2 vs 1 handed BH superiority issue resolved

S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
“I’m here to stick up for double handers!” Murray wrote.
“The one handers are always said to be more beautiful, more artistic, poetic etc … but almost all the best backhands in the game are double handers.
“Almost all coaches say they would teach a double-handed backhand because it’s a more simple, effective and efficient technique.
“Art doesn’t need to be complex. There is beauty in simplicity. Double handers for the win!”


https://www.independent.ie/world-ne...-to-stick-up-for-double-handers-37385667.html
 
Moveforwardalways

Moveforwardalways

Hall of Fame
The 1HBH also produces a heavier ball with more pace and spin. It’s an offensive shot. The struggle is when defending or dealing with incoming heavy balls.
 
Slicerman

Slicerman

Professional
Moveforwardalways said:
The 1HBH also produces a heavier ball with more pace and spin. It’s an offensive shot. The struggle is when defending or dealing with incoming heavy balls.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. In many ways 1HBH is the "glass cannon" of tennis. I believe that 1HBH has higher power potential than a 2-hander. The stroke mechanics of a 1HBH can yield a super fast swing which can rival some forehands. The drawback is difficulty executing the shot in awkward positions, this is why 1hbh players tend to have better slice backhands because they have to use it more often. One player that comes to mind who can manage to hit the 1hbh in awkward positions is Dominic Thiem; a lot of the times he is improvising his shots and doing all these strange split second stance adjustments. In general 2-handers are not as strong, but that's why you see so many 2hbh players hit fairly flat to make up for power. The advantage of 2hbh is the ability to hit in awkward positions and make split second adjustments to compensate for unexpected bounces.
 
FiReFTW

FiReFTW

Legend
Slicerman said:
I agree with this. In many ways 1HBH is the "glass cannon" of tennis. I believe that 1HBH has higher power potential than a 2-hander. The stroke mechanics of a 1HBH can yield a super fast swing which can rival some forehands. The drawback is difficulty executing the shot in awkward positions, this is why 1hbh players tend to have better slice backhands because they have to use it more often. One player that comes to mind who can manage to hit the 1hbh in awkward positions is Dominic Thiem; a lot of the times he is improvising his shots and doing all these strange split second stance adjustments. In general 2-handers are not as strong, but that's why you see so many 2hbh players hit fairly flat to make up for power. The advantage of 2hbh is the ability to hit in awkward positions and make split second adjustments to compensate for unexpected bounces.
Click to expand...

Perfectly written.
 
user92626

user92626

G.O.A.T.
The strengths and weaknesses of 1hbh vs 2hbh pertain to the players that posses them, NOT the strokes themselves.

It's not possible to compare the strokes because you're only comparing the players. There are great and crappy players in both camps.
 
H

hurworld

Hall of Fame
Which begs the question. Are there pros who use both? 1hbh to attack slow ball, but switch to 2hbhs for fast/heavy balls?
 
R

red rook

Guest
It’s a known protocol in Rec tennis that when you see a one-hand backhand, your game plan is established...attack the backhand.

The return of serve is much easier with a 2hbh, particularly high bh’s. When I’m serving against a 1hbh, the ad side kick will get a healthy dose of s/v since I know a slice is imminent.

The 1hbh is awfully pretty though. I just nod my head in the affirmative when my opponent cracks one on a rope for a winner.
 
ChaelAZ

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
sureshs said:
“I’m here to stick up for double handers!” Murray wrote.
“The one handers are always said to be more beautiful, more artistic, poetic etc … but almost all the best backhands in the game are double handers.
“Almost all coaches say they would teach a double-handed backhand because it’s a more simple, effective and efficient technique.
“Art doesn’t need to be complex. There is beauty in simplicity. Double handers for the win!”


https://www.independent.ie/world-ne...-to-stick-up-for-double-handers-37385667.html
Click to expand...


Incorrect thread title.

Real message here is exactly what I have said all along. The popularity of the 2HBH has nothing to do with it being superior in any way, it is just easier (read more lucrative) for coaches to teach and they get quicker results to show parents.
 
QuadCam

QuadCam

Professional
The 2 hander is s much better shot for younger players. The 1hbh requires greater strength and timing.... Something most children aren't ready for. As such, you never see a coach teaching youth the 1hbh.

As an adult who has used both over the years, i can conclude the 1hbh is far more offensive. With time, i can hit any shot on the court with power, spi, or both. The 2hbh is by far the easier shot and much easier for service returns.
The 1hbh is the more natural shot for me... I just wished i learned it 30 years ago. I struggle the most with low, fast shots to my backhand. With a 2hbh , that's a simple flick back.
 
P

Pro Kenneth

Rookie
Why do the one handers I see in my own league look so bad then? I have never seen in the same court a good one hander. They are all horrible, even my teaching pro's is a defense only slice.
 
S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
LOL at club players thinking they know more than a multiple-Slam winner. Keep hitting those 1 handed weak shots off high topspin balls and losing.
 
S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
ChaelAZ said:
Incorrect thread title.

Real message here is exactly what I have said all along. The popularity of the 2HBH has nothing to do with it being superior in any way, it is just easier (read more lucrative) for coaches to teach and they get quicker results to show parents.
Click to expand...

No, the real message is that most good backhands are 2 handed. It is amazing how you pretend to not notice it.
 
ChaelAZ

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
sureshs said:
No, the real message is that most good backhands are 2 handed. It is amazing how you pretend to not notice it.
Click to expand...

I notice that more players now use 2hbh, not that they are any better thanthose that use 1hbh. I am surprised you pretend that more use somehow equates to better.

Of local coaches I know few have a one-handed backhand and most admit to teaching 2hbh becase it is what they know.
 
S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
ChaelAZ said:
I notice that more players now use 2hbh, not that they are any better thanthose that use 1hbh. I am surprised you pretend that more use somehow equates to better.

Of local coaches I know few have a one-handed backhand and most admit to teaching 2hbh becase it is what they know.
Click to expand...

It is not me, it is Murray. He has resolved the issue.

Remember how much Fed struggled against Nadal because of his weak backhand?
 
ChaelAZ

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
sureshs said:
It is not me, it is Murray. He has resolved the issue.

Remember how much Fed struggled against Nadal because of his weak backhand?
Click to expand...

So his struggle against one player, yet utter doinance over everyone else means his 1hbh is inferior? Again, prliferation and use of a 2hbh over 1hbh has never been about effectiveness, it is about ease of adoption and a quick payout for coaches when teaching it. Current numbers like @TennisCJC just posted support that, not that a 2hbh is superior.

Personally I think both are effective and it should be based on player ability. I kick myself for letting my son go to a 2hbh because he is a natural 1hbh. To this day he STILL drives us nuts because in the middle of points he will break out the 1hbh. Of course, I only get upset when it doesn't work.
 
F

fuzz nation

G.O.A.T.
Moveforwardalways said:
The 1HBH also produces a heavier ball with more pace and spin. It’s an offensive shot. The struggle is when defending or dealing with incoming heavy balls.
Click to expand...

That's why I use both. I really don't know where the idea of learning only one or the other comes from.

I think that the idea of learning only one or the other style of backhand runs along the same lines as somebody asserting that we should all only learn one sort of serve. Even in the realm of just the backhand stroke, a slice backhand is often considered to be an essential shot that everybody should learn regardless of what style of topspin backhand we might embrace. I'm personally on board with this line of thinking.

Each shot is another tool to be added to our skill sets. The only issue that I think is often overlooked is that most of us have a stronger aptitude for hitting either a one-hander or a two-hander. We can talk all day about which has the best features or aesthetics, but for a lot of us, it's simple easier to learn one or the other. On a case by case basis, the easier one is probably the better one for somebody who isn't going to learn both.
 
R

RetroSpin

Hall of Fame
The one hander has a higher offensive ceiling, but you need a really good slice to complement it. Otherwise, at the pro level, they can run around a slice BH and crush it with a FH. This is the reason the one handers we see on the Tour are all pretty much outstanding yet we see lots of average two handers. An average one hander is not going to cut it.
 
Rattler

Rattler

Hall of Fame
sureshs said:
It is not me, it is Murray. He has resolved the issue.

Remember how much Fed struggled against Nadal because of his weak backhand?
Click to expand...


??? He struggled with it because he wasn’t being agressive and attacking the ball before it got up to high on his backhand...once he did that, we was winning...because it took time away from Nadal. Case in point...2017.

Plus your statement is flawed, Fed’s backhand was hardly weak...if it was why was only Nadal able to exploit it for so much?

You’re citing the most extreme matchup example, Nadal is no common player...his ground strokes are hardly run of the mill. The topspin he generates is well out of the norm.
 
Last edited:
U

Ultra 2

Professional
Beauty has nothing to do with effective tennis although OHBH was favored by SV players from the past (Mac, Becker, Edberg, Sampras) and they were all pretty and effective. Maybe one correlates to other.. or maybe it's just coincidence. OHBH here because I learned that way and I also SV. That said, you get met more reach with the OH.
 
Rattler

Rattler

Hall of Fame
Ultra 2 said:
Beauty has nothing to do with effective tennis although OHBH was favored by SV players from the past (Mac, Becker, Edberg, Sampras) and they were all pretty and effective. Maybe one correlates to other.. or maybe it's just coincidence. OHBH here because I learned that way and I also SV. That said, you get met more reach with the OH.
Click to expand...

I believe you are correct. Racquet and string technology changed the game from the Sampras, Agassi, Courier and Chang era...

Serve and volley style has traditionally taken longer to develop in players...the baseline grinder and to an extent the agressive All- Courier (with huge approach shots and serviceable volleys) develop into effective players much sooner.

The increasing power of the game makes the choice to 2HBH much more appealing...two hands can handle the power and re-direct the stroke much easier and quicker (in development) than a single handed backhand player at the same stage in their playing.
 
U

Ultra 2

Professional
Rattler said:
I believe you are correct. Racquet and string technology changed the game from the Sampras, Agassi, Courier and Chang era...

Serve and volley style has traditionally taken longer to develop in players...the baseline grinder and to an extent the agressive All- Courier (with huge approach shots and serviceable volleys) develop into effective players much sooner.

The increasing power of the game makes the choice to 2HBH much more appealing...two hands can handle the power and re-direct the stroke much easier and quicker (in development) than a single handed backhand player at the same stage in their playing.
Click to expand...

Interesting thought regarding OH vs TH. I always thought that it was a matter of preference and not a learning curve thing. Once you choose a technique, it's impossible to changeover.
 
ChaelAZ

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
Rattler said:
I believe you are correct. Racquet and string technology changed the game from the Sampras, Agassi, Courier and Chang era...

Serve and volley style has traditionally taken longer to develop in players...the baseline grinder and to an extent the agressive All- Courier (with huge approach shots and serviceable volleys) develop into effective players much sooner.

The increasing power of the game makes the choice to 2HBH much more appealing...two hands can handle the power and re-direct the stroke much easier and quicker (in development) than a single handed backhand player at the same stage in their playing.
Click to expand...


And that is where the issue is for developing players. Parents want to see their kids ranking quicker and showing results quicker or they think they are wasting money, so as a coach do you try to sell them on the long term advantages and playability of a 1hbh, or give them the quicker results with the 2hbh? Personally I think in todays power game the 1hbh allows more range and options for blocking back power and even moreso for generating power, but on all accounts players at 5.0 and up, especially in college and pro level, they are equally effective and situationally both have advantages.

It is in the development stage that this misconception and selling of the 2hbh starts and is developed.
 
S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Guys, Murray is not talking about coaching but the final result. Don't ignore that and focus on other stuff.

almost all the best backhands in the game are double handers
 
U

Ultra 2

Professional
I'm more inclined to listen to Roger than Andy regarding what is more effective. Also, the sample size of OH is much smaller vs. TH, so he may have a point there. One handers are now pretty much extinct.

As for technique, the OH allows for a better volley, drop shot, sharper angles on ground strokes and even more power when used properly.
 
S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Ultra 2 said:
I'm more inclined to listen to Roger than Andy regarding what is more effective.
Click to expand...

OK.

From moving now on forward we will see double-handed backhands predominantly, which is how I would teach my kids, as well, to play tennis.
I think it's just easier. Double-handed backhand, you can always fight a wrong position with the left hand, let's say, if you're a right-hander. You know, on the return it's the same thing. You might have a little bit less reach, but you can also let go and still reach it.
​
I think a double-hander is the way to go

https://www.**************.org/tenn...-my-kids-the-twohanded-backhand-it-s-easier-/
 
U

Ultra 2

Professional
Totally agree with you. OH will become a extinct with the exception of a select few. It will go the same way as the SV tactic. Too bad, since that was the way the game was played at the height of Tennis' popularity.

And good on you for teaching your kids the wonderful game. Tennis needs more fathers like you.
 
ChaelAZ

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
sureshs said:
OK.

From moving now on forward we will see double-handed backhands predominantly, which is how I would teach my kids, as well, to play tennis.
I think it's just easier.
Click to expand...

Yes, we've established it is easier and pays dividens quicker. Not that a player who uses it is better. Fed saying that is ironic for sure.

son_orig.png
 
Raul_SJ

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
Ultra 2 said:
Beauty has nothing to do with effective tennis although OHBH was favored by SV players from the past (Mac, Becker, Edberg, Sampras) and they were all pretty and effective. ..
Click to expand...

That is true. One hander may or may not be more effective.

What is not in dispute is that women will often fawn over a well struck one hander. I was shocked to get looks from my 3.5 one hander. That never ever happens with a two hander. Sorry. :(
 
Last edited:
B

Big Bagel

Professional
user92626 said:
The strengths and weaknesses of 1hbh vs 2hbh pertain to the players that posses them, NOT the strokes themselves.
Click to expand...
No, you are completely wrong. The biomechanics actually give certain advantages to two-handed backhands, and other advantages to one-handed backhands.
 
user92626

user92626

G.O.A.T.
hurworld said:
Which begs the question. Are there pros who use both? 1hbh to attack slow ball, but switch to 2hbhs for fast/heavy balls?
Click to expand...
I think only Tsonga.

So, Tsonga is in the position to judge which one is advantageous or limited. That's some credibility.

Other than that, if you asked Fed, he would say the 1hander. If you asked Nadal, it'd be the 2hander. Completely useless responses.
 
user92626

user92626

G.O.A.T.
Big Bagel said:
No, you are completely wrong. The biomechanics actually give certain advantages to two-handed backhands, and other advantages to one-handed backhands.
Click to expand...

Like what advantages that one can do but the other cannot?

Don't just throw things out without any substance.
 
Rattler

Rattler

Hall of Fame
ChaelAZ said:
Yes, we've established it is easier and pays dividens quicker. Not that a player who uses it is better. Fed saying that is ironic for sure.

son_orig.png
Click to expand...


Remember Sampras had a 2 hander, and by all accounts it was a deadly one, but his coach switched him to a single hander so he could win Wimbledon (or so goes the story)

Anyway his contemporaries all recall his two hander (Courier & Chang) and how he was pathetic at the one hander after he switched, for a while.
 
B

Big Bagel

Professional
user92626 said:
Like what advantages that one can do but the other cannot?

Don't just throw things out without any substance.
Click to expand...
The one-handed backhand is hit farther away from the body, giving it a longer lever, giving it greater racquet head speed potential, which equals power and spin potential. The way the one-handed backhand is gripped makes it more difficult to get the same leverage on higher balls as two-handers. Two handers have both hands on which makes the effective swingweight of the racquet lower, so it is more maneuverable for last-second adjustments. It also makes it easier to accelerate the racquet and has a shorter swing so it is easier to put pace on shots when you aren't able to fully setup for the shot. Those are the more obvious nuances that are biomechanically and physically true. Yes, there's an exception to every rule, but these are principles that you cannot change.
 
S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Ultra 2 said:
Totally agree with you. OH will become a extinct with the exception of a select few. It will go the same way as the SV tactic. Too bad, since that was the way the game was played at the height of Tennis' popularity.

And good on you for teaching your kids the wonderful game. Tennis needs more fathers like you.
Click to expand...

LOL that was a quote from a Federer interview
 
Moveforwardalways

Moveforwardalways

Hall of Fame
Truly elite athletes will be able to access the potential of the 1HBH. However, it is hard to know whether a player is that elite until further down the line developmentally, after its too late to switch. This is why some of the best athletes at the top of the game will always have a 1HBH, but most will play a 2HBH.

And any example of a backhand vs Nadal’s forehand is really invalid since Nadal’s forehand is the heaviest in the game’s history and not representative. It gave plenty of 2HBHs trouble as well. Only elite 2HBHs had any success (and not much at that). Not a good comparison.

And several American players would have a higher ceiling with a 1HBH. Because they have always looked awkward hitting a 2HBH and are also very athletic. Namely Jack Sock, Stevie Johnson, and Sam Querry. If those guys were born in Switzerland and were taught a 1HBH from an early age like Roger and Stan, they would all be top 10 players.
 
N

NLBwell

Legend
I've taught a lot of beginners. Some just have a more natural stroke on the one-handed backhand, for most the two-hander is easier. It is not necessarily the more athletic who are naturally better with a one-hander. A pro should take the time to figure out which way will be better for the player. One of my sons has a two-hander and one has a one-handed backhand (they were never serious about tennis, but hit the ball pretty well).
I will agree that the worst shot in tennis is a really bad one-hander.
 
D

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Moveforwardalways said:
Truly elite athletes will be able to access the potential of the 1HBH. However, it is hard to know whether a player is that elite until further down the line developmentally, after its too late to switch. This is why some of the best athletes at the top of the game will always have a 1HBH, but most will play a 2HBH.

And any example of a backhand vs Nadal’s forehand is really invalid since Nadal’s forehand is the heaviest in the game’s history and not representative. It gave plenty of 2HBHs trouble as well. Only elite 2HBHs had any success (and not much at that). Not a good comparison.

And several American players would have a higher ceiling with a 1HBH. Because they have always looked awkward hitting a 2HBH and are also very athletic. Namely Jack Sock, Stevie Johnson, and Sam Querry. If those guys were born in Switzerland and were taught a 1HBH from an early age like Roger and Stan, they would all be top 10 players.
Click to expand...

Forget Nadal, is Fed's backhand, even the neo backhand, really that much better than Djokovic or Murray's double handers? I am not convinced, esp vis a vis Djokovic. And there are just a small bunch of such amazing one handers - Fed/Wawrinka/Gasquet - so it doesn't make sense to invest in a contrarian direction if the upside isn't significantly higher for the one hander. Yes, the power potential of a one hander is higher but the two hander is a steadier shot and in the fast pro game, they want to be able react quickly and react well.

Re American players, I saw a vid once - can't remember which one - which argued that the two hander technique being taught to the American players - Querrey was one of the examples - was inadequate. One takeaway I remember was that Nadalovic had a nice knee bend, a step to initiate weight transfer and a decent takeback too, all of which were missing in the examples of these American players which hampered their ability to be offensive on the move on the double hander.
 
Enga

Enga

Hall of Fame
hurworld said:
Which begs the question. Are there pros who use both? 1hbh to attack slow ball, but switch to 2hbhs for fast/heavy balls?
Click to expand...
Tsonga has experimented with that I think. I see him actually gor for 1hbh when hes in a full extension run. Perhaps his muscles and flexibility make it awkward for him to hit a 2hbh on the run?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Changing from a good 2-handed backhand to a 1-Hander- My Story.....
Replies
12
Views
1K
kirschbomb
K
W
Duel Match Stats/Reports - del Potro vs Murray, quarter-final & del Potro vs Djokovic, semi-final, Indian Wells 2013
Replies
13
Views
614
Waspsting
W
Z
Different styles of two-handed backhands
Replies
16
Views
2K
Blahovic
B
W
Match Stats/Report - Murray vs Simon, Madrid final, 2008
Replies
3
Views
206
Mainad
Mainad
W
Match Stats/Report - Federer vs Boutter, Milan final, 2001
Replies
7
Views
295
Waspsting
W
Top