One handed backhand thread: value, technique and else

[JRstriker12]

Win or lose Stan is making a nice argument for the one hander being able to compete in today's game right now in Aus. Open.

[Relinquis]

He was amazing, especially on the backhand side. I like how he doesn't wrap his overgrip the whole way up the handle. Nice touch, although not as extreme as Gasquet's method.

4 out of the round of 16 at the Australian Open are single-handed backhanders. How does that compare to the general percentage on tour or in the top 100?

[JRstriker12]

Originally Posted by Relinquis

He was amazing, especially on the backhand side. I like how he doesn't wrap his overgrip the whole way up the handle. Nice touch, although not as extreme as Gasquet's method.

4 out of the round of 16 at the Australian Open are single-handed backhanders. How does that compare to the general percentage on tour or in the top 100?

I think at one point Stan had twice as many back hand winners are Djoker did and Djoker has an effing mean backhand!

[Wilander Fan]

Originally Posted by Orange614

I think that Mac, Edberg, and Lendl could punish returns because serves weren't as big and had less spin. The Balls Fed (and all the other players are seeing) are faster and move much up and down and side to side.

I think the 1hbh return is tricky because you have to get completely turned with the right shoulder in front and you need to '****' your wrist back to hit a bigger backhand return with 1hbh as opposed to 2hbh where the right and left wrist can stay firm. The serves are coming so fast there is not enough time to do either of the things above that are necessary to punish a 1hbh. While the 3 guys above didn't '****' the wrist back like players today they could at least get turned and have their right shoulder in front.

I think serves were actually bigger back then. The indoor courts looked like they were made of hard slick rubber and the hard courts were basically paint. 50% first serve % was considered OK since you won every one of those points. Now you see 70% and even 80% as the balls are spinning in.

[JRstriker12]

Originally Posted by Wilander Fan

I think serves were actually bigger back then. The indoor courts looked like they were made of hard slick rubber and the hard courts were basically paint. 50% first serve % was considered OK since you won every one of those points. Now you see 70% and even 80% as the balls are spinning in.

Serves bigger? Don't quite think so. IMHO - guys can hit it about as hard, if not harder but with a bit more spin.

Serves more adventitious to the server? Most definitely! Smaller headed sticks, no poly, and faster surfaces would have made it a bit easier to hold IMHO.

[BevelDevil]

Here's a topical question:

Are 1-handers more prone to choking? It would make sense, seeing how the 1hbh is a bigger, faster, more free-flowing stroke. Any bit of tightness could have pronounced effects.

Originally Posted by Relinquis

4 out of the round of 16 at the Australian Open are single-handed backhanders. How does that compare to the general percentage on tour or in the top 100?

I think 20% of the top 100 have a 1hbh, so that's about representative.

[luvforty]

Originally Posted by BevelDevil

Here's a topical question:

Are 1-handers more prone to choking?

what does Fed do in a tight situation, he runs a lot more and hits the run-around fh a lot more..... that tells you something

yes, it is more prone to choking... Almagro's broke down.

Wawrinka's didn't... because his stroke is intrinsically more superior.

[10isfreak]

Originally Posted by luvforty

what does Fed do in a tight situation, he runs a lot more and hits the run-around fh a lot more..... that tells you something

yes, it is more prone to choking... Almagro's broke down.

Wawrinka's didn't... because his stroke is intrinsically more superior.

It tells you that Federer doesn't thrust his backhand as much as his forehand... That doesn't necessarily relate to the one handed backhand being, in itself, less of a potent stroke.

[luvforty]

oh less potent i am sure

we don't mate with our partner on our back lol... humans are built to have weaker backhands.

[10isfreak]

Originally Posted by BevelDevil

Here's a topical question:

Are 1-handers more prone to choking? It would make sense, seeing how the 1hbh is a bigger, faster, more free-flowing stroke. Any bit of tightness could have pronounced effects.

The one handed backhand is not bigger, faster and more free-flowing. The only serious study I read on the subject presented both strokes as equally complex and capable of generating roughly the same kind of pace. And it does make sense: take Gasquet, Almagro, Wawrinka, Federer... they all hit backhands above the 90's for winners (Gasquet breaks the three digits every now and then), exactly like on their forehand side and exactly like any other player who uses a different backhand.

Arrived at maturity, a player with either stroke might actually present very comparable score sheets. You might ask why would Federer have trouble with his backhand?

Well, watch his career. He is now better off that wing than he ever been, even when he piled up over 80 wins in a single season. If you recall, Federer didn't hit big returns in his early career: he was a monster at the baseline, so it made sense to be very conservative on the return of serve. Likewise, if you were the owners of his forehand and could move like him, would you resist hitting an inside-out forehand when you can afford to?

Federer took the very "bad" habit of running around all the time, of slicing when it wasn't necessary and of not attacking the return of serve as much as a normal player should. He barely ever played a match with the intent of using his top spin backhand purposefully until very recently... It's very clear that until he begun challenging his backhand, he could not handle as much off that wing -- it's one of those things which ultimately dooms every champion: you have to be pushed beyond your comfort zone to improve; if not, you regress.

Federer lived with ups and downs off that wing for years, but if you watch Wawrinka, it's a different story. One of the key things behind getting confident and solid is to commit yourself to doing it, even if it costs you the match... Wawrinka doesn't fool around too much with his court positioning and he commits himself to backhand rallies when necessary. Now, he can even handle Djokovic and have a chance to win the rally and we rarely see a bad backhand day from Wawrinka.

Federer now commits to hitting more backhand, commits to staying in a neutral rally. He always disliked hitting backhand rallies, always worked his way around it and that's a primary cause of mistakes: he kept trying to hit big shots when he didn't have the right ball to do it; he kept trying to change direction when he wasn't in good position to do it... He was a less exaggerated version of our amateur ball bashers on the backhand side: so frightened at the idea of having to keep up with an other player and so uncomfortable with that backhand, he figured out he'd just "gun it," going for broke way too often.

[10isfreak]

Originally Posted by luvforty

oh less potent i am sure

we don't mate with our partner on our back lol... humans are built to have weaker backhands.

I was comparing both backhands, not their backhands and their forehand when I worded it this way. As for weaker, Gasquet has struck a 106 mph backhand at the French Open against Murray not so long ago... I can't recall the year, but I'll never forget the number. I do not know what you have to say regarding this, but I barely ever saw a forehand that was struck this hard. I have seen a few 100 mph forehands, even 105, but above that mark exist only a handful of examples.

To make a fair call on these, I'd need a few backhand and forehand to build two samples. Say, between 20 and 30 of each, numbered in mph and I'd take only winners because I want to compare their respective output. Assuming the distribution is normal to save time, I can tell you if the difference between their respective means is big enough to say which is better. I might actually do it someday if I feel like wasting time gathering data on that subject.

[Relinquis]

it sure is better looking... the single hander.

it is the rare double hander that doesn't look slightly feminine...

[BevelDevil]

Originally Posted by 10isfreak

The one handed backhand is not bigger, faster and more free-flowing.

it's definitely "bigger" in that the stroke is longer. On the backswing the rackethead is further back when it goes horizonal. And at contact the ball is further forward and away from the body. All this adds up to is a longer stroke.

I don't have direct data on the "faster" part, but it makes sense that a longer stroke has more speed potential, especially when it is coupled with a lot of supination, which is usually is. The "strike zone" may be smaller, but within that strike zone I think the 1hbh is faster.

"Free flowing" is more subjective, however, many people prefer the 1hbh because it feels more free flowing. I've never heard someone say they like the 2hbh because it is more free flowing.