One Handed Backhand vs Two Handed Backhand

[Relinquis]

Roger Federer played squash as a kid/teenager. There is no two handed backhand in squash because you have to change direction quickly.

Wawrinka, Almagro, Gasquet, Roger GOAT Federer are all playing top tennis with their single handers. How can one argue that it is inferior? I would love to see an empirical/longitudinal study on single handed backhands. Surely someone is collecting this data at the juniors, college and pro levels.

I don't see the "easy to learn" as a valid point. Any tennis player who is worried about which shot is the best is going to spend time honing his/her skills.

More important question: Why do Americans, at the pro level, have such poor backhands regardless of how many hands they use?

[BevelDevil]

Originally Posted by johnchung907

Excuse me good sir but even on the professional levels, two-handers seem to be faster.

You started off using evidence from your own game, but after I questioned your logic you started talking about the pros instead. I'll take this to mean you're conceding the point from my last post (see my last post).

Originally Posted by johnchung907

Oh yeah maybe you haven't heard of marat safin... or david nalbandian. And trust me I heard of richard gasquet and roger federer.

Those are very selective comparisons.

Safin and Nalbandian are on the short list of all-time great 2hbh. Whereas Federer should not be on the same list for 1hbhs, certainly not for power. And Gasquet's bh is overrated. He can make an occasional highlight reel, but based on his normal exchanges I don't think he should be on the GOAT list.

Both Federer and Gasquet tend to hit spinny balls. For consistent power I prefer both Almagro and Wawrinka's bhs.

As for Marat Safin, he was a big, powerful guy (6'4" and strong). He should be able to crush the ball with a 2hbh from his physique alone.

As for Nalbandian, while he isn't tall, keep in mind he does have very broad shoulders. I think one of the things that makes his bh great isn't just pace, but rather his ability to hit consistently deep.

Here's his GOAT-contender 2hbh against a good 1hbh of another mature player (Haas). I don't think it's clear that Nalby's hitting much faster than Haas. And if he is, it's because Haas doesn't hit as hard as Wawrinka (sadly, I can't find good-quality videos of Nalb v. Waw).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGithO8nzag


Since you've mentioned a big, strong player (Safin), I'll go the other way and mention a tiny one: Justine Henin. She was generating at least as much power as her rivals on the bh wing, yet she was much smaller and lighter than any of them. There's no way should could have generated more power using a 2hbh.

[TennisCJC]

Most people list Djoko, Agassi, and Connors when listing all time best returns of serve. All 2 handed players. Borg also had a great 2 HBH return of serve.

I think 2 HBH is better. Easier to hit aggresive topspin shot, can be hit later, can be hit easier in open stances, can be hit with smaller swings, better for high balls and can be learned faster.

1 HBH is prettier and lends itself to slices, low and wide balls. But, you have to hit the ball farther out front, you have to hit from neutral of closed stances and harder to handle high balls.

[luvforty]

dead threads coming back to life, this is what happens in winter lol.

I am surprised by the poll results.... i hit 1hbh, but have to say the 2hbh is better.

the all time greats - they are all time greats DESPITE of their 1hbh, not BECAUSE OF it.

1hbh is only better for people who can't hit 2hbh.

[johnchung907]

Originally Posted by BevelDevil

You started off using evidence from your own game, but after I questioned your logic you started talking about the pros instead. I'll take this to mean you're conceding the point from my last post (see my last post).




Those are very selective comparisons.

Safin and Nalbandian are on the short list of all-time great 2hbh. Whereas Federer should not be on the same list for 1hbhs, certainly not for power. And Gasquet's bh is overrated. He can make an occasional highlight reel, but based on his normal exchanges I don't think he should be on the GOAT list.

Both Federer and Gasquet tend to hit spinny balls. For consistent power I prefer both Almagro and Wawrinka's bhs.

As for Marat Safin, he was a big, powerful guy (6'4" and strong). He should be able to crush the ball with a 2hbh from his physique alone.

As for Nalbandian, while he isn't tall, keep in mind he does have very broad shoulders. I think one of the things that makes his bh great isn't just pace, but rather his ability to hit consistently deep.

Here's his GOAT-contender 2hbh against a good 1hbh of another mature player (Haas). I don't think it's clear that Nalby's hitting much faster than Haas. And if he is, it's because Haas doesn't hit as hard as Wawrinka (sadly, I can't find good-quality videos of Nalb v. Waw).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGithO8nzag


Since you've mentioned a big, strong player (Safin), I'll go the other way and mention a tiny one: Justine Henin. She was generating at least as much power as her rivals on the bh wing, yet she was much smaller and lighter than any of them. There's no way should could have generated more power using a 2hbh.

Are you questioning my logic? All I'm saying is that the 2 hander is better. And no I do not have a weak one-handed backhand.

[johnchung907]

And even though henin's one handed backhand was marvelous but she still had a loosing record against serena williams and kim clijsters. Both had amazing 2-handed backhands.

[Fintft]

Originally Posted by luvforty

dead threads coming back to life, this is what happens in winter lol.

I am surprised by the poll results.... i hit 1hbh, but have to say the 2hbh is better.

the all time greats - they are all time greats DESPITE of their 1hbh, not BECAUSE OF it.

1hbh is only better for people who can't hit 2hbh.

Or could it be that the 1HBH people are more versatile?

[Fintft]

Originally Posted by Relinquis

Roger Federer played squash as a kid/teenager. There is no two handed backhand in squash because you have to change direction quickly.

Wawrinka, Almagro, Gasquet, Roger GOAT Federer are all playing top tennis with their single handers. How can one argue that it is inferior? I would love to see an empirical/longitudinal study on single handed backhands. Surely someone is collecting this data at the juniors, college and pro levels.

I don't see the "easy to learn" as a valid point. Any tennis player who is worried about which shot is the best is going to spend time honing his/her skills.

More important question: Why do Americans, at the pro level, have such poor backhands regardless of how many hands they use?

But it's clear that at the pros level, 1HBH is on the way out and I'm eager to bet that Roger is the last #1 with it alas!

Americans are bad all around lol. I only like Harrisson's serve and some of his game, but that's about it. Probably not enough clay courts?

[BevelDevil]

Originally Posted by johnchung907

And even though henin's one handed backhand was marvelous but she still had a loosing record against serena williams and kim clijsters. Both had amazing 2-handed backhands.

And Henin would have a better record against them and the field if she had a 2hbh?

[Fintft]

Originally Posted by BevelDevil

And Henin would have a better record against them and the field if she had a 2hbh?

Presuming that she could lift Safin's racquet, then yeah, maybe Although I love her 1HBH, feet alignment and all.

[always_crosscourt]

The major advantage the 1hbh has is topspin potential. There is so much more room to swing and accelerate the racket. You're unencumbered by two hands, so the wrist is freer to supinate and get a snappy whip on the ball, like on the modern forehand. The modern forehand is an evolution of the forehand, like the modern 'windshield-wiper' 1hbh is an evolution of the 1hbh.

In today's spin-driven game, if someone with a very strong posterior shoulder and wrist extensors comes along with a 1hbh backhand like Nadal's forehand AND has a forehand like Nadal's forehand he would be a true nightmare to play on any high-bouncing surface. He could change the game. He could hook people off the court from either wing.

By contrast, I don't see the 2hbh evolving at all. It's the same old dependable but linear shot it always was. For players with a big spinny forehand and a 2hbh, once the ball is on their bh wing, their options are limited. They don't have access to the same topspin, therefore they don't have the same angles. They try to stay in the point until someone dumps their bh into the net, or go DTL to get a forehand.

The 2hbh is more dependable for rally consistency and ROS, but I don't see it evolving. I don't see anyone hitting crazy topspin with it - the 2nd hand will always limit that.

Basically the 2hbh is easier to pick up, but the 1hbh has the higher ceiling as far as potential. And has a greater potential to evolve into a crazy spin beast of a shot.

[Fintft]

Originally Posted by always_crosscourt

The major advantage the 1hbh has is topspin potential. There is so much more room to swing and accelerate the racket. You're unencumbered by two hands, so the wrist is freer to supinate and get a snappy whip on the ball, like on the modern forehand. The modern forehand is an evolution of the forehand, like the modern 'windshield-wiper' 1hbh is an evolution of the 1hbh.

In today's spin-driven game, if someone with a very strong posterior shoulder and wrist extensors comes along with a 1hbh backhand like Nadal's forehand AND has a forehand like Nadal's forehand he would be a true nightmare to play on any high-bouncing surface. He could change the game. He could hook people off the court from either wing.

By contrast, I don't see the 2hbh evolving at all. It's the same old dependable but linear shot it always was. For players with a big spinny forehand and a 2hbh, once the ball is on their bh wing, their options are limited. They don't have access to the same topspin, therefore they don't have the same angles. They try to stay in the point until someone dumps their bh into the net, or go DTL to get a forehand.

The 2hbh is more dependable for rally consistency and ROS, but I don't see it evolving. I don't see anyone hitting crazy topspin with it - the 2nd hand will always limit that.

Basically the 2hbh is easier to pick up, but the 1hbh has the higher ceiling as far as potential. And has a greater potential to evolve into a crazy spin beast of a shot.

I see, nice! I'm still working to fulfill some of that potential

[Avles]

Originally Posted by always_crosscourt

For players with a big spinny forehand and a 2hbh, once the ball is on their bh wing, their options are limited. They don't have access to the same topspin, therefore they don't have the same angles.

Not so sure about that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0qrV6XyeTI&t=3m12s

[always_crosscourt]

Originally Posted by Avles

Not so sure about that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0qrV6XyeTI&t=3m12s

In that clip, Djokovic's flat hitting deep to the baseline causes Nadal to cough up a shorter ball. And then an even shorter ball. And finally Djokovic gets that angle because he's halfway up the court already. All the backhands he hit were relatively flat.

It's different from hooking someone off the court from your own baseline with viscous topspin. The backhand Federer hits at 0.08 in the following video is an example of that;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWoKA21Bm4k

...and Federer doesn't even hit nearly the most topspin anyone has ever hit with a 1hbh.

Let's be clear, the 2hbh is very good for taking the ball early, hitting it deep, changing directions and rallying consistently. These are all things that the 1hbh can also do, but it is much easier to accomplish them with the 2hbh. Currently, Djokovic is the best in the world at doing them.

However, hitting absolutely crazy amounts of topspin off the backhand is something only the 1hbh can do, because of the wrist range-of-motion, and the longer stroke allowing for more acceleration.

This is why I think that the 1hbh has the higher ceiling - with the 2hbh it is easier than a 1hbh to do 90% of the things a backhand can do, but there is a remaining 10% of things a backhand can do that can only be done with the 1hbh.

[BevelDevil]

I think the higher top spin potential of the 1hbh is one reason (or the reason) why the stroke seems to be more popular among clay courters. And perhaps this partly explains its demise in the U.S.

[corbind]

I'm a 1HBH guy but believe the 2HBH is the better shot to have from the baseline to service line. That's crazy in the poll the where the one hand is (so far) decidedly winning.

[always_crosscourt]

Originally Posted by corbind

I'm a 1HBH guy but believe the 2HBH is the better shot to have from the baseline to service line. That's crazy in the poll the where the one hand is (so far) decidedly winning.

So where would the 1hbh be better, then - at the net? When you're not using your backhand anymore, you're using a volley?

[Fintft]

Originally Posted by BevelDevil

I think the higher top spin potential of the 1hbh is one reason (or the reason) why the stroke seems to be more popular among clay courters. And perhaps this partly explains its demise in the U.S.

Makes sense!

One more question though: which one is more difficult to master?

[johnchung907]

Originally Posted by BevelDevil

I think the higher top spin potential of the 1hbh is one reason (or the reason) why the stroke seems to be more popular among clay courters. And perhaps this partly explains its demise in the U.S.

It may be more popular with the clay courters but it didn't produce the best clay court specialists. Borg and Nadal were the best clay courters and they have 2 handed backhands.

[LeeD]

I think clay offers you more time to prep your 1hbh than grass or cement, so 1hbh works on clay.
Since few players hit with MAXIMUM anything, 1 or 2 makes no difference if they can hit whichever way.
Player's have 2hbh because that's the way they learned tennis as little kids.