Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Ledigs, Oct 23, 2009.
What is so great about a one-hander?
Nothing. Who said it was better? It's all about preference.
imo, nothing is wrong with a 2hbh and nothing is great about a 1hbh but to hit a good 1hbh, you have to be a pretty good player. for most people, it is more difficult to hit a backhand well with one hand than with 2 hands.
it's easier and therefore people with good 1hbh have some credit
the only argument that I have seen in favor of the one hander over the two hander is that the one hander provides slightly better reach, but then you could just say the 2 hander can generate more power. There is really nothing wrong with either shot...each have plus's and minus's, but neither is inherently bad.
I would also say the one handed backhand is better for your position and movement, not only for your reach.
and the 2hbh neither is only for power but also precision
I have to disagree with this statement... The way to generate power is optimizing your swing speed and hitting a clean shot, not so much about using muscles, i.e. two hands being stronger than one. As the one-hander is NOT a compact shot you'd actually be able to generate more head speed than with a two hander. Granted, the 2HBH is more reliable.
Not to mention its easier to disguise shots as well. Of course your opponent will kow if you're dropping or slicing if you're a two hander. As for your original question, no real problem with 2 handers, one handed is just harder to learn initially where footowkr is key. Crap footwork = no solid one hander.
You can be a GOAT candidate - just ask Sampras, Federer, Graf and Navratilova.
No one hander can defeat Nadal. And the only people who can defeat Federer are two-handers.
Think about that.
It says that a lefty two hander with the best top spin ever can only be tamed by a two hander (Del P, Djokovic, Davy). And that the best one hander in the world can be defeated only by a 2 hander (Nadal, Del P).
Thus, two hander is the superior all-round stroke.
that is some weird constructure you built there. I can't see a real argument though
Only people named Chrissy (Evert) play with two hands!
Two handers are for weak momo's that don't have the strength or technique to hit a pure one handed back hand and control it. That equates to lazy mindless ball bashing and boring tennis.
the best 1hander in the world loses to the best 2hander in the world
C'mon. Stop talking in absolutes and slanting stats.
Federer's got 6 wins over Nadal, Blake has 3, I'm sure there are others.
The reason Federer loses to two-handers is because 85% of the tour are two-handed backhand players......
Take away Nadal's rocket launcher, then he is an average player that hits every ball short..
Oh thats right. Everyone has worked that out already.. Probably why he is now getting beat... Not because they have two handers...
That's more because of the matchup than anything else.
are you sure about that : )
If only it were so simple.
You can't take away a single stroke and make whatever equations you want with it. Nadal's 2HBHmay be the best VS Federer. On slow surfaces. But it clearly isn't the best vs every player.
Besides, calling Fed's 1HBH 'the best' is pushing it. Excellent shot yes, the best it isn't.
Not if their 1hbh sucks they don't.
So does that statement join the "Federer is the undisputed GOAT" and "Federer has 18 slams" claims? It definitely fits the pattern.
How original to start a thread about 1HBH vs 2HBH.
Maybe 2HBH is easier to develop when you start playing as a kid as it provides more power. Many probably just stick to it as they develop.
But both plays have their own advantages. 1HBH allows Federer to use his range of shots and 2HBH gives Nadal more power and precision. They both make great use of these shots. Players use the play that supports their game. Or, rather, have developed techniques based on their play.
Why would a 2hbh give you more power?
I hit a 2hbh..but on a ball that is floating in the air, i can hit it loads harder and with more spin with a 1hbh. imo the 2 hander is just more steady and reliable in this respect, easier to hit with power against a heavy ball. that's my experiance at least.
But you receive more balls with pace than ones that float, right? And players with 2HBH don't use both hands for *all* their shots, just ones where they can generate pace with ease. I doubt anyone will use it for an overhead.
Agree with this. The problem with a one-handed backhand is the return of serve aswell as dealing with heavy spin. I find returning particularly difficult with a one-hander as it's alot more difficult to shorten your swing and block the ball back into play, which requires excellent timing. The two hander has better stability.
Delportro played an amazing match but lest not get carried away yet. Fed also took as many games off that beast in one set as nadal did all match.
As a 1h player I have to agree, power generation is less than that of a 2h. 2h is a powerful shot, but 1h is so much more forgiving. If your footwork is great, you can virtually return anything and hit a very clean shot. Also, you can easily slice a ball that you normally couldn't hit with 2hbh and you aren't jammed as easily; you have considerably more reach. You can hit a ball that's very close to you with ease as well, it's easier to push a ball back with 1 hand.
On the note of being able to generate topspin easier with a 2hbh, I have to disagree. Again, if your form is correct, topspin should be the EASIEST 1h shot. Topspin comes with the follow through if you bring your racquet all the way through the ball. Again, in the slice department, no competition. Hitting flat, the advantage goes to 2h though.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that a 2hbh is more appropriate for an aggressive baseline player and a 1hbh is more for the defender/retriever type, but it's not really necessary to use either one, both have ads and disads.
I will say this, though. I love my 1-hander and I'll never change. A properly executed 1hbh is the most beautiful thing in sports
The 1H doesn't really have better reach. Positioning and timing are more important which makes the shot more difficult for most players. With a 2H you have more flexibility over where you hit the ball. With a 1 hander it has to be in pretty much perfect position for a good shot. Its impossible to hit a 1HBH when youre stretched out wide. I find with a 2H I can use my left hand to extend my arm and create that power to hit angles when im stretched outwide. For instance you see nadal hitting those crazy angles with his 2H bh's when hes on teh run. You can't do that with a 1 hander.
the argument is basically consistency vs. versatility.
the 1hbh is more versatile, can generate (generally) more power and spin, but is not as consistent or reliable, generally, as the 2hbh.
2hbh returns better generally, and is good for rallies. 1hbh is good for moving the ball around and infusing variety in your game, and is generally a good backup with solid footwork and net play.
Not to mention the 1 hbh is more stylish .
1hbh > 2hbh because of style
So then a 2hfh is generally more powerful than a 1hfh?
Correction: The one-hander provides both more reach AND more power (if you know how to hit it correctly). For example, most pros who hit one-handers can absolutely crush the ball with their backhands.
Hmmm....plenty of one-handers have beaten Nadal, e.g., Blake, Gaudio, Youznhy, Federer, Joachim Johansson, Gonzales, Ljubicic, Lopez, etc.
Correction: The best 1 hander in the world loses to the best left-handed player in the world, who also happens to have a great crosscourt forehand. His 2HBH has nothing to do with it.
BTW, the best 2 hander in the world is not Nadal. Nalbandian, Del Potro, Davydenko, Murray, Djokovic, etc. all have better 2HBH's than Nadal.
Because it doesn't. Two arms and two hands on the racquet limit the range and speed of your swing. You can generate much faster racquet head speed with one arm than with two arms. That's also why you can serve faster with one arm than with two. And why you can throw a baseball much faster with one arm than with two arms. Same with backhands.
Its strange that Tsonga has a 2hbh instead of a 1, his game would suit a 1 hander more with his agressive all-court game.
1HBH harder to learn, only in the sense that if you don't have perfect technique you run the risk of developing TE.
Other then that, it's probably all preference. I mean, there are probably MINUSCULE differences like control and consistency with the 2HBH due to the aid of an additional arm for balancing, and power and reach with the 1HBH due to having more leverage and less restrictions on ROM as well as torso positioning.
But in the end I really believe it comes down to which suits your game / which form you prefer using.
The one-hander does have more reach. It's also much easier to hit 1HBH's on the run than to hit 2HBH's on the run because you use your arm and shoulder more when hitting 1HBH so your legs and lower body can keep moving while hitting it, but with a 2HBH, you pretty much have to stop so that you can rotate your torso to hit the 2HBH.
The big advantage of a 2 hander is the stability you get at contact - especially off high-balls. It's easy to see that Federer struggles with the high-kicking topspin balls from Nadal to his backhand, but guys like Murray and Djokovic handle that shot with ease. Novak even prefers it at shoulder height, he loves to hit down on the ball.
You are doing it again, comparing apple with orange. I bet you can swing a baseball bat faster with one hand too, right? Is winning an argument on the internet that important to you?
With 2 hands you can use your wrists to speed up your swing a lot more than using one hand.
I have a 1HBH and don't agree a 2HBH is better in any way, but BP is just a troll...
There is nothing wrong with 2hbh but 1hbh is more beautiful to watch(to me at least).
Sorry if the analogy loses something in translation. I don't follow baseball all that much. Plus, I'm cross-dominant. Also, I could be *completely* wrong.
To answer your question, if people playing tennis had to hit legal 100-mph fastballs over an assumed outfield fence starting their movement from a resting position and making contact with the ball close to their body, then yes.
Essentially, in the 2HBH you are adding weight to the racquet and taking some pace off the incoming ball before striking it, I think. This changes the situation from, say, badminton (where the shuttlecock's speed depends on the racquet's swing speed) to baseball (where batted ball speed depends on swing speed *and* bat weight). Plus, you get more power from rotation in the 2HBH than in the 1HBH.
Huh! Someone at BBC agrees with me. Obviously, they explain it better/correctly.
Yeah, but the one handers are the ones winning the slams
I grew up with 2hbh and it was my best shot. After learning the 1hbh for teaching purposes I realized how much more efficient it is than the 2hbh. The 2hbh definitely has some benifits but I've always thought the 1hbh was the most beautiful shot in the game. It took time to develop (which was actually lots of fun) but now I have completely left the 2hbh behind. Thankfully, my game is now much more efficient and effective.
I've bumped into one (good) player that switched from 1hbh to 2hbh and he was kind of a tool. An injury would be the only reasonable explaination. Or just not being skilled enough for a 1hbh. I've definitely switched some 3.0 and 3.5 players to a 2h but nobody with real skill.
Separate names with a comma.