1HBH vs 2HBH

[Tennis Devolution]

I have changed my mind after I read your post. Federer was the ultimate mug.

GOOD.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

average speed, agree. sinner and zverev lead the tour there. but fastest recorded backhands: gasquet 103, shapovalov 101.

Nope, I believe the fastest record backhand was from david nalbandian who used a two-handed backhand.

Also, just watch rafael nadal at roland garros, there is absolutely no one-handed backhand that can be ever be capable of hitting with the pace and power that rafael nadal's backhand has from the back of the court.

 

[Sudacafan]

Nope, I believe the fastest record backhand was from david nalbandian who used a two-handed backhand.

Also, just watch rafael nadal at roland garros, there is absolutely no one-handed backhand that can be ever be capable of hitting with the pace and power that rafael nadal's backhand has from the back of the court.

I only have one question: what type of backhand do you use to play tennis: the one-handed or the two-handed?

 

[Lleytonstation]

I only have one question: what type of backhand do you use to play tennis: the one-handed or the two-handed?

Aesthetics is 90% of the game. One hand backhand only. Only neanderthal would use a 2 handed backhand. We are more refined nowadays.

You don't see me using 2 hands when using a hammer do you? No.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

This is spot on and really unfortunate as the one hander is such a beautiful stroke when executed properly.

Wrong, the one-handed backhand is simply a completely inferior devolutionary relic of the past because the most superior biomechanical way to hit a backhand is irrefutably and indisputably the two-handed backhand.

 

[Sudacafan]

Aesthetics is 90% of the game. One hand backhand only. Only neanderthal would use a 2 handed backhand. We are more refined nowadays.

You don't see me using 2 hands when using a hammer do you? No.

I believe Neanderthal should be written in capitals.
Same as Cro-Magnon.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

I only have one question: what type of backhand do you use to play tennis: the one-handed or the two-handed?

I know how to hit both and I also know that the two-handed backhand without a doubt is completely superior in every single aspect to the one-handed backhand.

 

[Sudacafan]

I know how to hit both and I also know that the two-handed backhand without a doubt is completely superior in every single aspect to the one-handed backhand.

Fine, but I just asked which variant you used, not the variants you know to hit.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

THEY BOTH HAVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES.

WRONG, the two-handed backhand is irrefutably and indisputably superior in every single aspect to the one-handed backhand.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

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.

Wrong, the reason why the one-handed backhand is taught less now is because the one-handed backhand is actually irrefutably and indisputably inferior to the two-handed backhand since way back in the past, most people taught the one-handed backhand instead of the two-handed backhand but given the evolution of tennis, the two-handed backhand has been proved to be the complete superior of the one-handed backhand in every single aspect so now no one ever wants to teach the completely inferior one-handed backhand anymore.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

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.

Wrong, the two handed-backhand is completely superior to the one-handed backhand in all conditions including surface, string type, racquet type, ball type, ball height, ball speed, and etc.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

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

No, the two-handed backhand has way more potential and versatility in every single aspect than the one-handed backhand because completely unlike the one-handed backhand, the two-handed backhand actually uses both hands.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

Fine, but I just asked which variant you used, not the variants you know to hit.

Well, I use only the two-handed backhand in match play because there is absolutely no point in using the one-handed backhand which is completely inferior to the two-handed backhand in every single way.

 

[Sudacafan]

Well, I use only the two-handed backhand in match play because there is absolutely no point in using the one-handed backhand which is completely inferior to the two-handed backhand in every single way.

Do you use backhand slice? If yes, one or two handed?

 

[Tennis Devolution]

Do you use backhand slice? If yes, one or two handed?

I use only the two-handed backhand slice if I actually choose to slice.

 

[Honza]

There is no such thing like a two handed slice.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

There is no such thing like a two handed slice.

Wrong, a two-handed slice is simply a slice that utilizes the power of the non-dominant arm.

 

[Honza]

Wrong, a two-handed slice is simply a slice that utilizes the power of the non-dominant arm.

Show me a coach or a pro that teaches a 2 handed slice.
I could put the racket between my teeth and hit a ball. Then it utilizes the power of my mouth.

 

[Tennis Devolution]

Show me a coach or a pro that teaches a 2 handed slice.
I could put the racket between my teeth and hit a ball. Then it utilizes the power of my mouth.

No, there have been plenty of professionals who have hit a two-handed slice like jimmy connors and fabrice santoro so the two-handed slice is very straightforward.

 

[Honza]

No, there have been plenty of professionals who have hit a two-handed slice like jimmy connors and fabrice santoro so the two-handed slice is very straightforward.

Today. Not decades ago.
Nobody is teaching it.
Santoro played his fh both handed. Doesnt mean it is efficient or straightforward. He was one of the most skilled humans in tennis history, so he could pull it of and win some matches on the tour. I had the pleasure of hitting some balls with him.

 

[SpinToWin]

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.

Lol, lmao even.

 

[Passingshot78]

WRONG, the two-handed backhand is irrefutably and indisputably superior in every single aspect to the one-handed backhand.

WRONG

OHB is better for spin

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

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 Bruguera, 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.

Bruguera had a double-hander.

 

[Honza]

WRONG

OHB is better for spin

Yes, but spin isnt as important in the current setting (big slow balls, slow courts).
It was an argument some years back.

 

[Passingshot78]

Yes, but spin isnt as important in the current setting (big slow balls, slow courts).
It was an argument some years back.

Spin is as important as always And more important at slow courts than fast ones.

Plus spin is not only about ball bounce and acceleration. Its also about control and Magnus effect

 

[DariaGT]

I hit and will always hit a OHBH with a semi western grip since I was 6
and for 30 plus years crushed low & high balls from everywhere on the
court with applause and praise from people watching, even opponents
BUT DHBH is the evolution of the game thanks to Connors and Agassi.
Nalbandian, Murray, Hewitt and Nadal flicks leaving Fed standing took
this stroke to another level, its just the way it is cant beat evolution.
If Nadal was able to flatten his FH better like he did his BH he could
have won at least one end of year finals and more AOs.

 

[Passingshot78]

and praise from people watching, even opponents
BUT DHBH is the evolution of the game thanks to Connors and Agassi

I think You forgot about guy named Borg

 

[Big Okino]

2HBH definitely has the advantage in the modern game, getting to high topspin balls, but 1HBH allows for easier slice disguise and it looks damn cool

 

[Honza]

Plus spin is not only about ball bounce and acceleration. Its also about control and Magnus effect

Good point. You think the old small bouncy or the new big fluffy balls are easier to control with spin?

 

[Angrybirdstar]

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.

omg Connors beating the Rosewall and Perry allegations...

 

[Passingshot78]

Good point. You think the old small bouncy or the new big fluffy balls are easier to control with spin?

They are getting fluffy because of spin

Fluffy balls are gripier and easier to control but harder to finish points. That's why you always choose less fluffy balls for flat serves and more fluffy for kickers

 

[gfwp]

The other point missing to this discussion is...

2hBH needs more rotation with the back/spine to reach high racquet speed.
1HbH relies more on the shoulder/arm rotation.

Thus for some people 1HBH is a better option because of back/spine injuries and for others is better 2HBH because of shoulder injuries. For some of us, the choice is not free.

 

[Honza]

They are getting fluffy because of spin

Fluffy balls are gripier and easier to control but harder to finish points. That's why you always choose less fluffy balls for flat serves and more fluffy for kickers

See, you made it. Thats why spin was more important. The balls were harder to control.

 

[Aabye5]

Spin is as important as always And more important at slow courts than fast ones.

Plus spin is not only about ball bounce and acceleration. Its also about control and Magnus effect

If only these ball bashers would recognize this.

Did anyone see the Djere matches against Djokovic at the last two USOs? There is more than one way to skin a cat, and a hammer is not the best.

 

[Aabye5]

See, you made it. Thats why spin was more important. The balls were harder to control.

But it's still important. It just is underutilized by today's players. Much like body serves and one-handed backhands.

 

[mike danny]

I think the problems with the OHBH are overstated. It used to be a weakness when Nadal was still playing, but with him gone players should go back to it.

Maybe the rest of the game of some players isn't up to par and that's why people look at the BH for an excuse. Fritz is still a worse player than Tsitsipas despite having a solid 2 hander to Stef's weak one hander.

 

[Honza]

But it's still important. It just is underutilized by today's players. Much like body serves and one-handed backhands.

Why is it underutilized?

 

[Passingshot78]

See, you made it. Thats why spin was more important. The balls were harder to control.

Spin rates are still increasing That's the fact Flatening shots with słów balls and courts (and players so fit and fast) isn't efficient way of playing. it only can bring much more errors not much more winners

 

[McEncock]

The only pro for 1HBH is higher topspin rate, which leads to a potential crosscourt dominance over a 2HBH because of more angle possibilities
And even if 1handers tend to have a better slice, it's not directly related to the shot itself : Tsitsipas has a very poor slice while Tien has a deadly one

 

[Subway Tennis]

At our level playing club tennis, recreational tournaments or social comps there is no hard and fast rule. Depends on the player, their level, where they are at developmentally and the rest of their game. No hard and fast rule.

As far as pro tennis if I could choose one backhand in history it would be GOATwrinka, but I'm not sure if that says anything for the 1hbh's supremacy. There are plenty of 2 handers amongst my favourite pro backhands (SinnerVic, Dre, Murray, Safin, Rios etc etc)

 

[DariaGT]

If Rogerio Federico had a DHBH he would have more RG and more of everything.
To think Nadal was his kryptonite till on hardcourts late in both careers the Swiss made it a weapon
that even vs Wawrinka was able to outhit him on that side.
Moosetti has stated he is still developing that side which like Fed sometimes takes decades.
I hope Bernett works on his serve with Roger Lube or Stefan to also strengthen that side early on
rather than late in his career as many have. Even Wawrinka took till late 20s to master that side.

 

[DariaGT]

I think You forgot about guy named Borg

I was going to mention him BUT his BH was unorthodox almost impossible
I dont think any player after him replicated his double chicken wing elbows style
I prefer Connors and Agassi's clinical and compact style

 

[ChrisJR3264]

1HBH is pure beauty. But it’s effectiveness in todays game of more pace and spin and heavier balls seems to be dwindling.
Better results with a 2 hander.

 

[mike danny]

At our level playing club tennis, recreational tournaments or social comps there is no hard and fast rule. Depends on the player, their level, where they are at developmentally and the rest of their game. No hard and fast rule.

As far as pro tennis if I could choose one backhand in history it would be GOATwrinka, but I'm not sure if that says anything for the 1hbh's supremacy. There are plenty of 2 handers amongst my favourite pro backhands (SinnerVic, Dre, Murray, Safin, Rios etc etc)

No Nalby?

 

[Subway Tennis]

No Nalby?

Good shout. Nalbandian and GOATkori are on the list for sure.

 

[Passingshot78]

I was going to mention him BUT his BH was unorthodox almost impossible
I dont think any player after him replicated his double chicken wing elbows style
I prefer Connors and Agassi's clinical and compact style

Forget chicken wing which is more stylistic thing.

Important thing Borg hit with topspin and got under the ball alot simular to ones like Andre, Novak or Nalbandian
Connors backhand is very flat more like Kyrgios or Norrie.

From this point of view Borg backhand is more "repiicated" by todays game

 

[Holmes]

omg Connors beating the Rosewall and Perry allegations...

It's only with the benefit of hindsight we realize his place among the Rosewalls, Perrys, and Federers. Back in the day he was elevated to near GOAT status.

As long as tennis is discussed among true fans the name of Jimmy Connors will always be mentioned alongside the Perrys, the Rosewalls, the Federers etc. Guys who were a key part of their eras.

 

[Holmes]

Bruguera had a double-hander.

Typo, fixed.

 

[Aabye5]

Why is it underutilized?

Because most players don't have the hands to pull it off. See, here we talk a lot about topspin, but there is also backspin and sidespin.

I point to the Djere matches because they are relative recent examples of how a player can use a combination of power and spin to challenge a better player. Alcaraz can pull this off, too, but does not always employ it wisely.


Most of the other players use only topspin and then just try to hit the cover off the ball. This is why Sinner beats all comers except Alcaraz. No one bashes better than him.

 

[Birrittene96]

If Rogerio Federico had a DHBH he would have more RG and more of everything.
To think Nadal was his kryptonite till on hardcourts late in both careers the Swiss made it a weapon
that even vs Wawrinka was able to outhit him on that side.
Moosetti has stated he is still developing that side which like Fed sometimes takes decades.
I hope Bernett works on his serve with Roger Lube or Stefan to also strengthen that side early on
rather than late in his career as many have. Even Wawrinka took till late 20s to master that side.

This is pure speculation. His mix of slice and top spin worked very well for him against anyone except Nadal. He had probably the best slice ever, if he went with a two hander that would have been unlikely.