Single handed backhand for juniors...

[5263]

Originally Posted by BirdieLane

5263,

I just think there's something going on that we can't put our finger on because in most debates, the 2BH camp seems to come out on top. But it's undenyable that when you look at aspiring juniors, far less than 28% have 1BH....which clearly indicates that 1BH juniors have a higher success rate than 2BH juniors. And that is a fact that applies directly to the OP.

As to this issue, imo it's just that weaker players don't go with the 1 hander, as
it is harder overall....partly due to the misunderstandings about how to coach it.
Just look to the other thread going on 1 handers and you can see so many posting
about it and don't have a clue how to teach it
Stronger players may go with the 1 or 2 hander, as they can do what they like
in the sport...at least compared to their peers. Among the better players, likely the
numbers are more evenly split??

[WesternCK]

First off, my apologies if someone has already pointed out what I'm about to say. I've read the first 6-7 pages or so but then only glossed over the next few pages.

In my opinion, I think the reason that so many teaching professionals out there teach the two handed backhand is fairly simple. It has been touched on throughout this thread but as far as I know, no one has really stated it as being the main reason. Similar to the fact that "linear movement" has been replaced by "angular movement" when it comes to the modern game, I believe that the dominance of the 2 handed backhand in the modern era comes along from the same transition in the sport. As has been stated, the footwork necessary to execute a proper 1 handed backhand is more difficult than that of the two handed backhand. One can execute a 2 handed backhand with a variety of stances and still generate some type of aggressive shot whereas this is more difficult when executing say, a 1 hand backhand with an open stance. Tie this in with the POWER in the modern game and I believe that you have the reason that the 2 hander has become the predominant choice of both players who play on their own but more importantly teaching professionals who have fully embraced teaching the modern game.

So to sum it all up, I believe that the power in today's game is the main reason that two hand backhands are the most predominantly taught stroke by teaching professionals, regardless of the age of their students. Obviously individual attention should be paid to those who exhibit solid footwork and prefer the one handed backhand, but to me it is no surprise that the vast majority of teaching professionals teach the two handed backhand, regardless of the age of their students.

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

Something I've been pondering for the last couple of days, so I thought I'd put it out there to the coaches (and others) on the forum...

With the advent of Mini Tennis, Quickstart, Hotshots, Play+Stay etc etc why do we not teach single handed backhands at Red (I am, of course, using 'we' as a gross generalisation!) All the traditional reasons for not teaching single handed at that age (Red ball is 8&u) are taken away by the mini tennis system, yet the vast majority of coaches still teach 2 hands without fail.

I am considering an experiment!

What are your thoughts?

Cheers

Ash

Now on to the original post... I think this is a very interesting idea, and I do think that you make a good point that with the lack of speed and power in mini tennis, this would be the perfect time to teach students a 1 handed backhand. With that being said, there are many children out there who take lessons at such an age and then for one reason or another never take lessons again. This is probably a small percentage of students, but the point is that I would rather teach children the more successful stroke in the modern game even when they are starting out. I do believe both strokes can be very efficient when they are produced to their potential, but rather than just having an "experiment" as the reason for deciding to teach young children the 1 handed backhand, I'd probably have to have some reasoning as to why it would be more beneficial than learning a 2 handed backhand.

[5263]

Originally Posted by WesternCK

First off, my apologies if someone has already pointed out what I'm about to say. I've read the first 6-7 pages or so but then only glossed over the next few pages.

In my opinion, I think the reason that so many teaching professionals out there teach the two handed backhand is fairly simple. It has been touched on throughout this thread but as far as I know, no one has really stated it as being the main reason. Similar to the fact that "linear movement" has been replaced by "angular movement" when it comes to the modern game, I believe that the dominance of the 2 handed backhand in the modern era comes along from the same transition in the sport. As has been stated, the footwork necessary to execute a proper 1 handed backhand is more difficult than that of the two handed backhand. One can execute a 2 handed backhand with a variety of stances and still generate some type of aggressive shot whereas this is more difficult when executing say, a 1 hand backhand with an open stance. Tie this in with the POWER in the modern game and I believe that you have the reason that the 2 hander has become the predominant choice of both players who play on their own but more importantly teaching professionals who have fully embraced teaching the modern game.

So to sum it all up, I believe that the power in today's game is the main reason that two hand backhands are the most predominantly taught stroke by teaching professionals, regardless of the age of their students. Obviously individual attention should be paid to those who exhibit solid footwork and prefer the one handed backhand, but to me it is no surprise that the vast majority of teaching professionals teach the two handed backhand, regardless of the age of their students.

Interesting post and it got me thinking. I think the 2 hander positioning/footwork
is tougher, but maybe that is because I came to it from the 1 hander.
Also I think the one hander is more powerful and is just as much as part of the
modern strokes as the 2 hander. So while you made some interesting points,
I don't think they hold up...at least imo.

[rkelley]

Originally Posted by 5263

Interesting post and it got me thinking. I think the 2 hander positioning/footwork
is tougher, but maybe that is because I came to it from the 1 hander.
Also I think the one hander is more powerful and is just as much as part of the
modern strokes as the 2 hander. So while you made some interesting points,
I don't think they hold up...at least imo.

I agree that positioning and foot work on the 2hbh is generally more difficult. The 2hbh has a shorter contact zone and you're just generally more constrained with it. Low, short balls can be hard. But I think a key point is that when you are out of position with a 2hbh you can muscle the ball over more easily and still hit a decent, if not great shot. I believe this is the big draw initially for beginning players and players who never develop proper foot work and positioning.

I think this is also the reason it's so good with return of serve. When someone's pounding a ball at you at +100 mph with different spins you often have to make last minute adjustments very quickly. It's a lot easier to do that with a 2hbh and still get some pop on the return.

When you have time to set-up and let it rip it's pretty impressive how much rhs a player can generate with a 1hbh, which ends up as some combination of pace and spin.

Having always taught in a northern climate, I can say that time constraints are a major issue here...The learning curve is typically longer with a one hander. Often times, significantly.

If a 10 or 11 year old shows some promise, realistically, a coach has only a few years to get them to a level of higher caliber tournament play..Tough to do, whithin a couple hrs a week..

Couldn't disagree more, with those that suggest the one hander is easier in terms of the footwork, especially with a child, who is both physically weak, and height challenged. The real disadvantage with the 1hander for such a player is the limited strike height available. They just can't operate much above the waist, whereas with two hands, they can absolutely crush chest to shoulder height balls. It just takes a lot longer for a kid (even with a high tennis I.Q) to work around this problem, and again, time is not really an option. Besides, it's not really that hard to teach a kid to volley (off the backhand) and learn to slice with one hand.

I would maybe change my thinking, if working in an academy, or having access to a kid more than a few hrs a week. Just the reality of the situation for most.

Having said this, I do think, if given time, the one hander is asthetically more pleasing, and has the potential to develope in a more well rounded way.

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by chico9166

Couldn't disagree more, with those that suggest the one hander is easier in terms of the footwork, especially with a child, who is both physically weak, and height challenged. The real disadvantage with the 1hander for such a player is the limited strike height available. They just can't operate much above the waist,

This was the point of my original post, the height issue is reduced with the advent of mini-tennis balls - the rationale behind graduated mini-tennis is the ball is consistently in the players strike zone at whichever stage of development they are at. Therefore the same pro's and con's should apply at say mini orange as do at yellow - that's what i'd be interested to see.

[julian]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

This was the point of my original post, the height issue is reduced with the advent of mini-tennis balls - the rationale behind graduated mini-tennis is the ball is consistently in the players strike zone at whichever stage of development they are at. Therefore the same pro's and con's should apply at say mini orange as do at yellow - that's what i'd be interested to see.

The only issue left is like that-what do you do NEXT after you start with 1bh?
Do you go to 2bh?

[doctor dennis]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

This was the point of my original post, the height issue is reduced with the advent of mini-tennis balls - the rationale behind graduated mini-tennis is the ball is consistently in the players strike zone at whichever stage of development they are at. Therefore the same pro's and con's should apply at say mini orange as do at yellow - that's what i'd be interested to see.

In all the mini tennis I've seen there are only 2 boys that use the one hander. As lots of people have mentioned the ball very rarely is out of a comfortable strike zone for them. It is a perfect opportunity to get the mechanics drilled in.
I don't know why more coaches don't utilise this opportunity.
The way things are going, I think the one hander will be obsolete soon. (10 years) That is just my opinion though.

[julian]

Originally Posted by 5263

Interesting post and it got me thinking. I think the 2 hander positioning/footwork
is tougher, but maybe that is because I came to it from the 1 hander.
Also I think the one hander is more powerful and is just as much as part of the
modern strokes as the 2 hander. So while you made some interesting points,
I don't think they hold up...at least imo.

Reading about recovery time would help

[boramiNYC]

even with those balls, the contact point will vary albeit less so than regular ball. increasing versatility of the 1hbh stroke itself is the most effective way to boost the confidence for the players at any level. it's the common instructions that cause discomfort in dealing with higher balls. take a look at gasquet, almagro, guga, henin, and their take backs and arm coil, they deal with higher balls more effectively than most other 1hbh. I believe the high take back and flatter swing path (this doesn't mean flat shot) should become the main swing path in instructions, which makes torso and shoulder level balls normal range.

[boramiNYC]

1hbh footwork and stance must be very precise for it to work properly. open stance is more detrimental to 1hbh than to 2hbh. in terms of footwork 2hbh is much more flexible esp in lower than pro level. but most pros don't settle with the flexible footwork instead they hit closed as much as they can, which becomes just as precise as 1hbh footwork at pro level. a lot of kids just cannot handle such stringent footwork requirement of 1hbh to begin with.

[julian]

Originally Posted by doctor dennis

In all the mini tennis I've seen there are only 2 boys that use the one hander. As lots of people have mentioned the ball very rarely is out of a comfortable strike zone for them. It is a perfect opportunity to get the mechanics drilled in.
I don't know why more coaches don't utilise this opportunity.
The way things are going, I think the one hander will be obsolete soon. (10 years) That is just my opinion though.

Reading post #165 would help

[julian]

Originally Posted by rkelley

I agree that positioning and foot work on the 2hbh is generally more difficult. The 2hbh has a shorter contact zone and you're just generally more constrained with it. Low, short balls can be hard. But I think a key point is that when you are out of position with a 2hbh you can muscle the ball over more easily and still hit a decent, if not great shot. I believe this is the big draw initially for beginning players and players who never develop proper foot work and positioning.

I think this is also the reason it's so good with return of serve. When someone's pounding a ball at you at +100 mph with different spins you often have to make last minute adjustments very quickly. It's a lot easier to do that with a 2hbh and still get some pop on the return.

When you have time to set-up and let it rip it's pretty impressive how much rhs a player can generate with a 1hbh, which ends up as some combination of pace and spin.

please read
http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.php...les&Itemid=173
The issue of "distance" covered overthere

Originally Posted by boramiNYC

1hbh footwork and stance must be very precise for it to work properly. open stance is more detrimental to 1hbh than to 2hbh. in terms of footwork 2hbh is much more flexible esp in lower than pro level. but most pros don't settle with the flexible footwork instead they hit closed as much as they can, which becomes just as precise as 1hbh footwork at pro level. a lot of kids just cannot handle such stringent footwork requirement of 1hbh to begin with.

Agreed. Have no idea what those who suggest the footwork on 1 handers are somehow easier or more flexable are talking about...

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

This was the point of my original post, the height issue is reduced with the advent of mini-tennis balls - the rationale behind graduated mini-tennis is the ball is consistently in the players strike zone at whichever stage of development they are at. Therefore the same pro's and con's should apply at say mini orange as do at yellow - that's what i'd be interested to see.

Right, and only time will tell. Pro's like myself will definately have to rethink there approach.. In my case, (working in a colder climate, will limited weekly access) I doubt i will teach many one handers (unless there are clear, mitigating circumstances) as it is quite obvious to me that the one hander has a longer learning curve.

Besides, having watched thousands of college matches, the two hander is the overwhelming choice. The argument that the one hander constitues the highest percentage of the the very elite in pro tennis, is irrellevent to me.

In most cases, I have a few years to get a kid into college level abilities (whatever division that may be) and the two hander is just (in most cases) much quicker to master.

[doctor dennis]

Originally Posted by julian

Reading post #165 would help

So if I've understood it correctly. Only talented kids can / are going to be taught the OHBH? Or only those within an academy playing regularly?
Does this mean that the one hander is surviving by a thread then as there are not going to be many opportunities to find any kids thaf fit this criteria to teach.

Originally Posted by doctor dennis

So if I've understood it correctly. Only talented kids can / are going to be taught the OHBH? Or only those within an academy playing regularly?
Does this mean that the one hander is surviving by a thread then as there are not going to be many opportunities to find any kids thaf fit this criteria to teach.

Just sharing my experience. And I can tell you this, that teaching well has little to do with one's own preference. Truth is, I play one handed, love the looks of a one hander, buy into the fact it can lead to, perhaps, a more well rounded game etc. But in my case, I would be doing an injustice to the kids if i forced that on them........just saying.

The difference between arm chair theory, and building games in a relatively short time, within the time constraints mentioned is real.

[rkelley]

Originally Posted by rkelley

I agree that positioning and foot work on the 2hbh is generally more difficult. The 2hbh has a shorter contact zone and you're just generally more constrained with it. Low, short balls can be hard. But I think a key point is that when you are out of position with a 2hbh you can muscle the ball over more easily and still hit a decent, if not great shot. I believe this is the big draw initially for beginning players and players who never develop proper foot work and positioning.

I think this is also the reason it's so good with return of serve. When someone's pounding a ball at you at +100 mph with different spins you often have to make last minute adjustments very quickly. It's a lot easier to do that with a 2hbh and still get some pop on the return.

When you have time to set-up and let it rip it's pretty impressive how much rhs a player can generate with a 1hbh, which ends up as some combination of pace and spin.

Originally Posted by julian

please read
http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.php...les&Itemid=173
The issue of "distance" covered overthere

Julian, thanks for the response. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "distance." The word never appears in my post. I read the link that you posted and "distance" only appears once in reference to lateral reach. I never discussed lateral reach in my post.

Interesting article. I don't agree with all of its conclusions. Specifically the section on "racket velocity." The article said:

Racket Velocity: Which of the two backhand techniques is capable of producing higher racket velocities at impact? Historically, the production of high racket velocities was believed to require the radius of rotation to be as long as possible and the swinging movement to occur through the greatest arc; characteristics clearly favouring the one handed technique. However, the shorter hitting radius of the two handed stroke provides for greater angular velocities of the racket head at impact, and potentially higher linear velocities (and therefore post-impact ball velocity) at the impact position.

The article references radii of rotation the key element to raquect velocity, and then makes the point (that to me seems unsupported) that " . . . the shorter hitting radius of the two handed stroke provides for greater angular velocities of the racket head at impact." I don't think this is good analysis. I think the physics and biomechanics of a human swinging a racquet are far more complicated than looking at one factor like hitting radius.

Given that we're not writing a treatise on the biomechanics of generating maximum racquet speed, I think a better way to think about this is to go to some life experience. If a person swings a thin, light stick, I think most people would say that they could swing it the fastest with one hand, not two. I think this is because the freedom provided by one hand will allow a person "whip" the stick. OTOH, if a person swings a heavy baseball bat, most people would say that they could swing it the fastest with two hands, not one. I think this is because while all of the freedom of one hand is still available, the bat is too heavy for a person to whip it with one hand. The extra strength and leverage that someone gains by using the other hand outweighs the loss of freedom of movement.

A tennis racquet, I think, is kind of in a transition zone with respect to whether it's a stick or a bat. IMO (with all of the lack of scientific experimentation and analysis that is implied in that statement), for the average adult male, if the only consideration is generating maximum racquet head speed, a tennis racquet is more like a stick than a bat. With proper technique an adult male can generate more racquet speed with one hand than two on the backhand (or forehand). I'm not so sure about the average female, though I suspect for a lot of women the same would be true.

[rkelley]

Originally Posted by chico9166

Besides, having watched thousands of college matches, the two hander is the overwhelming choice.

Back when I was learning the same was true of the one hander. After several years in junior high and high school of hitting a lousy one hander (no instruction - I knew it wasn't right but I didn't know what to do to fix it), I switched to a 2hbh. Like most I had immediate success with it. 30 years later everyone hits a 2hbh now. Cool, but it might switch back.

I know how to hit both now. I still use a 2hbh but I think I could make either work well for me. As 5263 said the one area where it's hard not to see a disadvantage to the 1hbh is return of serve. Against a good serve you only have a few hundred milliseconds to set-up, and good servers can make things happen after the ball bounces that you have to adjust to.

[julian]

Originally Posted by rkelley

Julian, thanks for the response. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "distance." The word never appears in my post. I read the link that you posted and "distance" only appears once in reference to lateral reach. I never discussed lateral reach in my post.

Interesting article. I don't agree with all of its conclusions. Specifically the section on "racket velocity." The article said:

Racket Velocity: Which of the two backhand techniques is capable of producing higher racket velocities at impact? Historically, the production of high racket velocities was believed to require the radius of rotation to be as long as possible and the swinging movement to occur through the greatest arc; characteristics clearly favouring the one handed technique. However, the shorter hitting radius of the two handed stroke provides for greater angular velocities of the racket head at impact, and potentially higher linear velocities (and therefore post-impact ball velocity) at the impact position.

The article references radii of rotation the key element to raquect velocity, and then makes the point (that to me seems unsupported) that " . . . the shorter hitting radius of the two handed stroke provides for greater angular velocities of the racket head at impact." I don't think this is good analysis. I think the physics and biomechanics of a human swinging a racquet are far more complicated than looking at one factor like hitting radius.

Given that we're not writing a treatise on the biomechanics of generating maximum racquet speed, I think a better way to think about this is to go to some life experience. If a person swings a thin, light stick, I think most people would say that they could swing it the fastest with one hand, not two. I think this is because the freedom provided by one hand will allow a person "whip" the stick. OTOH, if a person swings a heavy baseball bat, most people would say that they could swing it the fastest with two hands, not one. I think this is because while all of the freedom of one hand is still available, the bat is too heavy for a person to whip it with one hand. The extra strength and leverage that someone gains by using the other hand outweighs the loss of freedom of movement.

A tennis racquet, I think, is kind of in a transition zone with respect to whether it's a stick or a bat. IMO (with all of the lack of scientific experimentation and analysis that is implied in that statement), for the average adult male, if the only consideration is generating maximum racquet head speed, a tennis racquet is more like a stick than a bat. With proper technique an adult male can generate more racquet speed with one hand than two on the backhand (or forehand). I'm not so sure about the average female, though I suspect for a lot of women the same would be true.

Greetings,
1.Let say that the backhand is modeled after
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPBM-hE1Dhw

2.Let me rephrase your question if I may-
what is a speed of the racket head AT THE CONTACT for the model described by the LINK ABOVE
what is a possible racket head speed at the contact for the above video?
3.The link above does NOT stress the RADIUS VARIABLE