Does the 1hbh actually have more reach?

[TeamOB]

I hear this claim a lot, but I have big doubts about its legitimacy. IMO the 2hbh is a superior shot WHEN STRETCHED. It is easier to generate pace and maintain some control and stability.

Check out the first shot in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJb8ZIGOHRM. In this situation a 1hbh would be forced to go for a desperate flick shot or slice. It would not be possible for a 1hbh to generate pace and maintain control from this position.

I also notice this in my matches. When I play a 1hbh, I have no problem coming to net whenever I get them on the run on the BH side. I know they won't be able to hurt me with a passing shot. With a 2hbh I have to be more careful. They can use their open stance and stability to hit a passing shot like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxA-TYr1og

So my conclusion is: 1hbh has some advantages when standing still (more spin, more RHS, more angles), but on the stretch 2hbh is a superior shot. The reach advantage goes to 2hbh. Who agrees?

 

[peakofthebounce]

That shot is kind of a Djokovic-special, though. How many times do you see Murray or Roddick playing backhands like that?

Do you play rec level players that are capable of running-splits, open stance backhand topspin passing winners? If so, you must play at a very high level.

Anyway, the solution to this play would be to hit high AND wide. Djokovic has to lower his height to around 4ft when he sinks into the splits, so if the ball is kicking up above his head, he will not be able to reach it with a running open stance slide backhand.

Djokovic is a funny case, because he will also play a very closed stance backhand when on the full stretch;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUhhVifbIx8

 

[SpinToWin]

I agree on the stretch, however the reach refers to standing still.

Do the experiment. Stand in a closed stance and emulate a 2HBH, looking at the contact point. Now, without changing the stance, do the same for the 1HBH. The one handed has just a bit more reach. So it is true, the 1HBH has more reach; however I believe people emphasize this point too much, as if it has great significance, which really, it does not.

In general I'd say the difference between 1HBH and 2HBH is the kind of shots you can produce. The 1HBH can produce higher RHS and the 2HBH has more stability. Therefore, you can hit more potent shots with the 1HBH, but you can defend better and more consistently with the 2HBH.

 

[Tennisguy3000]

Yes, stand in one place with your two hander and reach as far as you can and swing... now do the same with a one hander. You will exceed it by a few inches.

 

[TeamOB]

I agree on the stretch, however the reach refers to standing still.

If you are standing still, why would you want to reach? As you say later in your post, this seems completely irrelevant. The only time reach actually helps is when you are stretched.

 

[mtommer]

TeamOB,

Watch your first youtube of hitting Joko hitting on the run. Is he really stretched out? It looks more to me that he's, on the run yes, but still getting to the ball with perfect timing such that he can hit a good shot.

Go to :22 in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOK-vHLoC4M

As you can see, the reply isn't "strong". It's just as weak as many 1hbh really stretched out replies but I also feel a 1hbh in this scenario would have been able to do more especially with a nice backspin defensive reply allowing Joko to get back into the rally in a stronger position.

 

[peakofthebounce]

Djokovic's splits backhand and Federer's flick backhand block - both about the same in efficacy.

 

[Cup8489]

I hear this claim a lot, but I have big doubts about its legitimacy. IMO the 2hbh is a superior shot WHEN STRETCHED. It is easier to generate pace and maintain some control and stability.

Check out the first shot in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJb8ZIGOHRM. In this situation a 1hbh would be forced to go for a desperate flick shot or slice. It would not be possible for a 1hbh to generate pace and maintain control from this position.

I also notice this in my matches. When I play a 1hbh, I have no problem coming to net whenever I get them on the run on the BH side. I know they won't be able to hurt me with a passing shot. With a 2hbh I have to be more careful. They can use their open stance and stability to hit a passing shot like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxA-TYr1og

So my conclusion is: 1hbh has some advantages when standing still (more spin, more RHS, more angles), but on the stretch 2hbh is a superior shot. The reach advantage goes to 2hbh. Who agrees?

The main advantage I have when i get caught reaching is i can flick the wrist more with the 1hbh.. even if it doesn't have much on it, it has more on it than the 2hbh I used to use (which was my better shot defensively compared to the forehand, but not as good as my 1hbh now)

 

[BevelDevil]

Yes, typically the 1hbh will have more effective reach because you can take a wide step across your body, have your arm completely straight, and generate pace without having to rotate your body much. A lot of Stan's big bh shots come from him leaning over to the sideline.

Btw, on those open-stance, sliding 2hbhs, recovery seems to be slow (or at least not faster), compared to taking an extra step. Probably because the legs are spread too wide and there's no "bounce" of the extra step.

In any case, why would Tsonga use a 1hbh for passing shots if it had less reach? I've seen Agassi use a topspin 1hbh as well on the reach, as well.

Also keep in mind, the example you are using is of the player with the most amount of reach on the 2hbh.

 

[peakofthebounce]

Yes, typically the 1hbh will have more effective reach because you can take a wide step across your body, have your arm completely straight, and generate pace without having to rotate your body much. A lot of Stan's big bh shots come from him leaning over to the sideline.

Btw, on those open-stance, sliding 2hbhs, recovery seems to be slow (or at least not faster), compared to taking an extra step. Probably because the legs are spread too wide and there's no "bounce" of the extra step.

In any case, why would Tsonga use a 1hbh for passing shots if it had less reach? I've seen Agassi use a topspin 1hbh as well on the reach, as well.

Also keep in mind, the example you are using is of the player with the most amount of reach on the 2hbh.

When you are running to the ball for a backhand (assuming you're a righty), you should be running head-on to the ball - in other words, chest facing the side fence, toes facing the side fence as you run. You don't run sideways across the baseline like a crab. From that position you either lunge across with your right leg to play a closed stance backhand (option 1), or slide through with your left leg to hit an open stance backhand (option 2). Both of these options take an equal amount of time to do.

Option 1 means you can reach further with your arms to possibly hit a better/bigger shot, but you will either need to take an extra step for recovery, or turn your back to the opponent when making your recovery if you don't take the extra step.

Option 2 means you can't reach as far, so will likely hit a weaker shot. It necessitates sliding into the shot as in doing the splits, but the theoretical advantage is that you can push off the left leg back to the middle for recovery.

Yet, when Djokovic has sunk into the sliding splits completely, he now has to get up from the splits in order to begin his recovery. That takes time. You can't recover to the baseline with your legs in the splits. Also, in the act of when sliding, he may slide well past the contact point as his momentum carries him away from to the left - especially on clay. This also takes time, and increases the distance he'll need to travel to get back to the middle.

So the extra step to close off the stance is worth it in my opinion, as you can generally hit a better shot, and you can recover almost as fast - especially if you do the spinning around method where you turn your back to the opponent briefly in the recovery. Nadal does this effectively.

 

[SpinToWin]

TeamOB,

Watch your first youtube of hitting Joko hitting on the run. Is he really stretched out? It looks more to me that he's, on the run yes, but still getting to the ball with perfect timing such that he can hit a good shot.

Go to :22 in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOK-vHLoC4M

As you can see, the reply isn't "strong". It's just as weak as many 1hbh really stretched out replies but I also feel a 1hbh in this scenario would have been able to do more especially with a nice backspin defensive reply allowing Joko to get back into the rally in a stronger position.

Disagree. Djokovic is caught completely off balance. A 1HBH player could not get his feet into position for a topspin reply (without losing his balance), however, he would probably use a more effective slice.

In general the 1HBH does not have much more reach, if you look at Tsonga hitting the 1HBH on the run, it's not a complete technique but rather just swatting the ball by arming the racquet. Also, after playing that shot he has to run it out and ends somewhere near the boundaries of the court, whereas the open stance backhand lets the player recover much more quickly. Take a look at the first video again. After the shot Djokovic slides maybe 2 feet further and then is already in position to move back.

 

[Maximagq]

TeamOB, go to the Tips forum and look at the threads about the open stance one handed backhand. And Djokovic has the best two handed backhand in the history of tennis.

 

[LeeD]

When mentioning 1hbh reach, you cannot disregard the SLICE backhand.
Yes, 2hbh can also use a slice 1hbh, but it's not second nature, needs to be practice and learned, repeated and rerinsed.

 

[heninfan99]

Of course. You have way more reach with one hand on the racquet than two hands. Good for lazy people.

In your Djoker example he still had to get very close to the ball to hit it. I think you might be confusing his splits with reach.

 

[peakofthebounce]

When mentioning 1hbh reach, you cannot disregard the SLICE backhand.
Yes, 2hbh can also use a slice 1hbh, but it's not second nature, needs to be practice and learned, repeated and rerinsed.

A slice backhand is certainly not second nature to a player who uses a 1hbh topspin.

1hbh need to practice slice just as much as 2hbh, possibly more so if they use an extreme grip on the backhand (like sw), whereas at least a 2hbh will be used to holding a continental grip (needed for slice) with the right hand.

Using a 1hbh does not make you an all-court player with soft hands by default. Please ask Almagro why he has a killer topspin one-handed backhand, but his slice, volleys and touch shots are among the worst in the top 100.

 

[LeeD]

I can probably find ONE example to counter everything you say, about any subject!
Except, we will all die in the end.

 

[smoledman]

I hear this claim a lot, but I have big doubts about its legitimacy. IMO the 2hbh is a superior shot WHEN STRETCHED. It is easier to generate pace and maintain some control and stability.

Check out the first shot in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJb8ZIGOHRM. In this situation a 1hbh would be forced to go for a desperate flick shot or slice. It would not be possible for a 1hbh to generate pace and maintain control from this position.

I also notice this in my matches. When I play a 1hbh, I have no problem coming to net whenever I get them on the run on the BH side. I know they won't be able to hurt me with a passing shot. With a 2hbh I have to be more careful. They can use their open stance and stability to hit a passing shot like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxA-TYr1og

So my conclusion is: 1hbh has some advantages when standing still (more spin, more RHS, more angles), but on the stretch 2hbh is a superior shot. The reach advantage goes to 2hbh. Who agrees?

Don't confuse Djokovic's insane ability with a general superiority of the shot.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I have a 1hbh. Looks kinda like Lopez's form-wise. I feel handicapped trying to play with 2.

 

[SpinToWin]

Don't confuse Djokovic's insane ability with a general superiority of the shot.

Djokovic plays it, Monfils plays it, I believe that Murray plays it, Nadal plays it, etc. Nobody plays it as extremely as Djokovic (actually… On second thought, Monfils does), however the open stance 2HBH at full stretch is not a Djokovic exclusive shot. It is however a 2HBH exclusive shot due to balance issues with the 1HBH. From the position these guys sometimes play aggressive topspin, most 1HBH players will play a slice and few geniuses (like Federer) might play a flick backhand (however from a closed stance).

Anyways, the whole reach debate is overrated. The large advantages and disadvantages lie elsewhere. Not worth extensive discussions IMO.

 

[BevelDevil]

When mentioning 1hbh reach, you cannot disregard the SLICE backhand.
Yes, 2hbh can also use a slice 1hbh, but it's not second nature, needs to be practice and learned, repeated and rerinsed.

A slice backhand is certainly not second nature to a player who uses a 1hbh topspin.

1hbh need to practice slice just as much as 2hbh, possibly more so if they use an extreme grip on the backhand (like sw), whereas at least a 2hbh will be used to holding a continental grip (needed for slice) with the right hand.

Using a 1hbh does not make you an all-court player with soft hands by default. Please ask Almagro why he has a killer topspin one-handed backhand, but his slice, volleys and touch shots are among the worst in the top 100.

It used to be true that 1-handers had better slices. But I don't think this is true anymore, or at least the correlation has become much more weak.

The reason for it (aside from 2-handers moving towards a 1-handed slice), is that 1-handers are using more extreme grips and are opening up their chests more on the topspin 1hbh. This creates a greater disparity between their topspin touch and their slice touch.

Wawrinka, also, has a pretty meh slice.

 

[peakofthebounce]

Murray's slice is great. Top 5 on tour.

 

[BevelDevil]

In general the 1HBH does not have much more reach, if you look at Tsonga hitting the 1HBH on the run, it's not a complete technique but rather just swatting the ball by arming the racquet. Also, after playing that shot he has to run it out and ends somewhere near the boundaries of the court, whereas the open stance backhand lets the player recover much more quickly. Take a look at the first video again. After the shot Djokovic slides maybe 2 feet further and then is already in position to move back.

Swatting/flicking the ball and hitting on the run are part of the "reach" of the 1hbh.

As for Tsonga, he hits several 1hbhs without running through it. And when he does run through it, it's one of those situations where he's either going to win or lose the point right there and there's no reason to recover. It's also a bit of exhibitionism. A lot of players do this (1- and 2-handed) .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LktrtCwsPBE

I hear this claim a lot, but I have big doubts about its legitimacy. IMO the 2hbh is a superior shot WHEN STRETCHED.

Maybe 1-handers don't get "stretched" as often...

 

[TeamOB]

My opinion on this matter is mostly based on personal experience. I play pretty high level juniors and most of the guys with 2hbh can hit a pretty good passing shot when stretched. None of the guys with 1hbh can consistently hurt me with a stretch flick. In fact, Roger Federer is the only person I know of who can consistently hit good flick BH passing shots. My conclusion: 2hbh is better when reaching.

 

[monfed]

Yes. Tsonga hit 1HBH passing shots on the run against Fed in Wim 2011. :lol:

 

[BevelDevil]

My opinion on this matter is mostly based on personal experience. I play pretty high level juniors and most of the guys with 2hbh can hit a pretty good passing shot when stretched. None of the guys with 1hbh can consistently hurt me with a stretch flick. In fact, Roger Federer is the only person I know of who can consistently hit good flick BH passing shots. My conclusion: 2hbh is better when reaching.

Can you clarify if you are making a disntinction between "stretched"/"reaching" vs. "reach"?

Because it seems like the 1hbh has a longer reach before it turns to a stretch. By analogy, a tall person can "reach" further without really having to "stretch."

Seems to me that it's entirely possible for the 1hbh to have greater "reach" while the 2hbh does better on the "stretch," but that the 1-hander doesn't have to stretch as much as a 2-hander.

 

[fuzz nation]

Just a thought - It doesn't really matter whether the one-hander has more reach if a player doesn't have the aptitude to develop that stroke. In case the OP is looking for a stronger argument for learning (or teaching) one style or the other, it's important to remember that some players will do better with the stroke that they can actually embrace.

I use both styles of topspin backhand, but I get my best reach with a backhand slice.

 

[coloskier]

I hear this claim a lot, but I have big doubts about its legitimacy. IMO the 2hbh is a superior shot WHEN STRETCHED. It is easier to generate pace and maintain some control and stability.

Check out the first shot in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJb8ZIGOHRM. In this situation a 1hbh would be forced to go for a desperate flick shot or slice. It would not be possible for a 1hbh to generate pace and maintain control from this position.

I also notice this in my matches. When I play a 1hbh, I have no problem coming to net whenever I get them on the run on the BH side. I know they won't be able to hurt me with a passing shot. With a 2hbh I have to be more careful. They can use their open stance and stability to hit a passing shot like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxA-TYr1og

So my conclusion is: 1hbh has some advantages when standing still (more spin, more RHS, more angles), but on the stretch 2hbh is a superior shot. The reach advantage goes to 2hbh. Who agrees?

Even Djoker drops a hand when he can't reach.

 

[TeamOB]

Can you clarify if you are making a disntinction between "stretched"/"reaching" vs. "reach"?

Because it seems like the 1hbh has a longer reach before it turns to a stretch. By analogy, a tall person can "reach" further without really having to "stretch."

Seems to me that it's entirely possible for the 1hbh to have greater "reach" while the 2hbh does better on the "stretch," but that the 1-hander doesn't have to stretch as much as a 2-hander.

For me, "reach" means how far you can reach and still hit a decent shot. IMO the 2hbh has an advantage in this regard because it has a bit more stability at the end of its range.

 

[smalahove]

But are you really comparing the same shots?
Esp. when considering top ATP players.

When they are both stretched out, the 1bh player has a better reach than a 2bh, but in actual gameplay? My assumption is that the 1bh still reaches further, but with less power @max stretch than the 2bhh player, *but* this is not straight forward to assess without looking into footwork. My other assumption is that a 2bh player has developed better and faster footwork than the 1bh, which means that if they would reach the same extreme-reach-ball, the 2bh would have an advantage.

That being said, at my recreational level, there's no doubt: the full reach 1bh works way better than the 2bh ;-)

 

[West Coast Ace]

My opinion on this matter is mostly based on personal experience. I play pretty high level juniors and most of the guys with 2hbh can hit a pretty good passing shot when stretched. None of the guys with 1hbh can consistently hurt me with a stretch flick. In fact, Roger Federer is the only person I know of who can consistently hit good flick BH passing shots. My conclusion: 2hbh is better when reaching.

Logic fail. They can hit a good pass WHEN they get to the ball with 2 hands. That's the difference. The 1H 'flick' isn't the same thing - that's a ball no one would get to. Secondly just looking at passing shots is a fail. a) not that many people come to net these days; b) part of tennis is playing defense - and the 1H slice when hit correctly is a great tool.

Did anyone say 'yes' yet?

 

[sportsfan1]

No, 2HBH doesn't have more reach. It has better power behind it when players are forced somewhat out of position, but can still reach it with two hands. If the player is on a dead run and doesn't have time to get in position, both 1hbh and 2hbh players will just reach out and slice or lob the ball using 1h at full stretch.

 

[mtommer]

For me, "reach" means how far you can reach and still hit a decent shot. IMO the 2hbh has an advantage in this regard because it has a bit more stability at the end of its range.

Ah. I see how you're defining it now. I personally consider "reach" to be at the utmost limit with no ability to really take the racquet back.

 

[BevelDevil]

For me, "reach" means how far you can reach and still hit a decent shot. IMO the 2hbh has an advantage in this regard because it has a bit more stability at the end of its range.

Using your terminology of "reach" and "range" I'm saying the 1hbh has a longer range. So even if the 1hbh is inferior "at the end of its range", it is less likely to be at the "end" since its range is longer.

To use the height analogy: Tom Two-hands may have steadier hands when he's on balancing on the tips of his toes, while Owen One-Hand may be clumsy when he's on the tips of his toes. But if Owen is taller, he doesn't have to be on the tips of his toes as much.

So, if we stick to your terminology, I might say the 1hbh has a longer range while the 2hbh has a longer "reach." However, I think your terminology is a bit misleading.

 

[yellowoctopus]

IMHO: The benefit of having a 1hbh is not necessarily the reach, but rather the fact that it support more offensive game and the associated mindset of the player. It is pointless to debate the superiority of one type of backhand over another because the players with different types of backhand have different types of game.

 

[Chico]

Of course it does.