1HBH vs 2HBH

Which one is better

  • 1HBH

    Votes: 46 45.1%

  • 2HBH

    Votes: 43 42.2%

  • Equal

    Votes: 13 12.7%
  • Total voters
    102
nolefam_2024 said:
No the mindless bashing works..that is the most effective way to win tennis.

Even that is not mindless .bashing yes not mindless. Sinner is someone who can construct the point but his style is bashing. And it is the best way.
Click to expand...

The big 3 did plenty of winning, and ignoring the potshots taken by various fan groups, no one seriously call them mindless ball bashers.
 
For what it's worth (one cent?), here are my takes on a few overall points expressed. Admittedly, this is from a glorified hacker who always used/uses a one-hander. In my limited attempts to try a two-hander, I couldn't get the right steps/balance.

I agree that Thiem could run but did not have great footwork and anticipation (relative to the best movers).

While known for his exceptional movement and anticipation, Fed could also flat-out run when needed to.

Do any (otherwise one-handers) hit a two-hander just on the ROS? It doesn't seem that this would be so hard to teach or learn, or throw off the rest of one's game. I'm not adamant here - could be wrong.

I think the variety/versatility versus power/reliability can be a good discussion. It also may be hard to frame the parameters in a way that avoids player comparisons.
 
Devilito said:
If anything 1hbh has a nice advantage today. You have the time to wind up, take a big swing, produce a lot of power and spin off a 1hbh. The racquets are lighter and the strings are favourable. What people miss that is in 2025, there is probably a record in the least amount of coaches teaching the stroke to young players, so statistically, less people will use a 1hbh.

Many top players using a 1hbh either have it as a strength or as a shot that would not have affected their career. Federer, Wawrinka, Gasquet, Thiem, Musetti, Shapovalov, Dimitrov, etc. None of these players lose matches because of their backhands, but for other reasons. Nadal never defeted Federer because of his backhand. Nadal owned everybody else that had 2hbhs as well. He won because he was good, not because he exposed a single shot.

Shapovalov would not be a better player today had he learned a 2hbh. Musetti as well. It's ridiculous. I would bet anything that if at age 5, an equal number of kids were tought 1hbh as 2hbh there would be far more 1hbh players today. Players find different strokes natural, and if they're not exposed to those strokes easly on, it's too late to learn them later. Teaching a 14 year old with a 2hbh a 1hbh is too late. Not everyone is Sampras and this isn't the 1980s.

There is not right or wrong stroke, but the reason more players don't use a 1hbh is simple to understand. If anything, i would argue that many more pro players today would have done better if they were taught a 1hbh earlier than if a current 1hbh player was forced to use a 2hbh. The only player i currently see that has an awkward 1hbh is Tsitsipas. It's still an amazing backhand but he's just doesn't look as natural as other 1hbh players.
Click to expand...

I think I would disagree here. Nadal had a clear strategy to target the Federer one hander with high topspin balls. Even Wawrinka who has arguably the best topspin one hander ever struggled with that shot. I believe If you gave Federer the Nalbandian, Djokovic or Davydenko two hander he would have a much better record against Nadal.

In today’s game there is absolutely no advantage for the one hander other than maybe being more adept at hitting a better slice.

As for Shapo, his backhand is definitely a weakness as he sprays every third shot.

On Roddick’s podcast he recently discussed why the one hander is becoming an extinct shot and why it’s a disadvantage in todays game.
 
RaulRamirez said:
For what it's worth (one cent?), here are my takes on a few overall points expressed. Admittedly, this is from a glorified hacker who always used/uses a one-hander. In my limited attempts to try a two-hander, I couldn't get the right steps/balance.

I agree that Thiem could run but did not have great footwork and anticipation (relative to the best movers).

While known for his exceptional movement and anticipation, Fed could also flat-out run when needed to.

Do any (otherwise one-handers) hit a two-hander just on the ROS? It doesn't seem that this would be so hard to teach or learn, or throw off the rest of one's game. I'm not adamant here - could be wrong.

I think the variety/versatility versus power/reliability can be a good discussion. It also may be hard to frame the parameters in a way that avoids player comparisons.
Click to expand...
I say variety versatility is extremely overrated and power reliability underrated. Just in last few years we could even express this opinion. Hive mind would not allow it.
 
The main problem is that to reprogram your tech is anything but trivial.

I have a matured and solid 1HBH since I learned tennis back in the wooden era.

After more than 30y of stop I started back playing because of my youngest son.
So it's like I woke up being deeply frozen for such a long time.

My impression of modern tennis is that indeed 2HBH may give advantages, given the size of the modern racquets and
the use of poli (I have autoimmune arthritis, I can't use it). The balls are on average higher than 30y ago.
Not necessarily faster (the flat game can be really fast) but definitely higher. And higher ball are not easy to deal with 1HBH.
I can do that, of course, but I'd like to switch to 2HBH to do it better. But once you have a solid muscle memory it's hard to
convince your brain to trust a totally new movement.
....
And yes. I think that with a limit on racquet size (let's say 90in) we would see a quick move back to 1HBH and natgut.
 
Holmes said:
McEnroe did not dominate Borg nor Connors, and Sampras did not dominate Agassi. Pete and Mac had winning records against Connors and Agassi because of their GOAT serve and volley game, not because of their dreadful backhands. Lendl had a losing record against Borg, and a non-dominant win against the older Connors. Becker and Edberg both had losing records to Agassi. Not sure who else you're referring to.
Click to expand...
Mac lead Connors in H2H. It's understandable because the environment in the 70s and 80s is tailor for the great serve and net-rusher. If the condition were like homogenized today, their H2H would be a lot difference. Borg retire early so we will never know. But I believe had he continue, I think Mac will beat him at Wimbledon and other fast court while Borg still be dominant on red clay which is a slow court. Prime vs prime, Sampras and Mac > Agassi. You just prove my point that court conditions back then suit better for a versatile 1HBH because they master the volley. Great serve is only half of the story, you have to master the attacking game. Who was a great serve/volley with a 2HBH? There were Gonzalez, Laver, Sampras, Mac, Edberg, Becker, Rafter, Krajicek...all were great with a 1HBH. Today, even with a GOAT serve Karlovic with a 1HBH is a journeyman serve/volley player because of homogenized courts and racket/string tech. that destroyed the skill, strategy, athleticism, and creativity involved in the sport.


Holmes said:
As a side note, Lendl struggled with Edberg because of Edberg's heavy, high bouncing kick serve that went up to Lendl's shoulder. He expressed fear to his coach Roche over this at the time. Agassi on the other hand didn't have this problem.
Click to expand...
Both Lendl/Edberg are great player with 1HBH. There's old saying that the best serve and volley will often beat the best baseliner

Agassi is only 1 player you name with a 2HBH, while there are countless of great player with a 1HBH
 
jackson vile said:
1HBH has more offensive potential 2HBH has more defensive potential
Click to expand...

I can't agree with this, unless we're defining defense differently

Even in a match with 3.0/3.5 players I'll still find myself pushed into situations where only 1H will do. Try having to hit a BH that's already behind you with a 2HBH, it's impossible.
 
TMF said:
Mac lead Connors in H2H. It's understandable because the environment in the 70s and 80s is tailor for the great serve and net-rusher. If the condition were like homogenized today, their H2H would be a lot difference. Borg retire early so we will never know. But I believe had he continue, I think Mac will beat him at Wimbledon and other fast court while Borg still be dominant on red clay which is a slow court. Prime vs prime, Sampras and Mac > Agassi. You just prove my point that court conditions back then suit better for a versatile 1HBH because they master the volley. Great serve is only half of the story, you have to master the attacking game. Who was a great serve/volley with a 2HBH? There were Gonzalez, Laver, Sampras, Mac, Edberg, Becker, Rafter, Krajicek...all were great with a 1HBH. Today, even with a GOAT serve Karlovic with a 1HBH is a journeyman serve/volley player because of homogenized courts and racket/string tech. that destroyed the skill, strategy, athleticism, and creativity involved in the sport.



Both Lendl/Edberg are great player with 1HBH. There's old saying that the best serve and volley will often beat the best baseliner

Agassi is only 1 player you name with a 2HBH, while there are countless of great player with a 1HBH
Click to expand...
Having a one handed backhand does not equal versatility, which I assume you're defining as allcourt play. There were many 1HBH players in the 90s like Kuerten, Corretja, Muster, etc. who were as much baseliners as the players of today. There aren't any great serve and volleyers with 2HBHs because the stroke wasn't popular when serve and volley was. The great majority of players hit 1HBHs when Gonzalez, Laver, Beckers, etc. played. Even in the 90s, the 2HBH wasn't the "default" backhand yet. There's nothing "about" the 2HBH that prevents one from playing the net, as Connors, Borg, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic, Courier, Alcaraz, are all competent volleyers, even though their primary skillset is baselining. Even Bjorkman was an excellent volleyer with a 2HBH, who even made a Wimbledon semifinal in his 30s in 2006. The reason Bjork wasn't a "great" player is because the rest of his game was lacking. Having a 1HBH wouldn't magically make him a better server, or a better mover, or possess a better forehand. Karlovic is a journeyman not because of the surfaces, but because all he has is a serve. He was a journeyman in the 2003 onwards era, and would be in any era because the minute he met a player able to make him hit more than one shot on his service game, he'd be toast.

Agassi was the only player I named in that post. Connors, and Borg are two other all time great 2HBH players who had a GOAT case in the non-homogenized era. Wilander won 7 majors in the non-homogenized era. Courier another ATG with a brief stint of dominance, made all 4 slam finals by age 22 (still a record) and won 4 slams. So lots of ATGs who were 2HBHs in that era.

Agreed with you on the conditions and tech destroying creativity in the sport. This started in the 2000s, and the footprint remains to the present. A number of great players (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) benefited from this in ways that prior GOAT candidates playing under versatile conditions (Sampras, Connors, Borg) simply could not, hence the disparity in the accomplishments. As we know, ultimately, Djokovic topped out Federer and Nadal as the undisputed GOAT of the homogenized era. It will be interesting if someone else ever surpasses him.
 
Last edited:
It has to do with potential, the 1 HBH has greater versatility and potential than the 2HBH because you have the potential to hold the same grip from the serve to the back hand to volley.

However, that doesn’t mean that the 1HBH player will actually use the full potential of the 1HBH.

On the counter side it’s full possible to use the 2HBH in an all court game, but it’s not going to have the same potential or versatility
 
jackson vile said:
It has to do with potential, the 1 HBH has greater versatility and potential than the 2HBH because you have the potential to hold the same grip from the serve to the back hand to volley.
Click to expand...
Good luck hitting a continental grip topspin drive 1HBH in the high-spin, high-pace, high-bounce poly era.
 
jackson vile said:
It has to do with potential, the 1 HBH has greater versatility and potential than the 2HBH because you have the potential to hold the same grip from the serve to the back hand to volley.

However, that doesn’t mean that the 1HBH player will actually use the full potential of the 1HBH.

On the counter side it’s full possible to use the 2HBH in an all court game, but it’s not going to have the same potential or versatility
Click to expand...

I use the same grip on my 2HBH as I use on my 1HBH and my slice and my serve

The real secret sauce of the 1H "versatility" is that you can do more things with the racquet face angle, and can get the same power with a much slower swing. With the same swing you get far more power and it is way easier to use 1H on the run.

Hit me a rally ball or a serve and I'm using 2H every time. I want that stability and predictable response.

But, if I have to run, I'm going to 1H.
 
The only clear and relevant advantage of the two hander is the return of serve. If you pick one handers, even the best ever like Wawrinka, Federer, Almagro, Thiem, Gasquet ecc. they will have worse return performance than other top players who hit a two hander. Any other metric is comparable between the two. That's why one handers usually play better on clay, serve is less important and the game overall is slower.
 
Sudacafan said:
This thread is corrupted.
No way 1hbh gets the same votes as 2hbh.
Reported to TTW modship.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Well, it looks like I've read most of this interesting thread, but I'm sort of glad that I'm finished.
Whatever people want to gleefully say, it's not going to change anyone's beliefs.
It's the same damn thing as Rebublicans & Democrats acting like only "they" know the truth.

As terrorized Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along??" I don't think that will be possible.
So just push me off of the edge of this thread, and I'll try to hang on down below to the new thread
"Which dries faster, a drop of red wine, or a drop of white wine?" ...The theories will be earth shaking!
------ So Be It o_O ------
 
Last edited:
Birrittene96 said:
The only clear and relevant advantage of the two hander is the return of serve. If you pick one handers, even the best ever like Wawrinka, Federer, Almagro, Thiem, Gasquet ecc. they will have worse return performance than other top players who hit a two hander. Any other metric is comparable between the two. That's why one handers usually play better on clay, serve is less important and the game overall is slower.
Click to expand...

Yup this is indisputable. That's why I think the way forward is to learn all the backhands
 
I wouldn’t bother with a one handed backhand today with these strings and rackets. Unless you’re some deity like Federer or Sampras. You’re in trouble. Two handed is the only way to go
 
TheGoldenEra1990’s said:
I wouldn’t bother with a one handed backhand today with these strings and rackets. Unless you’re some deity like Federer or Sampras. You’re in trouble. Two handed is the only way to go
Click to expand...

This is true but the smaller head guys like Alcaraz and Korda are showing us that going to 1H when it's time to boogie can be an advantage. I think at some point a player will pick up where they and Tsonga are leaving off
 
The 2 handed backhand is the weapon of people who like grey, brown, beige, the Volvo, vegetables, Barry Manilow, Dr. Seuss, Steven Spielberg, King Kong.

The 1 handed backhand is the weapon of people who like red, yellow, purple, the Ferrari, fruit, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Walt Whitman, Stephen Sondheim, Godzilla.
 
ibbi said:
The 2 handed backhand is the weapon of people who like grey, brown, beige, the Volvo, vegetables, Barry Manilow, Dr. Seuss, Steven Spielberg, King Kong.

The 1 handed backhand is the weapon of people who like red, yellow, purple, the Ferrari, fruit, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Walt Whitman, Stephen Sondheim, Godzilla.
Click to expand...
And the funniest thing is that in both cases most times its a weaknes not a weapon :D
 
ibbi said:
The 2 handed backhand is the weapon of people who like grey, brown, beige, the Volvo, vegetables, Barry Manilow, Dr. Seuss, Steven Spielberg, King Kong.

The 1 handed backhand is the weapon of people who like red, yellow, purple, the Ferrari, fruit, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Walt Whitman, Stephen Sondheim, Godzilla.
Click to expand...
What about people like me who like grey, vegetables, 8 out of 36 Spielberg movies, red, fruit and Tchaikovsky from your list while not particularly caring for the rest?

The answer is - I have a 1HBH, but have 2HBH envy and curse my junior coach for switching me from a 2HBH to a 1HBH a couple of years into learning tennis as a kid.
 
At the end of the day, players will end up with the backhand they feel most comfortable with. I’m pretty sure some players could not achieve their full potential, and it’s a pity, because they were forced to play with a 2hbh. I think that Ruud, Berrettini, and possibly Alcaraz could have been better players with a one hander. I believe that the 2hbh should not be pushed indiscriminately on every player like it’s being done nowadays.
 
socallefty said:
What about people like me who like grey, vegetables, 8 out of 36 Spielberg movies, red, fruit and Tchaikovsky from your list while not particularly caring for the rest?

The answer is - I have a 1HBH, but have 2HBH envy and curse my junior coach for switching me from a 2HBH to a 1HBH a couple of years into learning tennis as a kid.
Click to expand...
I played 2hb in juniors. When i came back to tennis after 30 years my left hand wrist said :no
I switched to one hander Its a handicap for me but its also fun

GIF-20250413-002804-963.gif
 
Last edited:
socallefty said:
What about people like me who like grey, vegetables, 8 out of 36 Spielberg movies, red, fruit and Tchaikovsky from your list while not particularly caring for the rest?

The answer is - I have a 1HBH, but have 2HBH envy and curse my junior coach for switching me from a 2HBH to a 1HBH a couple of years into learning tennis as a kid.
Click to expand...

Would it kill you to try 2H on your return and leave the rest as is?
 
TheGoldenEra1990’s said:
I wouldn’t bother with a one handed backhand today with these strings and rackets. Unless you’re some deity like Federer or Sampras. You’re in trouble. Two handed is the only way to go
Click to expand...
This is correct. The amount of topspin generated today virtually guarantees the ball will be in the "danger zone" of the one handed backhand more often than not, leading to mishits, whiffs, and shortballs that pros will lick their chops at. It's already an open secret that even at the challenger level, pros get happy to hear they have a 1HBH in their draw because they knows good things will happen if they just drill that side of the court.
 
Rosstour said:
I can do this all day buddy.

www.atptour.com

Grigor Dimitrov's Grip & Rip | ATP Tour | Tennis

Grigor Dimitrov’s forehand is a cannon. An ATP Infosys Beyond The Numbers analysis of groundstroke speed, spin, and net clearance of the current Top 10 at ATP events over the past three years identifies that nobody blasts his forehand bigger than the 33-year-old Bulgarian.
www.atptour.com www.atptour.com

Grigor has the second fastest single recorded BH in all of history at 108mph. First was Novak, I mean Nalbandian, at 110mph.
Click to expand...
Well that obviously indisputably proves that the two-handed backhand can biomechanically generate more firepower than any little weak one-handed backhand.
 
kangaroo1973 said:
Which one is better?
Pros of 1HBH
1)slice easier to learn and more effective
2) better reach
3) more power
Cons
1) bad technique and you are screwed- Tsitsipas
2) can break down unless you are Wawrinka, Kuerten or Thiem
3) more difficult to learn
4) more difficult to take high balls early

Pros of 2HBH
1) easier to learn
2) arguably more stable- you use both hands
3) better ROS
4) easier to take high balls earlier

Cons
1) smaller reach
2) less power( unless you are Safin)
3) worse slice
Click to expand...
Wrong, the completely superior two-handed backhand has every single advantage over the completely inferior one-handed backhand including in reach, power, stability, defense, offense, and etc.
 
Last edited:
junior74 said:
1 HBH is for men
2 HBH is for girls

That's what we learnt in the 80s
Click to expand...
Wrong, the completely weak one-handed backhand is for completely weak whiny men who have completely weak and useless non-dominant arms whereas the completely superior two-handed backhand is for real true men who have completely competent and useful non-dominant arms which has produced the two greatest tennis players in all of history named rafael nadal and novak djokovic which is a mathematical objective fact that you and anyone else have absolutely no choice but to completely learn and completely accept.
 
Tennis Devolution said:
Wrong, the two-handed backhand has every single advantage over the completely weak one-handed backhand including in reach, power, stability, defense, offense, and etc.
Click to expand...
It really does. Additionally, the 1HBH develops a better slice only because the player is forced to slice far more often and is used to holding the racket with one hand, not because the stroke itself inherently makes you better at slicing. Nadal for example has a far better slice than Gasquet.
 
Holmes said:
It really does. Additionally, the 1HBH develops a better slice only because the player is forced to slice far more often and is used to holding the racket with one hand, not because the stroke itself inherently makes you better at slicing. Nadal for example has a far better slice than Gasquet.
Click to expand...
Yes, completely unlike the completely superior two-handed backhand, the completely weak one-handed backhand forces anyone who uses the one-handed backhand to slice all of the time when out of position.

Using a one-handed backhand does not make anyone better at slicing because a two-handed backhand gives even further versatility to a player when it comes to slicing compared to a one-handed backhand because with a two-handed backhand, you can actually slice with either one hand or both hands as well with the most famous examples of this being fabrice santoro and jimmy connors.
 
Olli Jokinen said:
Maybe there is. I dont think that Wawrinka, Thiem or Guga would have been better players with a two-hander – on the contrary. Some players are just better with a one-hander, some are better with a two-hander. That's what's so great about tennis.
Click to expand...
Wrong, any player with a one-handed backhand like stanislas wawrinka, dominic thiem, and guga kuerten would have all been better players with a two-handed backhand but unfortunately for them, they were all completely incapable of using a two-handed backhand on the world-class professional level.
 
_FrankTheTank_ said:
OHBH has more attacking power on dead ball, but less on redirecting powerfull shots back with power, it tends to break down. In a backhand rallye it's not as sustainable with average power compared to a DHBH and the tables from offensive position to definise postion are turned to quick.

I also don't think that OHBH has the better reach. I'm always amazed when watching young energetic dhbh atp players when they strech out to the sides and hit back a very decent ball, where a OHBH could not get any weight behind the ball at all.
Click to expand...
No, the one-handed backhand is always completely inferior in power to the two-handed backhand on any ball of any height and of any speed.
 
SpinToWin said:
I disagree slightly in the point re power. The rest is true enough I suppose. But the 1 hander has higher peak racquet head acceleration, the issue is it’s incredibly hard to find situations where you can bring that onto the ball. So in most rally situations it’s easier to find pace and depth off the two hander, due to the added stability. But off a dead ball a good one hander will produce a heavier ball (all else equal).
Click to expand...
Wrong again, the two-handed backhand can always accelerate the racquet faster than any one-handed backhand from any position, any height, and any speed since the forearm pronatory power of the non-dominant arm always is completely synergistic with the forearm supinatory power of the dominant arm in the two-handed backhand.
 
socallefty said:
Good luck hitting a continental grip topspin drive 1HBH in the high-spin, high-pace, high-bounce poly era.
Click to expand...

Luck isn’t needed, all you need is talent and intelligence.

Another option is to have the same backhand grip as forehand.

That’s more proof to my point ie versatility
 
2hbh is probably the smarter choice in this day and age for all the reasons listed: returns, fighting off close balls, general consistency etc. Another way to look at it is a reasonably good 2hbh is much less of a weakness than a mediocre 1hbh. HOWEVER an exceptionally good 1hbh does offer some advantages, more spin, more offensive 'flow'...and as for power, not that this matters but i'd guess the very fastest backhands ever hit have been 1 handers.

and it looks way cooler of course.
 
Aabye5 said:
No, it definitely allows for greater reach, but you have to have excellent footwork to take advantage.

Federer and Thiem, and especially Wawrinka, could recover better because of that reach.
Click to expand...
Wrong, the two-handed backhand always allows anyone to hit a topspin drive shot from way more off-balance positions than any one-handed backhand.
 
mental midget said:
2hbh is probably the smarter choice in this day and age for all the reasons listed: returns, fighting off close balls, general consistency etc. Another way to look at it is a reasonably good 2hbh is much less of a weakness than a mediocre 1hbh. HOWEVER an exceptionally good 1hbh does offer some advantages, more spin, more offensive 'flow'...and as for power, not that this matters but i'd guess the very fastest backhands ever hit have been 1 handers.

and it looks way cooler of course.
Click to expand...
Nope, the one-handed backhand has always less power than the two-handed backhand.
 
TMF said:
1HBH suits for fast, low bounce courts
Better for attacking style, net-rush, volley(and half-volley), more reach and flexibility. Better striking zone, slice is more affective, more topspin, less prone for error.

2HBH suits for slow, high bounce courts
Best for baseline basher who thrives on long rally, playing safe. Defense/pusher specialist. More compact for grinder(I.e. Djokovic) relying on wearing out his opponent physically. ROS on shoulder high, and less prone for shank


With that being said, mastering 1HBH is more difficult because it require a higher degree of innate talent, skills and athleticism. Aesthetically, 1HBH looks more sophisticated and manly, and pleasing to the eye.
Click to expand...
Wrong, completely flailing around with a completely weak one-handed backhand with absolutely no strength and no coordination in your non-dominant arm is the most unmanly thing ever and requires the least innate talent and skill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
  • Poll Poll
2hbh vs 1hbh: which type of backhand can hit most TOPSPIN on the ATP tour?
Replies
4
Views
2K
xan
xan
T
1hbh is better than 2hbh for handling high balls when...
Replies
9
Views
817
Backhanded Compliment
Backhanded Compliment
O
Is the 1HBH really disadvantaged?
2
Replies
76
Views
9K
TimeSpiral
TimeSpiral
G
Why onehanders don't use 2HBH but 2handers use 1HBH?
Replies
20
Views
2K
kaiotic
K
asifallasleep
Fed decline more age and 2hbh vs 1hbh not racquet size
Replies
3
Views
957
Tenez101
Tenez101
Back
Top