how do people decide between 1hbh and 2hbh?

Shroud

G.O.A.T.
Sounds like that data is an average of his topspin rate minus his backspin rate (negative) or something like that. Even a 3.0 rec. player hits with more than 500RPM on a backhand....
Yeah thats how i took it too. Something is fishy in that article and its not an accurate conclusion that thd 2 hander produces more spin
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
I need more good faith or better reading from you. From your source, you didn't mention this part:

Rafael Nadal led The “Big Three” with the most backhand topspin (1252 rpm), followed by Novak Djokovic (1148 rpm) and Roger Federer (548 rpm). Federer traditionally employs more slice backhands than the others, which lowers his overall rating here.

You would need an explanation of their methodology if FEDs slice is lowering his rating, to see how that impacts Cuevas' numbers and the other one handers. From the looks of it, it might just be that one handers just hit more slice and that is impacting the spin for some reason in their study. Something seems a miss if slice lowers topspin rpm.
It is all factored in. If someone hits more slice than others which lowers his RPM average, that means he is not capable of hitting offensive topspin in those situations, so it goes against the 1 hander. Fed is actually the perfect example because he started trading slices for topspin after he went from 90 to 97 sq inches. So whichever way you look at it, 2 handed backhand topspin seems to come out on top. The result surprised me too, because I was always led to believe that the 1 hander had more topspin potential. Maybe, but if you are not able to use it when you need to and have to resort to slicing, it is not of much help.
 

Dragy

Legend
Cmon guys, Wawrinka busted all 1HBH inferiority myths. It's still the case for particular player to be better off with 2HBH or 1HBH, but both strokes are legit to win at highest levels.
 

Shroud

G.O.A.T.
It is all factored in. If someone hits more slice than others which lowers his RPM average, that means he is not capable of hitting offensive topspin in those situations, so it goes against the 1 hander. Fed is actually the perfect example because he started trading slices for topspin after he went from 90 to 97 sq inches. So whichever way you look at it, 2 handed backhand topspin seems to come out on top. The result surprised me too, because I was always led to believe that the 1 hander had more topspin potential. Maybe, but if you are not able to use it when you need to and have to resort to slicing, it is not of much help.
I wish you would stretch this much on the court too...
 

Chas Tennis

G.O.A.T.
For those that like video observations (or would like to criticize video observations) here are observations of pro one hand backhands. Minimum read of this long thread would be Post #1, #51 (the 1st sub-motion is described, 'chest press') and then the rest of the sub-motions are described here and there. Currently, the last sub-motion observed for the best one hand backhands is Scapular Protraction followed by Scapular Retraction.

Each sub-motion is clearly shown in more than one high speed video.
Scapular Protraction followed by Scapular Retraction

This sub-motion may be stressful for shoulders.

If you don't see the identified sub-motions in the named player's technique, please ask and I'll point it out. Gasquet, Wawrinka, Justine Henin and most other top one hand backhand ATP players do these sub-motions.

Note - for the high level strokes, analyses and descriptions are available. I have very rarely found analyses and descriptions for lower level stroke techniques. What sub-motions does your stroke have?
 
Last edited:

beltsman

Legend
from what I've read, 2hbh is more common primarily because most pros use it, and that was because when they start out as juniors, their coaches had them use 2hbh. But this doesn't make 2hbh a superior shot , so I wonder how people should decide choosing between 1hbh and 2hbh. I've been using 2hbh, but the 1h feels so much more natural. I used to play ultimate frisbee, and the backhand was always my stronger toss. The tennis 1hbh feels very similar to a frisbee backhand. I guess the two main relative weakness of 1hbh is the return and high balls. But I play at the 3.5-4.0 level. and I wonder if 2hbh has the advantage at higher levels, when people hit with more pace, or if there are other reasons 1hbh is kind of going extinct. I'm honestly thinking about switching to 1hbh, but curious to get some thoughts before I do.
1HBH came naturally to me. Also a frisbee and disc golf player when young!
 

socallefty

Hall of Fame
is it a good idea to have a 1hbh with a 2hbh return?
I don’t know if it is a good idea, but I hit a 2HBH return when I want to hit a topspin drive return even though I have a 1HBH otherwise. I changed from a 2HBH to a 1HBH when I was in my mid-teens, but somehow the 2HBH return has stayed with me - otherwise during rallies, I hit topspin with a 1HBH. I mostly slice my BH returns though with a 1HBH.

I‘ve been waiting to see if anyone at the pro level will do it, but haven’t seen anyone do it. Maybe it’s not a good idea!
 

Dragy

Legend
I’ve started using 2HBH for some odd balls, particularly low deep ones, or dipping to bounce before I can volley it… It’s better to produce a solid blocky stroke very fast and compact, and even late/back - 1-hand conti bunt requires space to still meet the ball a tad in front, or some swing/flip.

I also think about applying it to attack short high balls (jumping, of course!), and should definitely try to return high-bouncing serves with 2 hands.
 

FIRETennis

Professional
I don’t know if it is a good idea, but I hit a 2HBH return when I want to hit a topspin drive return even though I have a 1HBH otherwise. I changed from a 2HBH to a 1HBH when I was in my mid-teens, but somehow the 2HBH return has stayed with me - otherwise during rallies, I hit topspin with a 1HBH. I mostly slice my BH returns though with a 1HBH.

I‘ve been waiting to see if anyone at the pro level will do it, but haven’t seen anyone do it. Maybe it’s not a good idea!
I'm also curious why no college/pro level players seem to do this.
The timing for the return also works better for me with the 2HBH and I don't need to use the wrists so much to generate spin like I would on a groundstroke. I prefer it for the return of serve as it's also a quicker prep.
For the groundstrokes I now use a 1HBH.
 

Wurm

Semi-Pro
Almost all top players were one handers when I was growing up and I surmise that because I'd played a lot of badminton as a child the idea of putting a second hand on the racquet felt wrong, and restrictive.

To cut a long story short I wasted about a year trying to get to grips with the one hander, then spent about another 2 years going back and forth between the two before finally coming down on the side of the two hander. I'm absolutely sure table tennis factored into the difficulty I had with the one hander as it took a long time to break the habit of wanting to roll my wrist through topspin shots on both wings.

What I found was:

One hander: Early on I loved hitting it on slow, low balls fed to me by a coach that forced me to hit up and where needing to generate my own pace overrode my desire to roll my wrist through impact (it'd effectively cause me to delay the roll until after impact). Once the ball got up to at least thigh height I was in trouble and I had a habit of dumping the ball into the bottom of the net as my arm collapsed around instead of finishing up high. As I got the table tennis intuition out of my game I still never felt comfortable hitting the one hander if I was dealing with pace, and thus in any way at all rushed, whereby I would get jammed up and find myself blocking the ball to the left, high and wide. I never truly felt I had any strong sense of what the relationship between the racquet face and my hand was, either.

Two hander: Generating RHS doesn't come easily. I found it a much more intuitive shot, however, because I could easily visualise the relationship between the palm of the left hand and the racquet face, as such finessing passing shots didn't take any particular thought. As a defensive shot I found it much easier to use and dealing with incoming pace was never a fundamental issue. However, it took me a long time to stop shanking it regularly when I really tried to lay into it and I struggled dealing with low balls for a long time. There's still times when my footwork isn't ideal that it feels really awkward in a way that doesn't happen if I'm in a similar position and just using the slice.
 

ZanderGoga

Semi-Pro
For those that like video observations (or would like to criticize video observations) here are observations of pro one hand backhands. Minimum read of this long thread would be Post #1, #51 (the 1st sub-motion is described, 'chest press') and then the rest of the sub-motions are described here and there. Currently, the last sub-motion observed for the best one hand backhands is Scapular Protraction followed by Scapular Retraction.

Each sub-motion is clearly shown in more than one high speed video.
Scapular Protraction followed by Scapular Retraction

This sub-motion may be stressful for shoulders.

If you don't see the identified sub-motions in the named player's technique, please ask and I'll point it out. Gasquet, Wawrinka, Justine Henin and most other top one hand backhand ATP players do these sub-motions.

Note - for the high level strokes, analyses and descriptions are available. I have very rarely found analyses and descriptions for lower level stroke techniques. What sub-motions does your stroke have?
Chest press is not a thing. Quit pretending to know it is, when you're just a rank amateur guessing and misleading people.
 

ZanderGoga

Semi-Pro
I'm also curious why no college/pro level players seem to do this.
The timing for the return also works better for me with the 2HBH and I don't need to use the wrists so much to generate spin like I would on a groundstroke. I prefer it for the return of serve as it's also a quicker prep.
For the groundstrokes I now use a 1HBH.
Hi, you. It's me, future you. I have a request: please stop using the wrists to generate spin. It turns out it's really, really a bad idea for arm health.
 
The 2HBH is superior nowadays. The many upsides:

Can produce more topspin
Can handle high balls easier
Has strength of two hands
Is very compact
Harder to break down
Etc etc

2HBH is the future
 

Lukhas

Legend
I have a 1HBH and to be honest, I think the 1HBH is essentially obsolete in the modern game at higher levels. It has a few upsides, but the downsides aren't worth it; especially as slices are less effective than ever before. The best slice on tour when not used defensively only earns his owner 49.1% of the points, while the tour average is more around 43.9% according to Tennis Profiler. It seems not even Roger Federer can make the slice worth it in the current conditions...

Now at early rec level and living in Europe and all, you see a ton of adults who try the 1HBH because they try to replicate what they do on the FH side to the BH side, eastern FH grip included: in other words, they can arm it, slice it and get away with it; obviously you're not going to get much of a 2HBH if you don't put your hips into it, even if it is a serviceable bunting shot sooner than a 1HBH. That being said, juniors tend to learn a 2HBH, and you tend to see more 2HBHs amongst adults as the ratings increase.

The 1HBH is one of the prettiest shots at pro levels, and one of the ugliest shots at rec level. I'd frankly rather see 2HBH long bunts than it.
 
Last edited:

Clash Ah ah

Rookie
I started with a one hander because who doesn’t want to look like Fed??? My one hander was dreadful!! Learnt the two hander, grew in confidence, now have a solid backhand.
It takes a lot of mental training too. Avoiding the “easy” slice option. Knowing when to hit a full swing, when to punch it, block it. It’s very versatile! Not as sexy as a one hander but extremely functional.
 

Rosstour

Legend
Following some of the comments in here, I think the future is being able to hit all the backhands.

2H is great but it's hell on your body. I'm convinced that my lower back and hip issues on my left side are a result of the 2H. I think I will have to abandon it as I age.
 

Crazy Finn

Hall of Fame
I hit the backhand with 2 hands because I wasn't a strong kid and the wooden racquets were heavy. I a 1 handed forehand with those was enough work let alone a 1 handed backhand.

I wanted to get the ball over the net, usually, I could do that with two hands. Then I saw Agassi play and he became my hero. Never looked back.

I hit more one handed backhands than ever, now, because I can slice one handed. And if I'm on the run or the stretch, I'll hit one handed. But, those never go great, usually. If I'm driving the ball, I'll do it 2 handed.

I've never had physical problems from the two hander. Maybe people taller than me have back issues, but I'm Schwartzman size, so it's not an issue.
 

FIRETennis

Professional
The 2HBH is superior nowadays. The many upsides:

Can produce more topspin
Can handle high balls easier
Has strength of two hands
Is very compact
Harder to break down
Etc etc

2HBH is the future
If the above were true, then why not hit two handed forehands?

Can produce more topspin
>> wrong, check the ATP data. 1HBH tops 2HBH in topspin and heaviness (pace+spin).

Can handle high balls easier
>> you can push high balls easier with two hands, but nothing will be good on high balls except drive volleys or smashes. You gotta take them early or step back to allow the ball to drop to your contact zone with both 1HBH/2HBH. Nobody is hitting heavy backhands at shoulder level with two hands...

Has strength of two hands
>> you should actually use 70-80% of the non-dominant hand for the 2HBH. The dominant is there just for support, so if you change strength to stability then it would be correct

Is very compact
>> correct, easier to block

Harder to break down
>> in some ways yes, you can always push the ball back over the net with two hands easier than with one hand.
 

Crazy Finn

Hall of Fame
What's the logic here?

I've got long arms but not narrow shoulders

I picked up a 1hbh I think mostly because I play golf, cricket, baseball right handed - so lefty 1hbh in tennis felt familiar to these shots
Yeah. I spent my youth trying to be a switch hitter in baseball. I wasn't great from either side, so whatever.... But, batting lefthanded doesn't feel terrible to me and the 2HBH feels great.
 

RVT

Rookie
I have a 1HBH and to be honest, I think the 1HBH is essentially obsolete in the modern game at higher levels. It has a few upsides, but the downsides aren't worth it; especially as slices are less effective than ever before. The best slice on tour when not used defensively only earns his owner 49.1% of the points, while the tour average is more around 43.9% according to Tennis Profiler. It seems not even Roger Federer can make the slice worth it in the current conditions...
I kinda think the exact opposite... I think at the rec level, it's a much better option. At the top level, I see a lot of advantages to a 1HB, mostly to do with not with the shot itself, but how it fits into the whole grand scheme of things. Here's what I mean:

-a 1HB has more court coverage due to the extra reach and easier set-up on wide balls
-a 1HB has much easier recovery footwork
-the strikezone is a little bigger, particularly when you look at it in 3-D. This results in a little less precise footwork. If you don't believe this, take a good look at the feet of Novak vs. Tsitsipas on a neutral backhand ball. One is moving his feet a lot more than the other
-at the elite level, it seems to result in fewer injuries*

This is there I think the analysis of "results per shot" really falls down. Tennis just doesn't work that way.

*one person already mentioned this, but the other issue is older players. For older folks, the 1HB is physically going to be an easier shot to hit due to the hip/core/leg motions required to hit a good 2HB. If you're a low-level rec player just trying to get the ball over the next, this isn't an issue--but for higher level players it absolutely is a concern.

Obviously, they both "work". 7 of the top 10 have 2HB. Most/all of those have very solid 1HB slices and volleys though. Meanwhile, despite most juniors playing with 2HB, 3 of the top 10 are 1HB, so... I don't think there's a clear advantage to one over the other.

Personally I agree that eventually someone besides me and "socallefty" will hit a hybrid backhand, and obviously do it better than either of us! All it will take will be one big name to start hitting certain shots with 2 hands and most rally balls with one hand, and then it will become all the rage...
 

Rosstour

Legend
Karatsev already uses the hybrid BH.

I see some people calling the slice BH a type of 1HBH. I've never looked at it that way, is that the consensus?
 

RVT

Rookie
Karatsev already uses the hybrid BH.

I see some people calling the slice BH a type of 1HBH. I've never looked at it that way, is that the consensus?
I mean, the 1HB is typically hit w/1 hand, and most folks slice with one hand...

to me the difference is where the player holds the racket during the takeback. A common WTA thing in the 80's (and some ATP) was for players to hold the racket in the same position as their 2 hander and then let go of the racket partway through the swing (didn't Conners and Borg both kinda do this?). A lot of these same players would do the same thing with the volley. To me, that's not a 1HB.

These days, this seems pretty rare. Folks are holding the racket at the throat, line a normal 1HB
 

Rosstour

Legend
lol we were definitely discussing the Borg and Connors techniques in another thread about this like yesterday.
 

RVT

Rookie
lol we were definitely discussing the Borg and Connors techniques in another thread about this like yesterday.
There's a reason I call myself "rip van tennis"..

I broke up with tennis in the early 90's. back than 2-handers seem to do that "half slice" thing, and as a two hander who transitioned to a 1 hander, I viewed it as "not a real 1HB". When I started playing and watching tennis again, I was heartened to see that now all of the ATP and almost all WTA players hit real 1HB's, and come into the net with their hand on the throat of the racket
 
If the above were true, then why not hit two handed forehands?

Can produce more topspin
>> wrong, check the ATP data. 1HBH tops 2HBH in topspin and heaviness (pace+spin).

Can handle high balls easier
>> you can push high balls easier with two hands, but nothing will be good on high balls except drive volleys or smashes. You gotta take them early or step back to allow the ball to drop to your contact zone with both 1HBH/2HBH. Nobody is hitting heavy backhands at shoulder level with two hands...

Has strength of two hands
>> you should actually use 70-80% of the non-dominant hand for the 2HBH. The dominant is there just for support, so if you change strength to stability then it would be correct

Is very compact
>> correct, easier to block

Harder to break down
>> in some ways yes, you can always push the ball back over the net with two hands easier than with one hand.
You could hit a two handed forehand, but the point of a 2HBH is that it is on the non-dominant side of your body, so the biomechanics say a one handed forehand is superior to two hands
 
Following some of the comments in here, I think the future is being able to hit all the backhands.

2H is great but it's hell on your body. I'm convinced that my lower back and hip issues on my left side are a result of the 2H. I think I will have to abandon it as I age.
Exactly!

Hitting 2HBHs leads to so much strain on the lower back that one has to basically either execute it without much unit turn (no good) or quickly runs into health issues.

I can actually hit a semi-decent 2HBH (for my level anyway), but after a couple of sessions my lower back was screaming. No such issues hitting a OHBH.

:cool:
 

Lukhas

Legend
I kinda think the exact opposite... I think at the rec level, it's a much better option.
At the rec level, anything that can get the ball back once more on a shot that generally is a defensive shot is valid. Which is why I wrote that I thought a two-handed bunt is interesting due to the forgiveness it gives.
-a 1HB has more court coverage due to the extra reach and easier set-up on wide balls
-a 1HB has much easier recovery footwork
-the strikezone is a little bigger, particularly when you look at it in 3-D. This results in a little less precise footwork. If you don't believe this, take a good look at the feet of Novak vs. Tsitsipas on a neutral backhand ball. One is moving his feet a lot more than the other
-at the elite level, it seems to result in fewer injuries*
To me, all of these are less interesting than the ability to hit a serviceable non-slice shot from any stance. The problem isn't the potential of the 1HBH, which indeed has higher potential speed and spin, but the setup time it requires to do so; which is mostly why it's basically gone at pro level. I don't quite get your comment on recovery footwork time though: I would have thought that recovery time would be shorter if you can hit from any stance rather than having to use at least a neutral stance or prefferably a closed stance on your backhand. Could you expand on that? Also, Tsitsipas' efficiency on the BH is below the top 100 average, so I wouldn't use him as an example here. If anything, that's more proof that you win matches by honing your strengths while having serviceable weaknesses.
*one person already mentioned this, but the other issue is older players. For older folks, the 1HB is physically going to be an easier shot to hit due to the hip/core/leg motions required to hit a good 2HB. If you're a low-level rec player just trying to get the ball over the next, this isn't an issue--but for higher level players it absolutely is a concern.
I'd say it's much more of a concern at rec level than pro level due to the varying degrees of physical fitness; I'm unsure of what you mean that it isn't an issue at rec level. Unless you mean that just getting the ball over the net is good enough, which I find more reliable by just arming it with two hands, but then we're not really talking about the same shot quality anymore: I was purposefully excluding the slice from the discussion of 1HBH and 2HBH. If you're old and/or not too physically able, slice it back; that's easier and not easily exploited at rec level.

There's also the Jim Courier school of hitting backhands: hit more forehands. The BH remains primarily a defensive shot, and no one with a good backhand earns more points with it than their forehand; unless you're someone like Gasquet or Paire where your FH potency is below the tour average. That's why to me, being flexible with your defensive options and hit from any position and stance while avoiding the slice is the reason the 1HBH is dying at pro level. Regardless of the level, the BH is mostly a shot you need to transition away from to hit more FHs. It's not as if the 1HBH is a cardinal sin; it's just not as boringly effective as the 2HBH at pro level.
 
Last edited:

Chas Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Here is how I became certain that the one hand backhand could be much, much stronger.

2013 thread
One Hand Backhand - What Force to Start Forward Swing?
........................................................
On very rare occasions in the past, when I was hitting better pace 1HBHs, if I had a set up on the backhand side and ran forward for the ball I could hit a monster TP backhand with confidence. Not for some years now....... So I know that heavy pace backhands are possible. I am wondering where that stroke came from. ?
............................................................
 
Last edited:

RVT

Rookie
At the rec level, anything that can get the ball back once more on a shot that generally is a defensive shot is valid. Which is why I wrote that I thought a two-handed bunt is interesting due to the forgiveness it gives.

To me, all of these are less interesting than the ability to hit a serviceable non-slice shot from any stance. The problem isn't the potential of the 1HBH, which indeed has higher potential speed and spin, but the setup time it requires to do so; which is mostly why it's basically gone at pro level. I don't quite get your comment on recovery footwork time though: I would have thought that recovery time would be shorter if you can hit from any stance rather than having to use at least a neutral stance or prefferably a closed stance on your backhand. Could you expand on that? Also, Tsitsipas' efficiency on the BH is below the top 100 average, so I wouldn't use him as an example here. If anything, that's more proof that you win matches by honing your strengths while having serviceable weaknesses.

I'd say it's much more of a concern at rec level than pro level due to the varying degrees of physical fitness; I'm unsure of what you mean that it isn't an issue at rec level. Unless you mean that just getting the ball over the net is good enough, which I find more reliable by just arming it with two hands, but then we're not really talking about the same shot quality anymore: I was purposefully excluding the slice from the discussion of 1HBH and 2HBH. If you're old and/or not too physically able, slice it back; that's easier and not easily exploited at rec level.

There's also the Jim Courier school of hitting backhands: hit more forehands. The BH remains primarily a defensive shot, and no one with a good backhand earns more points with it than their forehand; unless you're someone like Gasquet or Paire where your FH potency is below the tour average. That's why to me, being flexible with your defensive options and hit from any position and stance while avoiding the slice is the reason the 1HBH is dying at pro level. Regardless of the level, the BH is mostly a shot you need to transition away from to hit more FHs. It's not as if the 1HBH is a cardinal sin; it's just not as boringly effective as the 2HBH at pro level.
It's certainly possible to hit a serviceable shot from any stance. I think the Thiem, Tsitsipas* and Fed have all shown that it's possible to hit over/through an open stanced 1HB. I'm certainly not that good and I'm completely comfortable hitting it--though you're certainly right, most of those are going to be neutral balls. No question, it's better to hit it with a closed stance--but then again, so is the 2HB. I'd almost mention that you can hit open with the ball a good bit farther away from the body with a 1HB, which again helps on the footwork side.

Regarding recovery footwork, I'm speaking from experience here. I transitioned from 2HB to a 1HB, and can hit a very solid 2HB (when working as instructor, 100% of the time I was instructing a 2HB as well). Once a 2HB is struck, the stance upon the finish is more closed naturally. You can open it (some are better than others at this), but it requires more deliberate movement. I think this is where a lot of core and adductor problems come at the high level. If you look at some extended (not one-off shots) videos of say Thiem and Zverev, probably two of the best examples of backhands out there, you'll see exactly what I mean. I don't need to to this though, because I know how my body feels. It's a lot more stress on the hips and adductors, mostly due to getting in position after the shot. I think it is largely because the contact point is more out in front, so more weight is being transferred forward right after contact on the 1HB, though I also think the position of the non-dominant shoulder may be a factor as well. Here's what I know: my court coverage is much better with a 1HB, and it has nothing to do with reach and everything to do with what happens after the shot. Physically, the 1HB is much easier for me--and I'm pretty fit (I stopped playing tennis for a long time, but I've been a competitive athlete my entire life).

*regarding Tsitsipas, I actually think he's a good example, and why looking at his backhand stats in isolation is a bad idea. I'd argue that his backhand does allow him to hit more forehands, for the reasons mentioned above. So, in that regard I don't think it's a liability at all. As you said, for 95% of folks out there, one big key to the backhand is hitting more forehands....

I'm not one of those uber-passionate "1HB forever" guys... I'm of the "whatever works" mind, but these are my own thoughts. I do also think that learning a 1HB as an adult is very difficult and may not be worth it for most.
 

ubercat

Professional
I cover a 2H BH for high bounces and those short CC angles from just rolling the wrist over. It also seems more reliable DTL. I hit the tape a lot DTL with my one hander
 

Lukhas

Legend
It's certainly possible to hit a serviceable shot from any stance. I think the Thiem, Tsitsipas* and Fed have all shown that it's possible to hit over/through an open stanced 1HB. I'm certainly not that good and I'm completely comfortable hitting it--though you're certainly right, most of those are going to be neutral balls. No question, it's better to hit it with a closed stance--but then again, so is the 2HB. I'd almost mention that you can hit open with the ball a good bit farther away from the body with a 1HB, which again helps on the footwork side.
If you're hitting comparable open stance 1HBH to a 2HBH, I sincerely applaud you. Really. Because most of these pros may have done so in the past (in particular Dimitrov), but none of them can reliably do so. Therefore I don't think that changes much to the fact that the 2HBH simply is a better defensive shot in the modern game. Ban co-poly. :whistle:
*regarding Tsitsipas, I actually think he's a good example, and why looking at his backhand stats in isolation is a bad idea. I'd argue that his backhand does allow him to hit more forehands, for the reasons mentioned above. So, in that regard I don't think it's a liability at all. As you said, for 95% of folks out there, one big key to the backhand is hitting more forehands....
It's not necesarily a liability to his game in isolation, and it's still a below average shot; which is why I wouldn't take him as an example.
I do also think that learning a 1HB as an adult is very difficult and may not be worth it for most.
The core rotation doesn't come to adults easily so the 2HBH isn't going to produce results, but the unforgiving setup of the 1HBH isn't worth it either. Just learn a good slice. :p
Regarding recovery footwork, I'm speaking from experience here. I transitioned from 2HB to a 1HB, and can hit a very solid 2HB (when working as instructor, 100% of the time I was instructing a 2HB as well). Once a 2HB is struck, the stance upon the finish is more closed naturally. You can open it (some are better than others at this), but it requires more deliberate movement. I think this is where a lot of core and adductor problems come at the high level. If you look at some extended (not one-off shots) videos of say Thiem and Zverev, probably two of the best examples of backhands out there, you'll see exactly what I mean. I don't need to to this though, because I know how my body feels. It's a lot more stress on the hips and adductors, mostly due to getting in position after the shot. I think it is largely because the contact point is more out in front, so more weight is being transferred forward right after contact on the 1HB, though I also think the position of the non-dominant shoulder may be a factor as well. Here's what I know: my court coverage is much better with a 1HB, and it has nothing to do with reach and everything to do with what happens after the shot. Physically, the 1HB is much easier for me--and I'm pretty fit (I stopped playing tennis for a long time, but I've been a competitive athlete my entire life).
Thanks for clarifying your thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Top