However, if you have not taught tennis for more than 30 years, have produced over 100 top state, national or world-ranked players, or are only discussing tennis from a subjective point of view, then I'll let you believe all you want to believe from what ever point of view you want to look at your beliefs from.

[CoachingMastery]

Originally Posted by basil J

This is an interesting topic. I played hockey my whole life and took up tennis in my late 30's. I shot lefty on the ice so as a right handed player I naturally went out there with a 2 HBH. After a year of lessons with a coach that played a 2 HBH, my backhand was mediorce at best. I switched pros and on the first day of practice, the pro noticed that I retunred serves with one hand , exclusively. He picked up on my natural inclination & it was a 1 HBH and within a month I was hitting it naturally, and now 12 years later it is my best groundstroke by far. I had a coach that was perceptive and found something that worked for me more naturally. I can't even hit a 2HBH now. It feels stiff & limiting. My point is that pro's should monitor their pupils and teach them what is the most natural for them.

Yes, this is the point that pros must consider: there are many examples of players like you that will in fact do much better with one hand. A pro must look at each individual and help identify these trends.

However, there are many situations too that a player will feel more comfortable with a one or two-handed backhand, but not be producing the stroke in a way that will allow them to advance. Do we let them continue to use what ever stroke "FEELS" more comfortable? Or, do we help them develop a more effective stroke over time, make IT feel more comfortable, and essentially allow them to be a better player?

In your case, I would go with the one handed backhand since you already worked with two hands and found the one-hander was indeed more effective for you.