Hitting On The Rise - One vs Two Handed Backhand

#1
I hope this discussion will help those trying to decide whether to hit a 1 or 2 handed backhand. :)
Both players with the one and two handed backhand have used the aggressive "hitting on the rise" playing style to great effect.
(2 Hander: Agassi, Davydenko, Djokovic)
(1 Hander: Federer, Haas)

Two Hander
  • Two hands on the racket provides more support and allows players to easily deflect fast, heavy balls.
One Hander
  • The one handed backhand allows players to make contact further out in front of the body and at a lower height (below knees) more comfortably with its more vertical swing path. This allows players like Federer to hit the ball earlier (practically half volleys) than almost any other player.
So my questions are:
Which backhand do you think is the best for hitting on the rise?
Does the stability and consistency of the two handed backhand outweigh the pros of the one hander or not?
Are there any other pros or cons to hitting on the rise with either backhand type?
 
#6
Same and agree. For me, hitting on the rise becomes more and more difficult as pace increases, where I move from hitting back with pace to more blocking back.
For my shoulder I have a tendency to start the swing earlier and by the time i make contact just hit over too early. As of late ive been trying to time alot better about my contact point on the rise and rolling over more instead of blocking back.

Been pretty successful a good % of the time, but always trying to be more consistent
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
#8
I hope this discussion will help those trying to decide whether to hit a 1 or 2 handed backhand. :)
Both players with the one and two handed backhand have used the aggressive "hitting on the rise" playing style to great effect.
(2 Hander: Agassi, Davydenko, Djokovic)
(1 Hander: Federer, Haas)
Wawrinka has one of the best on-the-rise 1HBH.
Nalbandian one of the best on-the-rise 2HBH.

Either works well, just pick one and start practicing!
 
#10
I hope this discussion will help those trying to decide whether to hit a 1 or 2 handed backhand. :)
Both players with the one and two handed backhand have used the aggressive "hitting on the rise" playing style to great effect.
(2 Hander: Agassi, Davydenko, Djokovic)
(1 Hander: Federer, Haas)

Two Hander
  • Two hands on the racket provides more support and allows players to easily deflect fast, heavy balls.
One Hander
  • The one handed backhand allows players to make contact further out in front of the body and at a lower height (below knees) more comfortably with its more vertical swing path. This allows players like Federer to hit the ball earlier (practically half volleys) than almost any other player.
So my questions are:
Which backhand do you think is the best for hitting on the rise?
Does the stability and consistency of the two handed backhand outweigh the pros of the one hander or not?
Are there any other pros or cons to hitting on the rise with either backhand type?
This is actually a big disadvantage of the one hander for hitting on the rise. You need to hit it more out front and thus you need to be early and have perfect timing. Even fed will hit some big shanks when doing this.

The two hander you can be jammed or a little late and still muscle it over.the two hander is really superior for this, even Federer took years to develope this (until 2010 or so he usually stood more back and hit more slices).
 
#11
I'm biased but I think it's the one hander. But seeing Smyczek and Murray play up close, I don't really think it matters so long as the footwork and prep is good. We've seen Agassi rip a winner off a high moonball from Nadal. We've seen what Davydenko can do. We've seen what Blake and Federer can do. Honestly, it's just down to preference. The first time I tried a two handed backhand I knew instantly it wasn't for me.

It's just preference, but if I used a two handed backhand, I doubt I could've come close to doing what I did to some balls off the bounce with a one hander. I used to actually prefer to hit passing shots right off the bounce because I knew exactly where the ball would be, so I could swing as hard as I wanted and hit it cleanly.
 
#12
Wawrinka has one of the best on-the-rise 1HBH.
Nalbandian one of the best on-the-rise 2HBH.

Either works well, just pick one and start practicing!
I still think mechanics come into play even if slightly. Wawrinka makes contact closer to his body because he turns his chest in more and keeps his hitting arm on his body. Also, he takes slightly longer to prepare than other players - therefore, may have a hard time standing on the baseline on fast courts.

But I agree that going out to the court is ultimately, the biggest factor to success in tennis.
 

sredna42

Professional
#13
Interesting thread, i had this dilemna.
My coach explained to me that eastern 1hbh is better for taking the ball early, and it makes perfect sense

I used to love stepping and taking a 1hbh as almost a half volley

But i find it more solid and consistent and even easier to do with a 2hbh, though the 1hbh probably has a higher attacking ceiling

So anyway i switched to a 2hbh, still a work in progress, but i prefer it now. My game is like bjorkman (i like to think) so its working well overall. The 1hbh was killing my arm too which made the decision easy
 
#14
This is actually a big disadvantage of the one hander for hitting on the rise. You need to hit it more out front and thus you need to be early and have perfect timing. Even fed will hit some big shanks when doing this.

The two hander you can be jammed or a little late and still muscle it over.the two hander is really superior for this, even Federer took years to develope this (until 2010 or so he usually stood more back and hit more slices).
That is a good point - when you put it that way, the two hander is much more versatile when it comes to improvisation. If one masters hitting on the rise with the one hander (see Federer), is it better or still worse than the two hander?
 
#15
Well, for me I'm already hitting 1hbh so it's more a question of how to develop those techniques. I think I benefit from the variety of shot I can hit and ability to vary the contact point. But more interesting when I have a very hard ball that i'm short hopping guess what? I use 2 hands :8
 
#16
Interesting thread, i had this dilemna.
My coach explained to me that eastern 1hbh is better for taking the ball early, and it makes perfect sense

I used to love stepping and taking a 1hbh as almost a half volley

But i find it more solid and consistent and even easier to do with a 2hbh, though the 1hbh probably has a higher attacking ceiling

So anyway i switched to a 2hbh, still a work in progress, but i prefer it now. My game is like bjorkman (i like to think) so its working well overall. The 1hbh was killing my arm too which made the decision easy

I think you hit it on the nail - the 2hbh is more consistent while the 1hbh allows you to be more aggressive, taking the ball super early. This, is probably a general rule of thumb - the 1hbh allows more maximum 'mph' and 'rpm' but is much less consistent in long rallies and matches.

Even though technically, the 1hbh allows more aggression, does the consistency of the 2hbh allow players to play more aggressively, swinging harder like Nadal, and attacking down the line with more confidence?
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
#17
I think you hit it on the nail - the 2hbh is more consistent while the 1hbh allows you to be more aggressive, taking the ball super early. This, is probably a general rule of thumb - the 1hbh allows more maximum 'mph' and 'rpm' but is much less consistent in long rallies and matches.

Even though technically, the 1hbh allows more aggression, does the consistency of the 2hbh allow players to play more aggressively, swinging harder like Nadal, and attacking down the line with more confidence?
I don't think the 1HBH is less consistent in rallies/matches. More RPM actually allows a high net clearance - think Gasquet. OTOH, less RPM 2HBH can tend to be rather flat - think Nalbandian, Delpo, or Zverev.

Agression: Guga, Wawrinka, Gasquet, Fed have/had some of the most deadly DTL shots.

I think your best argument for 2HBH>1HBH is on agressive return of serve. Case in point Agassi and Joker.
 
#18
For me its the 1hander. But i hit that shot with the wrong grip (sw) which imho makes it great for on the rise and more stable than a reg one hander. The face is more closed which is great for on the rise and for high balls.

Not saying its great but I can do ok with the one hander for my level

 
#19
For me its the 1hander. But i hit that shot with the wrong grip (sw) which imho makes it great for on the rise and more stable than a reg one hander. The face is more closed which is great for on the rise and for high balls.

Not saying its great but I can do ok with the one hander for my level

Your grip isn't wrong. It's just very extreme (and as a result, very rare). Not gonna say it's more or less stable or suited for taking a ball on the rise. Different people get different things to work differently. I do feel I hit the ball harder with a slightly more extreme grip, but I still hit serve returns just as hard.

People used to say that players with extreme grips suffered on low balls. But we see Rafa eat up low balls, Courier and Roddick didn't do too poorly against them, people don't seem to try and slice their way past Djokovic's forehand (so I assume it's quite solid against low balls), and the list goes on. What works wonders for one player might not work for another player. So long as the fundamentals are good, it doesn't really matter (case in point, Santoro).
 
#20
With 1hbh, if you get good at on the rise shots, you gain two more shots: you become automatically capable to chip on the rise. You can flip wrist on the rise with back facing the net when stretched, although admittedly not a very high percentage shot. Disadvantage is when the incoming pace is fast from the opponent at net, you have less time to prepare and may still need both hands to block.
 
#21
To everyone who has responded to this thread, have you actually used BOTH 1hbh and 2hbh extensively?

I'm getting the feeling that most of the 1hbh answers are from 1hbh purists? I'm kinda surprised so few people have said 2hbh.

I've hit with both backhands extensively, 2.5 years using 1hbh, and currently 1 year using 2hbh. All I can say is that 2hbh is much easier to hit on the rise, its to the point where I actually prefer to take majority of my backhands early.
 
#22
To everyone who has responded to this thread, have you actually used BOTH 1hbh and 2hbh extensively?

I'm getting the feeling that most of the 1hbh answers are from 1hbh purists? I'm kinda surprised so few people have said 2hbh.

I've hit with both backhands extensively, 2.5 years using 1hbh, and currently 1 year using 2hbh. All I can say is that 2hbh is much easier to hit on the rise, its to the point where I actually prefer to take majority of my backhands early.
I used 1hbh for 10 years and 2hbh for the last 10 years. It's no contest. In fact being able to hit on the rise consistently is why I switched to 2hbh.
 

sredna42

Professional
#23
To everyone who has responded to this thread, have you actually used BOTH 1hbh and 2hbh extensively?

I'm getting the feeling that most of the 1hbh answers are from 1hbh purists? I'm kinda surprised so few people have said 2hbh.

I've hit with both backhands extensively, 2.5 years using 1hbh, and currently 1 year using 2hbh. All I can say is that 2hbh is much easier to hit on the rise, its to the point where I actually prefer to take majority of my backhands early.
Yeah i have.
My 1hbh used to be my strongest shot, but i took the plunge and put in alot of hard work to switch to 2hbh:
-Because of tennis elbow
-to be able to cultivate an aggressive ROS like agassi, murray
-to hit on the rise like agassi

Its taken alot of effort, but i prefer it now. You can take balls really late with just a flick of the wrist too

But thats just my opinion, i don't think that there is a right or wrong option, just the option that works for you
 
#24
To everyone who has responded to this thread, have you actually used BOTH 1hbh and 2hbh extensively?

I'm getting the feeling that most of the 1hbh answers are from 1hbh purists? I'm kinda surprised so few people have said 2hbh.

I've hit with both backhands extensively, 2.5 years using 1hbh, and currently 1 year using 2hbh. All I can say is that 2hbh is much easier to hit on the rise, its to the point where I actually prefer to take majority of my backhands early.
I was one hander then switched to 2 hands when Agassi was dominating. Then back to one hander. 2 hands was hard on the lower back and well even in my youth i was not fast.

I can still hit a passable 2 hander but would end up hitting slice fhs all the time (long story) so its not like I have never hit a two hander:

 
#25
Your grip isn't wrong. It's just very extreme (and as a result, very rare). Not gonna say it's more or less stable or suited for taking a ball on the rise. Different people get different things to work differently. I do feel I hit the ball harder with a slightly more extreme grip, but I still hit serve returns just as hard.

People used to say that players with extreme grips suffered on low balls. But we see Rafa eat up low balls, Courier and Roddick didn't do too poorly against them, people don't seem to try and slice their way past Djokovic's forehand (so I assume it's quite solid against low balls), and the list goes on. What works wonders for one player might not work for another player. So long as the fundamentals are good, it doesn't really matter (case in point, Santoro).
Good post. When I say more stable i mean that the palm is more behind the racquet instead of on top. Like if you are falling forward toward a wall. To break the fall you place the palm against the wall not facing the floor.

You are right about the low balls
 

Dragy

Professional
#26
Good post. When I say more stable i mean that the palm is more behind the racquet instead of on top. Like if you are falling forward toward a wall. To break the fall you place the palm against the wall not facing the floor.

You are right about the low balls
I'm not with you on this idea. Actually, it's the opposite: extending the wrist one moves the handle off the plane of forearm bones. However, it's not critical for the impact of a tennis stroke - wrist joints can deal with it. Just EBH grip allows having wrist in most neutral, natural position, as for me.
For your wall analogy, you actually get your palm away from the impact. So that no small bones and tendons bear the impact power.
 
#27
That is a good point - when you put it that way, the two hander is much more versatile when it comes to improvisation. If one masters hitting on the rise with the one hander (see Federer), is it better or still worse than the two hander?
If you master it everything is easy:). For Mozart writing classic music was easy, I could never do it. I think both can be equal but it is way easier to master with two hands. Even Federer didn't do it consistently until his late 20s. If you watch him like 2006 he would occasionally hit a BH on the rise but most of the time if the opponent hit a deep one he would hit a slice, and that is what almost all one handers in the world do (either slice or step back if the ball of the opponent lands near his baseline).

Of course even with the two hander it is not easy. Hitting everything on the rise like Agassi isn't a winning strategy for most players. Imo for most good rec players it is good to have a mixed strategy like david ferrer had. If the opponent hit a strong shot ferrer would stand far behind the baseline and play a defensive shot but once the opponent drops one on the service line he would step into the court. This is way more sustainable for most players than playing like Agassi.
 
#28
Gasquet, Wawrinka, Justine Henin and Federer bring the racket down with the off hand. This is a distinct move that you can observe looking at high speed videos. The racket is rotated downward for low balls, it can place the racket head low for the forward and upward swing. The motion uses a straight arm and appears to rotate the racket down from the shoulder using ISR. In addition, the body height is also adjusted for the incoming ball height in other miscellaneous ways, knee bend, trunk tilt, others.

Under stress.




These backhands do not display as straight an elbow but the racket is brought down with off hand.
 
Last edited:
#29
Gasquet, Wawrinka, Justine Henin and Federer bring the racket down with the off hand. This is a distinct move that you can observe looking at high speed videos. I don't know overall how this racket downward movement is being adjusted for low balls, but it can place the racket head low for the forward and upward swing and can adjust for incoming ball heights. It uses a straight arm and appears to rotate the arm using ISR.

Under stress.




You have said that many times before. I certainly dont see the off hand doing that in these vids. Off hand is just along for the ride till it isnt. Its not pulling down or leading the stroke. What time stamps are you seeing this in? In one justine vid you cant even see the off hand through most of the stroke
 
#30
You have said that many times before. I certainly dont see the off hand doing that in these vids. Off hand is just along for the ride till it isnt. Its not pulling down or leading the stroke. What time stamps are you seeing this in? In one justine vid you cant even see the off hand through most of the stroke
We don't agree.

The backhands vary and I don't understand the adjustments for incoming ball height or pace of the backhands. If the incoming ball is high??

Look at the angle of the racket to the horizontal. It rotates down to below impact for high level backhands of the above players. Compare racket angle to the horizontal for your backhands in post #18.

To do stop action single frame on Vimeo hold down the SHIFT KEY and use the ARROW KEYS.

Recent thread on this issue.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...does-using-the-left-hand-on-ohbh-make.582456/
 
Last edited:
#31
To everyone who has responded to this thread, have you actually used BOTH 1hbh and 2hbh extensively?

I'm getting the feeling that most of the 1hbh answers are from 1hbh purists? I'm kinda surprised so few people have said 2hbh.

I've hit with both backhands extensively, 2.5 years using 1hbh, and currently 1 year using 2hbh. All I can say is that 2hbh is much easier to hit on the rise, its to the point where I actually prefer to take majority of my backhands early.
To the guy who's surprised that the experience of others doesn't match his, maybe people are just different?

I've played around with the two hander. It feels great to hit a good one, but the shot isn't great for me. The power is mediocre and the spin is weak. Sure, with more work I can fix the issue with power, but I can't fix the issue with spin. All the time spent to improve my two hander could be time spent improving my one hander. And I know for a fact that I can't match what I've done off the bounce with a one handed backhand by using a two handed backhand. I've ripped balls right off the bounce with heavy topspin, something I could never do with a two hander because it's poor at generating topspin. I've always been the type to use heavy topspin for margin and confidence in my swings. Going to a flatter shot for every ball wouldn't cut it for me. Not saying you can't generate heavy topspin with a two hander, but you can generate more with a one hander. Maybe pinpoint control and accuracy would be better since I'd be constantly placing my stroke with a quick, smooth swing rather than hitting it, but I'd rather have the option to do that AND swing out.

You say you prefer to take a majority of your backhands early. I ONLY took backhands early and a majority directly off the bounce. The problem was it became an issue for my forehand after I stopped playing the game. The forehand wasn't as capable of playing that close to the baseline against a good player compared to the backhand. You say a two handed backhand is easier to take on the rise. I say the one handed backhand is the definition of natural when taking balls on the rise, and it doesn't get much easier than that. Hell, you hit half volleys at net with one hand, not two hands. It only makes sense that there are a fair number of people more comfortable doing this with one hand than two, just like there are some people more comfortable hitting backhand volleys with two hands rather than one. Your experiences define you, not the entire population.
 
#33
You have said that many times before. I certainly dont see the off hand doing that in these vids. Off hand is just along for the ride till it isnt. Its not pulling down or leading the stroke. What time stamps are you seeing this in? In one justine vid you cant even see the off hand through most of the stroke
I think this is arguable depending on the player (and definitely conversation worthy subject :p). Wawrinka certainly uses his off hand to pull the racket back.
 
#35
We don't agree.

The backhands vary and I don't understand the adjustments for incoming ball height or pace of the backhands. If the incoming ball is high??

Look at the angle of the racket to the horizontal. It rotates down to below impact for high level backhands of the above players. Compare racket angle to the horizontal for your backhands in post #18.

To do stop action single frame on Vimeo hold down the SHIFT KEY and use the ARROW KEYS.

Recent thread on this issue.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...does-using-the-left-hand-on-ohbh-make.582456/
Sadly i dont have a computer and the iphone doesnt give a shift key option so the vid goes really fast.
 
#36
I can do both but I prefer one hander due to ease of use. I don't like running around with 2 hands on the racquet. I'm more confident in my one handed backhand. I only hit 2 handers when the ball is coming perfectly into my strike zone.

I do have a sick one handed backhand flat shot that just barely misses the net and drops right before the baseline without much bounce.
 
#37
Sadly i dont have a computer and the iphone doesnt give a shift key option so the vid goes really fast.
Here are frame every 33 milliseconds of a forceful backhand and how Gasquet brings down the racket. Off arm muscle forces, hitting arm muscle forces and gravity are bringing the racket down.

From another thread-

"Once your backhand is pretty good, as your is, the next step is comparing it to a high level backhand of your choice and identifying the finer differences. Kinovea is ideal for this purpose as it offers side by side video comparisons and the time scales can be made the same (time scale synchronization here in Version 8.25). If the camera views are the same the comparison can be very thorough for seeing the differences. Kinovea is free open source. High speed video contains a great deal of information that mostly goes unnoticed.

Quoted from another thread -

"This post from another thread shows a comparison and analysis of poster Mojo28's one hand backhand drive and Gasquet's from the start of the forward racket motion. Note the chest and upper arm of the high level backhand.

[ Note for new readers - It is necessary for this analysis to understand the defined joint motions of internal shoulder rotation (ISR) and external shoulder rotation (ESR). The upper arm between the shoulder joint and elbow does not go anywhere, it just spins like a top around the upper arm's center line.]

Pictures of each frame of Mojo's video. The time scales are in milliseconds with "0" milliseconds being impact. -267 milliseconds is about 1/4 second before impact.

I point out differences between better high level strokes and the poster's strokes. A poster can select a high level stroke and copy it or use some other stroke model. Or, go with instruction or on their own without a model or instruction.

Mojo's ball is lower than Gasquet's. Compare similar ball heights for better analysis.

Frame at -267 ms. It looks as if at 267 milliseconds before impact the OP has turned his shoulders back to about the same angle as Gasquet has. Compare also shoulder turn angles at impact, at Frame -0 ms. The positions of the arms and rackets are different. Gasquet's racket has not come down and is still in front of his body. Is Mojo copying some other backhand stroke? Mojo has also done pronation to bring the racket down. Impression is that Mojo is doing his own thing. ? (To see angles more accurately, the cameras for both backhands need to view the players and courts from the same angle. Wear tight fitting clothes or a short sleeve shirt to better see the upper arm, elbow angle, etc.)


Frame at -233 ms. Mojo has brought his racket farther down. Gasquet's racket has gone up slightly. Mojo's elbow looks bent more and his upper arm (between the shoulder and elbow) has more downward rotation (ISR). Compare ISR angle to ISR angle as these frames progress.


Frame at -200 ms. Mojo's racket is still lowering and low. Gasquet's is just starting to lower.


Frame at -167 ms. Mojo's upper arm is down from the shoulder joint. Gasquet's upper arm is more across the chest.


Frame at -133 ms. Mojo's racket still lowering. Gasquet's now lowering with more rapid drop.


Frame at -100 ms. Mojo's upper arm is down at the chest. Gasquet's upper arm is more across the chest. Gasquet now appears to have started more upper body turn. I believe that to produce this early arm and racket acceleration that Gasquet is pressing hard on his upper arm with his chest powered by the forces of turning his upper body. If a credit card were between his chest and upper arm, would it be pressed tightly? How much upper arm pressing Mojo is doing this is not clear (due to the obscuring shirt and arm angle). But his upper body does not appear to be turning as rapidly.


Frame at -67 ms. The racket head speed developed by any rotation depends on the location of the axis of rotation and the distance out from that rotation axis. Look at the arm and racket angle and the distance out from the location of the rotation axis (guessed for now). It looks as if Mojo's arm angle is not favorable for racket head speed. Also, Mojo's racket is already much more rotated toward the ball trajectory. Gasquet's racket is >180° back from the ball's trajectory. Gasquet's upper arm is pressed to his chest as discussed.


Frame at -33 ms. Look at the racket to ball trajectory angle for Mojo, 45°? Look at the racket to trajectory angle for Gasquet still >180°. The total turns of Mojo's and Gasquet's upper bodies from Frame -267 ms seem somewhat similar, similar average speeds. The upper arm and racket have been used differently. Another motion - now look at the elbow bones and estimate the angular position of internal shoulder rotation, or axial rotation of the upper arm in the shoulder joint. Compare ESR from -33 ms to -0 ms.


Frame at -0 ms closest to impact. The big differences from Frame -33 ms to Frame -0 ms are the angular movement of Gasquet's racket and the much larger movement of his hand in the forward direction in comparison to Mojo. Also, Mojo's racket is open and Gasquet's is closed at impact. Possibly the ball height was a factor in how closed the racket was.? Now look at Gasquet's elbow bones and compare them to Frame -33 ms. Gasquet has done rapid external shoulder rotation (ESR) from Frame -33 ms to Frame -0 ms. That has moved the racket up and added to the topspin that the upward hand path already would have produce without ESR. Because Gasquet brought down his racket earlier with a near straight arm, it caused rapid ISR and pre-stretched his ESR muscles, he is using those stretched muscles in this frame. (Search the Stretch Shorten Cycle).


Frame at +33ms after impact. Mojo's hand and racket go more forward. Gasquet's goes more forward and up. ESR has continued.


Frame at +67 ms. Comparison of the follow throughs.

"
Look at how the near straight arm rotates and the angle of the racket to the horizontal.

You can compare to your racket motion especially regarding the angle of the racket to the horizontal.
 
#39
Learning and using both is not working for me. This is a great thread. Everytime I start a practice or a match I seem to go with the one that works best that day. I just can't commit. Reading these posts I noticed that more players go from 1h to 2h which is interesting. I laugh because a very good player told me your 2h is better but if you won't do that use 2h for return and 1h for rally which i'm now reading many do. I can understand using 1h for slice but using 1 or 2h for top spin is not allowing my stroke to move up.
 

Kevo

Hall of Fame
#40
I started with the 2HBH and switched to the OHBH. Been using the OHBH most of my tennis playing life. I would say that for most people the 2HBH is going to be the better choice, but for some the OHBH is better. It is almost certainly the weaker shot for hitting heavy shots on the rise, or handling high paced serves. On the other hand, for people who feel constrained in their swing by using two hands, the OHBH can be a much more effective shot. For me my backhand became more of a weapon almost immediately after I switched to it. It was obvious to me that it fit me more than the 2HBH.

I still use the 2HBH occasionally with students, and if I haven't hit it in a while I'll practice on a backboard for a bit just to keep it up. I can hit pretty good with it, but I can tell it tops out quicker than the OHBH for me. For other people it would probably be the opposite. So I say use what it most comfortable for you, but try both and see for yourself. I find a lot of people who hit with the 2HBH can't reliably use it as a weapon. So regardless of it being stronger on serves or heavy shots, if you can't use it as a weapon you should at least try the alternative.
 
#41
Play a ton of ping pong and get really good at taking short hops off the backhand wing by blocking it back. It actually translates to tennis somewhat. It's only on a bigger scale.
 
#42
To everyone who has responded to this thread, have you actually used BOTH 1hbh and 2hbh extensively?

I'm getting the feeling that most of the 1hbh answers are from 1hbh purists? I'm kinda surprised so few people have said 2hbh.

I've hit with both backhands extensively, 2.5 years using 1hbh, and currently 1 year using 2hbh. All I can say is that 2hbh is much easier to hit on the rise, its to the point where I actually prefer to take majority of my backhands early.
I’ve used both and agree that the two hander is the easier of the two to hit balls on the rise. It was for this reason I changed over as my old 1hbh was getting beaten up by deep heavy balls. I found my 1hbh was not consistent enough in order to neutralise that type of ball so I switched to the two hander. The 2hbh allowed me IMO greater stability and greater flexibility on contact - I could drive or punch dependent of the ball received very effectively. My 2hbh is a much more consistent and better timed shot anyway and as other posters have said - you know which is better for you. I find taking the ball on the rise down the line a very natural and flowing shot. The extra hand is particularly noticeable the heavier the ball you face.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#43
I’ve used both and agree that the two hander is the easier of the two to hit balls on the rise. It was for this reason I changed over as my old 1hbh was getting beaten up by deep heavy balls. I found my 1hbh was not consistent enough in order to neutralise that type of ball so I switched to the two hander. The 2hbh allowed me IMO greater stability and greater flexibility on contact - I could drive or punch dependent of the ball received very effectively. My 2hbh is a much more consistent and better timed shot anyway and as other posters have said - you know which is better for you. I find taking the ball on the rise down the line a very natural and flowing shot. The extra hand is particularly noticeable the heavier the ball you face.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Very similar story to mine.

I started with 2hbh as a hack player. Then switched to 1hbh because it looked cool on my friend, who is a natural 1hbh-er. Played like that for about 2-3 years. However, when I get into tight spot when I needed react fast like hitting on the rise for balls that bounce near me, I instinctively revert to 2hbh. Also, for high backhand balls, again, I revert back to 2hbh if I wanted to hit top spin instead of slice. Later, I decided to revert back to 2hbh because I found better consistency with 2hbh.

I find cross-court 2hbh more natural for me, and I actually keep my eyes on strike zone and head still when I hit 2hbh, unlike when I hit 1hbh.
 
#44
Very similar story to mine.

I started with 2hbh as a hack player. Then switched to 1hbh because it looked cool on my friend, who is a natural 1hbh-er. Played like that for about 2-3 years. However, when I get into tight spot when I needed react fast like hitting on the rise for balls that bounce near me, I instinctively revert to 2hbh. Also, for high backhand balls, again, I revert back to 2hbh if I wanted to hit top spin instead of slice. Later, I decided to revert back to 2hbh because I found better consistency with 2hbh.

I find cross-court 2hbh more natural for me, and I actually keep my eyes on strike zone and head still when I hit 2hbh, unlike when I hit 1hbh.
The two hander on the high ball is where it really shines for me. Hitting on the rise is easier but the high ball is where it shines. With so many balls flying around neck, head and above it’s advantageous to have the additional control the extra hand offers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#45
The two hander on the high ball is where it really shines for me. Hitting on the rise is easier but the high ball is where it shines. With so many balls flying around neck, head and above it’s advantageous to have the additional control the extra hand offers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Agreed. Bonus style point to leaping off front foot for those high 2hbhs :)
 
#47

First time I’ve posted a link so hope it works. Nalby in slo mo executing the 2hbh stroke so perfectly. That ball he’s hitting is rising.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top