Dustin Brown, Jo Wilfried Tsonga do what you mention, but theyre both predominantly double handers that pull out a single hander when its clearly a better option. Hewitt from memory occasionally when pushed wide would drive a single hander. Youd have to think that this could be the player of the future!? Also maybe players who can serve left and right handed.
2 vs 1 handed BH superiority issue resolved
- Thread starter sureshs
- Start date
Dustin Brown, Jo Wilfried Tsonga do what you mention, but theyre both predominantly double handers that pull out a single hander when its clearly a better option. Hewitt from memory occasionally when pushed wide would drive a single hander. Youd have to think that this could be the player of the future!? Also maybe players who can serve left and right handed.
Moveforwardalways
Hall of Fame
But Djokovic has one of the best backhands ever, so that’s not really a great comparison point. As far as Murray, I would argue yes, Federer’s backhand is better. You have to remember, just because Nadal could give Federer’s backhand trouble, essentially no one else did. Even on clay. How many French Open finals did Fed make only to lose to the GOAT clay court player? It’s not like Federer was pulling a Sampras at the French Open. Federer dominated essentially the entire ATP on clay, none of whom could give his backhand trouble with high bouncing spinny balls, except for Nadal.
Chas Tennis
G.O.A.T.
If they initially accelerate the upper arm with the weaker shoulder muscles the shot will be weaker than if they initially use the upper body turn for acceleration. The 1HBH technique of pushing on the upper arm with the chest and not using the shoulder muscles initially can produce more acceleration.
Last edited:
Chas Tennis
G.O.A.T.
This child appears to accelerate by pressing on his upper arm with his chest. His upper arm appears to move in sync with the line between his shoulders and his chest appears to be in contact with his upper arm.
I do not recommend teaching this technique to small children because I don't understand their capabilities.
In his tennis, he uses a 2 hand backhand.
Last edited:
I think everyone will have a backhand stroke that works better for them personally, and they should choose to train their own best option. I will happily teach either the one or the two handed backhand to any student. Usually if I get them early on I will give them a chance to try both and just let them pick. Most people pick 2 hands, but some pick the 1 handed backhand. It's probably 80/20 if I had to put a number on it.
Second, the arm to chest thing on the one hander I believe is a simple question of an individuals proportions. I've tried this a few times on the court and it's physically very awkward for me to get my arm to my chest. It just doesn't work out the way I'm built. Also, I've tried to understand by trial and error if it would make any significant difference in my stroke in terms of power. My answer at least for me is no. Once I lock my arm and shoulder and start the turn there simply is no additional leverage to be gained. My shoulder pulls my arm similarly to the way my shoulder pulls my arm on my forehand. I can't envision how I could gain any additional speed or separation between my shoulder and chest to provide anything extra. So my personal opinion is there really isn't any reason to worry about arm to chest contact. If it happens it most likely happens because of the proportions of a particular player. I don't believe there is any reason to try and create such contact. The driving force is legs, hips, and torso like it is on the forehand.
Second, the arm to chest thing on the one hander I believe is a simple question of an individuals proportions. I've tried this a few times on the court and it's physically very awkward for me to get my arm to my chest. It just doesn't work out the way I'm built. Also, I've tried to understand by trial and error if it would make any significant difference in my stroke in terms of power. My answer at least for me is no. Once I lock my arm and shoulder and start the turn there simply is no additional leverage to be gained. My shoulder pulls my arm similarly to the way my shoulder pulls my arm on my forehand. I can't envision how I could gain any additional speed or separation between my shoulder and chest to provide anything extra. So my personal opinion is there really isn't any reason to worry about arm to chest contact. If it happens it most likely happens because of the proportions of a particular player. I don't believe there is any reason to try and create such contact. The driving force is legs, hips, and torso like it is on the forehand.
Chas Tennis
G.O.A.T.
How do you "lock" your arm and shoulder?
By the word "separation" in this context I mean the empty space between the chest and upper arm. On the other hand, when the chest and upper arm are in contact for some length of skin that area can provide force or torque. Your chest must be able to contact your upper arm when the upper arm is across the chest. Try it. The flesh might compress more or less at first as the force increases. I would estimate my skin contact length as 3-4" from armpit out. That length goes to zero as the arm later moves in the shoulder joint and separates.
Last edited:
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
That is not quite true. Safin did drill into that shot in the AO 2005 semifinal. Djokovic in the 2015 USO final too. Doesn't happen nearly as often as with Nadal because they are not lefties. But the question isn't even about whether Fed's shot breaks down. Even if it doesn't (and it doesn't break down very often, no Sampras backhand on clay definitely), it still wouldn't enable him to hit backhand passes with feet astride and out of court the way both Murray and Djokovic can because the one hander just requires more footwork and preparation. On both on the run passes and returns, Murrovic do enjoy an advantage over Fed. Sure, he can hit more spectacular rally winners than them which biases the mind but in terms of just keeping up in neutral on the rally too, the two hander is more reliable. You said comparison with Djokovic is not apt, ok compare Djokovic and Wawrinka both vis a vis Nadal. Djokovic clearly fares better on clay notwithstanding the one Wawrinka win on AO which again biases those who are already looking for evidence to confirm that the one hander is better (and nevermind Djokovic beating prime Nadal at AO himself). Not only is the two hander easier to teach to kids, but it's just so versatile that in any case, the upside of a moonshot preference for the one hander is not enough to justify coaches teaching that instead of the two hander to kids. Yes, it kills diversity in tennis. Well, then roll the clock back, take away poly and have a mix of all sorts of court speeds again and you will see more diversity of technique as those with somewhat non-standard technique also get to reach the higher levels of the game.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Somebody on TT had opined that it was basically because Tsonga had been taught a onehander and maybe into his late teens found out that it wouldn't cut it, so he switched to the two hander. But for passing shots, maybe he still feels more comfortable with the onehander (strange, I know but maybe he is unable to generate power with the two hander having learnt it later).
StringSnapper
Hall of Fame
Djokovic clearly is better than wawrinka, except when Djokovic is in absolute peak form and meets wawrinka in a grand slam final
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic clearly is better than wawrinka, except when Djokovic is in absolute peak form and meets wawrinka in a grand slam final
Yeah, well, it's weird how Wawrinka peaked those times and otherwise barely ever even got to Djokovic.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
In a way that sums up the debate. Stan is an unstoppable force on that sort of RG 2015 kind of day. He had double the number of winners of Djokovic! But it's harder for him to produce a day in day out level comparable to Djokovic. That's not ONLY because of the backhand but that's part of the equation too.
How do you "lock" your arm and shoulder?
By the word "separation" in this context I mean the empty space between the chest and upper arm. On the other hand, when the chest and upper arm are in contact for some length of skin that area can provide force or torque. Your chest must be able to contact your upper arm when the upper arm is across the chest. Try it. The flesh might compress more or less at first as the force increases. I would estimate my skin contact length as 3-4" from armpit out. That length goes to zero as the arm later moves in the shoulder joint and separates.
It's locked in the sense that I've fully prepped my backswing and it would take muscle energy in the wrong direction for me to get my arm to touch my chest. That would be counter productive. Also, there is no slack flex in the muscles or joint so that when my shoulder rotates into the shot there is no extra lag in the arm at the shoulder. So for purposes of leverage or speed into the ball the upper arm is fully pulled from the shoulder by the rotation.
Also, I could snap a picture of myself that would look near identical to the one you posted. While in that pose I can stick my hand between my arm and chest and touch my armpit. Imagine that you are trying to elbow yourself in the stomach. That's basically what I would need to do to close that gap. I guess if I was a body builder and my chest were substantially larger that there'd be no gap.
I think this is one of those things that would vary based on individual, but for me I would have to bring my elbow in too close to my body to make solid contact such that my chest would apply any pressure to my upper arm. That would ruin the form of my backhand.
So personally, I think if anything that upper arm to chest press is simply a side effect of an individuals various proportions. I don't think it's something that needs to be learned or studied as an aspect of the 1 hander.
mnttlrg
Professional
random related questions:
If you have limited movement but can generate lots of big easy power... and you like to control points and neutralize aggressively (rather than just retrieve), which type of backhand makes more sense from a strategic standpoint? And which one is more energy efficient for this type of style? Do any of you wear down physically from the 2HBH and find the OHBH less taxing, or vice versa? Thanks!
If you have limited movement but can generate lots of big easy power... and you like to control points and neutralize aggressively (rather than just retrieve), which type of backhand makes more sense from a strategic standpoint? And which one is more energy efficient for this type of style? Do any of you wear down physically from the 2HBH and find the OHBH less taxing, or vice versa? Thanks!
IowaGuy
Hall of Fame
Yup, but I bet in a few years (post-Fedalovic) the top couple ATP players will be wielding a 1HBH
Similar threads
