Power potential 1HBH vs 2HBH

[dominikk1985]

What do you think? I think the 2HBH is better for an power hitter since it is better at toleration pace/depth and taking balls early but I think when it comes to killing a "sitting ball" the 1HBH generates more RHS and power.

I would even say there are are very rare cases in which 1HBHs match the RHS of good FHs. you can swing more freely then the 2HBH and hit more out front (longer swing path-which of course can hurt you against depth or pace).

what do you think?

[luvforty]

does it matter if it's a sitting ball ?

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by luvforty

does it matter if it's a sitting ball ?

Well sitting is relative. I'm more talking about a slightly defensive to neutral rally ball. against those power can matter, although placement is more important than a few MPH.

however the topic here is not about how important power is but which can create more power.

[PhrygianDominant]

I firmly believe that under perfect conditions (height of bounce, preparation, technique, etc...) the one hander is better. Sadly, your opponent is trying to make your life difficult, and therefore that never happens. Since this thread is hypothetical, and we are talking of potential and not real world application in realistc settings, the one hander will win. In all practical applications, the 2hbh will be better if the player has a one handed slice.

[martini1]

I could never crash the ball flat and bang it in with 1h. IMHO even if you have the time to do a full swing and hit way in front the ball cannot be as hard and as flat vs 2h. With the 2h you can use torso turn and legs to punch it.

[luvforty]

have to vote the 2h also..... if you ask a baseball player to hit a tee-ed up ball, he will use 2 hands..

if you ask a golfer to hit a tee shot, and only count the ones hit on the screws, he will still use 2 hands.

[Relinquis]

Originally Posted by luvforty

have to vote the 2h also..... if you ask a baseball player to hit a tee-ed up ball, he will use 2 hands..

if you ask a golfer to hit a tee shot, and only count the ones hit on the screws, he will still use 2 hands.

by this reasoning, do you hit your forehands double handed as well?

[luvforty]

Originally Posted by Relinquis

by this reasoning, do you hit your forehands double handed as well?

if reach and switching the hands around are not an issue... yes.

but that's a big if in tennis.

[marosmith]

One hander has more power someone posted a scientific measurement of the power potential on here a year or two back.

[pvaudio]

As said, from a physics perspective, the 1H actually has a lot more power potential. In reality, no one is biomechanical, and the difference in ease is going to crop up with the 1H. It's like slapping a huge turbocharger on a small engine. You have no torque to get the engine up to speed in order to spool the turbo and access its power advantage. The 2HBH in this scenario would be a centrifugal supercharger. Although your more cramped body position robs you of some potential power, the fact that it's more or less always available and only gets easier to generate with easier incoming shots makes it a better choice for many.

[pvaudio]

Originally Posted by luvforty

have to vote the 2h also..... if you ask a baseball player to hit a tee-ed up ball, he will use 2 hands..

if you ask a golfer to hit a tee shot, and only count the ones hit on the screws, he will still use 2 hands.

This is not a fair comparison. The power generated here is from the amount of torque you can generate. A one handed stroke will generate more torque. The problem is whether or not you are able to generate it due to your technique. In golf and baseball, you can't accelerate the equipment with one hand because what you're using has an enormous moment of inertia (the club head or the end of the baseball bat). In tennis and other racquet sports, this does not apply.

[Thepowerofchoice]

Originally Posted by pvaudio

As said, from a physics perspective, the 1H actually has a lot more power potential. In reality, no one is biomechanical, and the difference in ease is going to crop up with the 1H. It's like slapping a huge turbocharger on a small engine. You have no torque to get the engine up to speed in order to spool the turbo and access its power advantage. The 2HBH in this scenario would be a centrifugal supercharger. Although your more cramped body position robs you of some potential power, the fact that it's more or less always available and only gets easier to generate with easier incoming shots makes it a better choice for many.

I like this analogy. ^^^

Also I like to add that even physics suggested that 1 hbh has a lot more power potential but it is a bit tougher for our body to stop the end of the range of motion (1hbh) and keep it from loosing balance. There are many reasons for this...tight hip flexors, weak glutes, tight pecs, muscular imbalance etc and of course improper technique. Just my 2 cents.

It's like you are driving a Ferrari with a weak breaking system so you can't and wouldn't want to go very fast.

[pvaudio]

Exactly. Potential is only as good for as much of it you can use.

[luvforty]

Originally Posted by pvaudio

This is not a fair comparison. The power generated here is from the amount of torque you can generate. A one handed stroke will generate more torque. The problem is whether or not you are able to generate it due to your technique. In golf and baseball, you can't accelerate the equipment with one hand because what you're using has an enormous moment of inertia (the club head or the end of the baseball bat). In tennis and other racquet sports, this does not apply.

try swing a modern driver with superlite shaft, doesn't feel much different from a tennis racket.

on the other hand (no pun), with 2hbh you have this leverage thing between the 2 hands.

[martini1]

And yet I have not seen a player who can hit flat 1hbh in the 90-100 mph range. One cannot take advantage of power train. Many can swing 2hbh like a left hand fh.

[5263]

Originally Posted by martini1

And yet I have not seen a player who can hit flat 1hbh in the 90-100 mph range. One cannot take advantage of power train. Many can swing 2hbh like a left hand fh.

Well I have hit in the low 90's with some TS on my one hander and mine isn't
that exceptional. I think breaking 85 would be tough for me on a 2 hander.
Maybe I'm not a great example. I went to the 2 hander for returning big serves
in dubs and don't think hitting over 80 is something I will use very often.

[Xizel]

Originally Posted by martini1

And yet I have not seen a player who can hit flat 1hbh in the 90-100 mph range. One cannot take advantage of power train. Many can swing 2hbh like a left hand fh.

The pro one handers on tour. Plenty.

[10isfreak]

Originally Posted by martini1

And yet I have not seen a player who can hit flat 1hbh in the 90-100 mph range. One cannot take advantage of power train. Many can swing 2hbh like a left hand fh.

Federer routinely breaks 90 mph on winners. As for the 100 marks, I have seen Gasquet hit a 106 mph backhand winner against Murray at the French Open. Can't recall when it happened, but he did demolish the three digits -- probably even more than once during that same match.

However, great two handed backhands also get that high in terms of mph. I would say that hitting the one handed backhand might give you a slight edge in terms of hitting out on a ball purely and simply because of the muscles that are involved in the exercise... The real edge a two handed backhand has is consistency.

Players using two hands often outperform their forehands in terms of consistency, making fewer mistakes off their backhands. However, they also hit a lot less winners. As for power, it happens that I have seen players hitting big using either backhand technique as theirs. For one handed backhands, I might pick Haas as a notable example of power during rallies. He has shown greater consistency than Gasquet in that regard, doesn't stand ten feet behind the baseline to hit it -- like Gasquet. Federer isn't bad either and might look weaker than he is because of the opponents he often faces. For two hands, my favorite remains Nalbaldian. He just demolishes the ball with it...

If I circumscribe the question to amateurs, I am wondering where to draw the line. It's nearly impossible as a recreational player to be bothered by the heft of heavy spin and shoulder high balls given that virtually no one will hit that hard during an entire match. All things kept in proportions, amateurs would be more comparable to women than men wherein the one handed backhand may not be a liability, but an advantage.

[pvaudio]

Originally Posted by luvforty

try swing a modern driver with superlite shaft, doesn't feel much different from a tennis racket.

on the other hand (no pun), with 2hbh you have this leverage thing between the 2 hands.

No, that's exactly the point. It's a long beam, where almost all of the mass is right at the end. A tennis racquet is made to be either balanced and with the balance towards the handle to allow you to swing more quickly. Head heavy racquets are made for those with slow swing speeds.

[TennisCJC]

Nalbandian, Safin, Agassi, and Djoko are great at generating power on a rally/sitter ball with 2 HBH.

Federer, Wawrinka, Ree-chard, Haas, and Almagro are great with 1 HBH.

I voted equal but can see the argument for the 1 HBH as it is basically a longer lever and more flowing stroke. But, as good as all those 1 HBH are, I might take Nalbandian, Djoko and Safin to dispose of short balls better on the BH side. Heck, Djoko kills Nadal by stepping and hitting his 2 hander either hard up the line or hard CC.