Single handed backhand for juniors...

[FedExpress 333]

Thing is, it really isnt appealing to juniors because they want to baseline bash, not develop an all court game. Although the 2 hander is more solid from th baseline, the 1 hander offers more variety and so on.

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by CoachingMastery

Considering you don't understand the difference between tennis elbow (lateral epicondylitis) and golfer's elbow/server's elbow (medial epicondylitis),

News flash!!!!!!

"tennis elbow" is not necessarily and injury or aggravation of the elbow caused solely by hitting backhands in tennis as you continue alluding to.

Now, you were saying or you haven't learned that in your "30 years of teaching tennis, and blah, blah, blah".

Originally Posted by CoachingMastery

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.

Hmmm, then lets take out Nadal and say Agassi.

The numbers still don't go your way, and with a lot more players using two handers during the time I cited.

And BTW, why would you teach your students to only settle for NCAA championships?

[Patrick Smith]

I am a very new forum member. Please forgive me if, perhaps, I speak a bit too boldly given my unfamiliarity with the forum. This is a subject dear to my heart, though, and I wanted to participate in this great discussion. Please feel free to correct me if I have made any mistakes in this post.

I am seventeen years old, and planning to take physical therapy courses in college to eventually earn my doctorate (I enter college this fall! )

There are a lot of great points and posts in this discussion, but I wanted to add that if you ask some of the best physical therapists (Dr. Kelly Starrett or Pete Egosque, for example) or probably any physical therapist worth his weight in salt what cause Tennis Elbow or other such typical athletic "overuse" conditions, his/her answer will probably be that these injuries are caused by the following:

1) Improper biomechanics (i.e. somebody uses poor form that presents too much stress on the major muscles, tendons, or ligaments such that the body is forced to use "sideline" muscles to compensate for the major ones that are not able to handle the stress. The "sideline" muscles are forced to compensate which pulls the joints out of their regular position, which starts its own cascade of problems and improper compensations.)

That's generally it (at least as according to what I've read in Pete Eqosque's book, "Pain Free" so far). As far as I've read thus far, the most common cause of the so-called overuse injuries or even many of the sudden sport injuries are caused or influenced by

A) bad biomechanics, which is caused by

**a) weakness in the major moving muscles of the movement,

**b) stiffness in strong joint effecting muscles that are pulling the joint out of proper place, or

** c) just plain inappropriate form (which is why it is so incredibly important to learn things right the first time, so that you can begin enforcing the appropriate biomechanics)

A lot of the time, and for most people, there are things in people's past (various forms of biomechanically incorrect movement or non-movement) that cause them to enter a sport already in a bad position. They may have failing arches (in their feet) which causes supination in the foot to compensate for the lack of rotation and support that the arches give, which turns the knee medially (inwardly) into an entirely improper and unsupportable position while walking around every day, on or off the court. When this person enters the court to learn tennis, he is automatically predispositioned to suffering a knee injury during a lunge or jump.

The body is like a scaffold, if it is not balanced properly in ALL joints with every one of them in its proper place, it will all come apart. There is no such thing as an isolated joint...

I do not know much of tennis elbow yet, but from what I hear idly, it is strongly related to the condition and health of the shoulder. I expect that I will encounter a description and analysis of the condition in Pain Free, but I have not yet.

From what I can surmise, though, I would not be surprised if it is a combination of the following.

1) More people live a sedentry lifestyle today than ever before. Because of this, people are much less adept at moving. They move less and less, and because of the lack of use, muscles atrophy. When they enter the court and...

2) start trying to hit heavy serves, FH, BH, and who knows what else like the pro's with very poor form, they are not only presenting stress to the body in that the movement pattern is already corrupt, but the body is already having to pull other muscles out of their regular position to compensate for the major ones that have atrophied and are no longer able to perform their function without help. This pulls everything out of position, and then no matter what they do besides going back and correcting the original biomechanics, they will suffer pain, be it in the form of a dodgy hip, back, knee, or elbow.

Lack of movement = bad biomechanics (move it or lose it, right? )

Bad biomechanics + good form = Injuries

Bad biomechanics + bad form = much worse injuries

Let me know if this makes any sense, I've been up since 5 am and I need sleep.... ha!

[CoachingMastery]

Originally Posted by drakulie

News flash!!!!!!

"tennis elbow" is not necessarily and injury or aggravation of the elbow caused solely by hitting backhands in tennis as you continue alluding to.

Now, you were saying or you haven't learned that in your "30 years of teaching tennis, and blah, blah, blah".




Hmmm, then lets take out Nadal and say Agassi.

The numbers still don't go your way, and with a lot more players using two handers during the time I cited.

And BTW, why would you teach your students to only settle for NCAA championships?

Okay, you win. You are 100% correct. You should be teaching tennis. You are obviously superior to me and many others.

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by CoachingMastery

Okay, you win. You are 100% correct. You should be teaching tennis. You are obviously superior to me and many others.

Never said that, nor have I stated in this thread the one or two hander are better than the other or used ridiculous percentages to defend myself as to why one should teach one over the other.




BTW Patrick, nice post. Thanks for sharing.

[rkelley]

Originally Posted by drakulie

Never said that, nor have I stated in this thread the one or two hander are better than the other or used ridiculous percentages to defend myself as to why one should teach one over the other.

drakulie, you don't agree with Dave Smith (CoachingMastery). I hope everyone is fine with that. If you have facts or statistics that you want to post then I think that would help move the conversation forward.

But respectfully and as gently as possible I'd asked you to re-read your posts. I don't see how words like "ridiculous" and " . . . blah, blah, blah" help make a point or add to the conversation.

Speaking personally I'm really glad to have folks like Dave, Ash, and the many other professional coaches here on the board. I think the insight of folks who are teaching tennis is a tremendous resource. Are you teaching professionally (honest question, not a dig)? If so then I don't mean to disrespect you. My dad taught me to play. He was an athletic guy but he didn't have clue as to proper tennis technique. I eventually taught myself to play and over the years learned the game, but I could have leaned so much faster with a real coach. My coach on my HS team was a math teacher. Nice guy but didn't know a thing about tennis.

I taught my kids to play. I knew what proper form was for the most part (I hadn't learned the modern FH yet), but it's one thing to know how and it's another thing to know how to teach it. In retrospect I did some things right (continental grip on the serve from the start) and some other things I struggled to communicate. In the process of teaching I've learned a bunch about the game and have improved as a player, but I really wish I had Dave's book about six years ago.

My daughter's teams have had coaches that could play (ex college players, and an ex touring pro), but these guys hardly ever taught anything. In three years of JV girls tennis almost every girl I saw used an E. FH grip for a serve and the coaches never said a word. I saw one girl spending extra time practicing her E. FH serve after practice and still the coach said nothing. Even on the varsity squad there were still FH grip serves and a complete fear of volleying.

Anyway, we can certainly disagree, but let's play nice and I think we should all should give a little extra credence to the folks here that are teaching professionally and giving us the benefit of their experience.

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by rkelley

drakulie, you don't agree with Dave Smith (CoachingMastery). I hope everyone is fine with that. If you have facts or statistics that you want to post then I think that would help move the conversation forward.

How about this, and I'll say it as gently and respectfully as possible.......... why don't you ask him for facts or statistics?

The real FACT is, he doesn't.

The one "fact" he does have and threw out here is that a larger percentage of pros use a two hander in a vain attempt to demonstrate why HE prefers to teach the two hander because of the "success it reflects" as evidenced by the number of touring pros using it.

Well, "fact" is, with more pros using a two hander, one handers have won more slams in the last 20 years so it is a FACT a one hander is more successfull at the highest stage of the game. But of course, he then wanted to toss Sampras and Federer out of the equation to tilt the discussion in his favor, and when I stated that would be fine as long as we threw out Nadal and Agassi, he didn't like it because Fact is, there are still more one handers with slams than two handers in that same period of time.

Of course, when someone fails to prove thier broken point, they always fall back to "i've taught tennis for 30 years and coached thousands of students, and yada, yada, yada" to demonstrate their superiority over everyone on the boards.

Here are some points I have made and will make again:

Most players prefer hitting forehands to backhands (from beginner to pro).
Most tennis players fall in the range of 3.0 players (not professional).
These players tend to strongly favor hitting forehands.
Most players I have seen whom have ELBOW issues have them because of hitting forehands incorrectly and trying to produce topspin by contorting their forearms into pretzels.

If CoachingMastery thinks he is the end all be all of medically diagnosing every single player he has not even seen hit a tennis ball, which I have, and wants to define it as golfers elbow, so be it. Just shows how full of himslef he is, regardless of how long he has coached for. And NO, I don't need to give any credence to anyone as full of himself as that.

[BevelDevil]

Regarding the debate over the debate: On a forum, I think arguments should stand on their own, regardless of credentials. CoachingMastery has made very sound arguments and I appreciate them as such (thanks!).

There's no need to fall back on authority. After all, in the days of the 1hbh, I'm sure there were coaches with strong credentials scoffing at the 2hbh.


Having said all that, when talking about great pros with 1hbhs we can't ignore the women's side and Henin, who probably had the best of them all. And I don't think she would have been nearly as successful with a 2hbh (nor would Schiavone), imo. If we accept that as true, there's something special about the 1hbh that we shouldn't just gloss over. I'm leaning towards the idea that (at high levels at least) baseline bashers who are short would be better off with a 1hbh with a strong eastern grip.


Now having said that, I agree that most of the time the 2hbh is the best way to go for beginners. Switching to a 1hbh later is a totally separate debate.

Finally, I think Ash is right about mini tennis and greater possibilities for teaching the 1hbh.

[BevelDevil]

Originally Posted by drakulie

The one "fact" he does have and threw out here is that a larger percentage of pros use a two hander in a vain attempt to demonstrate why HE prefers to teach the two hander because of the "success it reflects" as evidenced by touring pros.

You have a valid criticism here-- I think this is the weakest part of his argument, however, it is an unnecessary part of his argument. So attacking this doesn't invalidate his other points.

His many other points (see his first post) seem pretty reasonable.


Do you think the 1hbh (topspin) is easier to teach to beginners?

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by BevelDevil

You have a valid criticism here-- I think this is the weakest part of his argument, however, it is an unnecessary part of his argument. So attacking this doesn't invalidate his other points.

well, I would say it is a pretty weak argument as well to medically diagnose someone he hasn't even seen hit a tennis ball. But oh well, I don't have a degree/license to practice medicine and diagnose those I haven't seen. I guess coaching for 30 years and having a 100 nationally ranked players under my internet belt gives me this "license".

Originally Posted by BevelDevil

His many other points (see his first post) seem pretty reasonable.

and note that I only disagreed with one.

Originally Posted by BevelDevil

Do you think the 1hbh (topspin) is easier to teach to beginners?

NO. But I do think that the proper swing on a one-hander is easier to teach and learn than that of a two hander because of it's simplicity. What makes the one-hander more difficult is getting in the proper position, which boils down to footwork. With a two hander, you could have poor footwork and still be succesful at a higher rate more consistently than with a one-hander. This is what I attribute to "laziness" and "instant gratification" on both coaches and their students.

[fruitytennis1]

Originally Posted by drakulie

one handers have won more slams in the last 20 years so it is a FACT a one hander is more successfull at the highest stage of the game. .

Yea...I mean Feds unstoppable 1hbh is the reason he has 16 slams right.
-This situation isn't realistic..but just think what Fed could have done with a bh like Djoke's.

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by fruitytennis1

-This situation isn't realistic..but just think what Fed could have done with a bh like Djoke's.

yeah. two slams.

[rkelley]

For what it's worth I think the original question that Ash asked was interesting. What if you use mini-tennis and teach a 1hbh from the start?

I hit a bad 1hbh myself when I started to play years ago (learning with full size wood racquets and real tennis balls), switched to a 2hbh after a few years and got immediate improvement, and then much later learned how to hit a 1hbh properly. I still hit a two hander for TS in tennis, but when I play racquet ball I hit "tennis" 1hbh, and I hit them pretty well. It's kind of like mini-tennis. It makes me wonder how things would have gone if I had started with proper instruction and mini-tennis.

But Dave makes what I feel is a valid point. Almost all pros, male and female, are hitting a 2hbh. Dave's whole approach is based on looking at what the majority of high level players are doing. It's an approach that makes a lot of sense to me. However drakulie makes a valid counter argument about Federer and Sampras.

And while I agree that arguments should stand or fall on their own merit, I'm willing to give some credence to folks who actually teach tennis. But everyone doesn't have to share that opinion either.

[BevelDevil]

Originally Posted by rkelley

But Dave makes what I feel is a valid point. Almost all pros, male and female, are hitting a 2hbh. Dave's whole approach is based on looking at what the majority of high level players are doing. It's an approach that makes a lot of sense to me.

It shouldn't make too much sense: Prior to the 1990s the tour was dominated by players with 1-handed backhands. Using the reasoning above, coaches of those eras should have treated Borg and Conners as anomalies (like Fed and Sampras) and stuck to teaching the 1hbh, since "that's what most the currrent pros do."

What's amazing about tennis is the fact that the juniors can actually evolve well beyond what the current tour is doing. Thus, the young kids learning the 2hbh in the late 70s and 80s; and in the 1990s a young Federer hitting a forehand with a straight arm and lots of wrist (two major no-no's of the past eras combined!).

(Of course, the question is raised: Have we already reached the pinnicle of tennis evolution? )


If we're going to use pro results as a measure of what should be taught, then every high-level coach out there should be scratching their heads and wondering why two 5'5-1/2" women (Henin and Schiavonne) were able to use their 1hbhs (both with strong Easterns I believe) to dominate much larger women. As I said many times (and no one has ever contradicted), there's no way Henin could have beat the big girls consistently with a 2hbh. Same for Schiavonne. Unlike Sampras, they won because of their 1hbhs, not in spite of it.

Of course, we shouldn't soley use pro results to determine what to teach beginners since they are such worlds apart.

[CoachingMastery]

Please understand that I am in no way discounting the one-handed backhand. I hit a one-handed backhand. I've taught the one-handed backhand almost exclusively for about ten years followed by a shift for the last twenty years of teaching two-handed backhands. And we had a number of top ranked players in both eras emerge so I do believe me and my father, (California coach of the year in 1984), were teaching one-handed backhands pretty well at the time.

My "advice"--and that is all I'm offering here--is that I've found that the proponderance of players learned to hit better backhands as a whole with two hands. I've had a number of two-handers move to one-handed strokes as we saw that they had a better affinity to hit better shots with one hand.

My understanding of tennis elbow is derived from this 30+ years of seeing thousands of players develop, both by my own teaching and comparitively from other pros and coaches. (As well as having a wife that is a doctor and that I've taught advanced biology for a number of years.)

You can argue there is no difference between tennis elbow and server's elbow. But, I will respectfully argue not only is there a difference, but that each can be injured or aggrevated by differen general stroke movements.

I certainly recognize Fed and Sampras as well as guys like Rafter, Edberg, and others. But, the fact is the percentage of players using one-handed backhands is decreasing.

That is not to say that there might be a swing the other way down the road. (Pardon the pun!) There certainly could be. But, that said, I don't think that we are going to see a huge shift back to one-handed backhands by pros at any time.

I'm not here to belittle or antagonize. If my sentiments here were construed that way, in my attempt to share my own take and experiences, then I greatly apologize.

I'm not here to 'be full of myself'...I don't spend that much time here (I certainly don't have 20,000 posts!) to be here to try to toot my own horn. I'm retired from teaching full time and I have other important issues on a day to day basis that don't allow me to come here and hound these boards.

Every so often I see a post that I think I can add some experience to and I comment. I hate seeing the number of posts that become so inflamed that I myself choose to just stay out of them for a few weeks because it is so degrading to the forum and immature at best.

Please, take my comments for what they are--comments. No one has to buy into anything I say. Yes, I've had a very successful career and certainly have enjoyed the world-wide response people have made after reading my books or viewing my DVD's or reading articles of mine in various publications and web sites. But, if anyone here has other ideas or experiences that are valid, I'm always open to hearing these ideas. I may not agree with all of them, but I think that everyone has concepts based on their own experiences that create their perceptions.

Regardless, I simply want to help those understand tennis from my level of participation if it indeed helps them on their path to success.

No one has to take my advice literally or figuratively. It won't hurt my feelings.

Cheers to all!

[drakulie]

Originally Posted by CoachingMastery

I'm not here to belittle or antagonize.

I'm not here to 'be full of myself'...I don't spend that much time here (I certainly don't have 20,000 posts!) to be here to try to toot my own horn. I'm retired from teaching full time and I have other important issues on a day to day basis that don't allow me to come here and hound these boards.

Interesting. Lets see your posts here in this thread:

Originally Posted by CoachingMastery

From 35 years of experience teaching, (of which the first eight years we only taught one-handed backhands), the two handed backhand offers several extrensic advantages that both objectively and subjectively has proven more advantageous for almost all the 3000+ players I have taught:

Originally Posted by CoachingMastery

(I'm as objective as they come: I've taught 35 years,

Originally Posted by CoachingMastery

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.

Originally Posted by CoachingMastery

I've had a very successful career and certainly have enjoyed the world-wide response people have made after reading my books or viewing my DVD's or reading articles of mine in various publications and web sites.

TOOT TOOT.

[CoachingMastery]

Originally Posted by drakulie

Interesting. Lets see your posts here in this thread:











TOOT TOOT.

And once again, Drak, you have proven me wrong. Congratulations.

[slice bh compliment]

Hhaha, that was funny guys. Nice, spirited exchange from a couple of legends around here.

Anyway, back on topic... so nobody wants to be the guinea pig. We all want to learn from one another. Thanks, Ash, for starting this.

So, anyone teaching the one-hander? Taking advantage of the low compression balls?

You know what's hilarious? My son's friend played in an 8u inter-club match with red balls and a 36 ft ct. Good rallies with some of the better kids! Here's the funny part: they do not allow volleys. I thought that was odd. I mean, I get it. They're trying to keep the rallies long and prevent a wise kid from just stepping up and banging volleys down or angling them off. But, long-term, I thought the whole purpose of the soft ball was to promote a more well-rounded game and better court sense.

So that kid is joining my son on the full court with a confusing, but good blend of orange, green and yellow balls.

Back to the one-handed BH idea. What do you experts think is better...learning a two and switching (maybe) to a one? Or learning the one with soft balls and switching to two?

Thanks,
sbc

[Ash_Smith]

^^^ No volleys at red? That almost as ridiculous as not allowing the tramlines when playing doubles at green...oh, wait a sec - welcome to the LTA!!!

Yes, some interesting (and off topic!) discussion going on here! I am going to give it a go with a couple of kids that I teach just to see how it turns out. Both are 5 and have been playing for about 7 weeks in our mini tennis groups so they should be a roughly blank canvas, but have an idea of the discipline I/we expect when learning a new stroke.

I have now idea which way around is better, just that I have always done what Dave (and most others do), teach 2h first and then switch later (and play catchup for all those years when they could have been hitting 1 handed and completing their 4000 reps!).

Maybe my little experiment will confirm that 2h is better to start, or maybe it will change my (our?) minds - whichever, it will be fun to see what happens!

Cheers

[BevelDevil]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

^^^ No volleys at red? That almost as ridiculous as not allowing the tramlines when playing doubles at green...oh, wait a sec - welcome to the LTA!!!

Yes, some interesting (and off topic!) discussion going on here! I am going to give it a go with a couple of kids that I teach just to see how it turns out. Both are 5 and have been playing for about 7 weeks in our mini tennis groups so they should be a roughly blank canvas, but have an idea of the discipline I/we expect when learning a new stroke.

I have now idea which way around is better, just that I have always done what Dave (and most others do), teach 2h first and then switch later (and play catchup for all those years when they could have been hitting 1 handed and completing their 4000 reps!).

Maybe my little experiment will confirm that 2h is better to start, or maybe it will change my (our?) minds - whichever, it will be fun to see what happens!

Cheers

What backhand grip are you going to have them use?

Also, I'd love to hear your reports on how comfortable these young kids are learning and switching grips, as that aspect seems to confuse a lot of adults.

Originally Posted by CoachingMastery

Regardless, I simply want to help those understand tennis from my level of participation if it indeed helps them on their path to success.

thanks a lot for the input, very useful!