2 vs 1 handed BH superiority issue resolved

sureshs

Bionic Poster
#1
“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
 
#5
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.
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

Hall of Fame
#6
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.
Perfectly written.
 
#7
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.
 
#9
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

Hall of Fame
#10
“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

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.
 
#11
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.
 
#12
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.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
#13
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.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
#14
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.
No, the real message is that most good backhands are 2 handed. It is amazing how you pretend to not notice it.
 

ChaelAZ

Hall of Fame
#15
No, the real message is that most good backhands are 2 handed. It is amazing how you pretend to not notice it.
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.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
#16
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.
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

Hall of Fame
#18
It is not me, it is Murray. He has resolved the issue.

Remember how much Fed struggled against Nadal because of his weak backhand?
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.
 
#20
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.
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.
 
#21
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.
 
#22
It is not me, it is Murray. He has resolved the issue.

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

??? 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:
#23
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.
 
#24
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.
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.
 
#25
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.
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

Hall of Fame
#26
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.

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.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
#27
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
 
#28
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.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
#29
I'm more inclined to listen to Roger than Andy regarding what is more effective.
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-/
 
#30
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

Hall of Fame
#32
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.
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.

 

Raul_SJ

Hall of Fame
#35
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. ..
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:
#37
Which begs the question. Are there pros who use both? 1hbh to attack slow ball, but switch to 2hbhs for fast/heavy balls?
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.
 
#39
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.


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.
 
#40
Like what advantages that one can do but the other cannot?

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

sureshs

Bionic Poster
#42
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.
LOL that was a quote from a Federer interview
 
#46
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.
 
#48
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.
 
#49
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.
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.
 
#50
Which begs the question. Are there pros who use both? 1hbh to attack slow ball, but switch to 2hbhs for fast/heavy balls?
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?
 
Top