BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Karlovic, Isner, Raonic, Roddick, Del Potro, etc. - the biggest servers over the past 10 years would disagree.
How long till the OHBH extinct at pro level?
- Thread starter Gadz
- Start date
thomasferrett
Hall of Fame
Don't call the 1hbh 'graceful' or things like 'aesthetic' and 'artistic'. That is doing the 1hbh a disservice.
The real strength of the 1hbh is that it has the potential for significantly more peak brute force than the 2hbh. A longer lever arm, a faster racket head speed. You will get more topspin and more pace. You sacrifice the control and stability of the two-hander for spin and POWER. That is why you should love the 1hbh, not because of what it looks like.
Last edited:
ringwraith
Rookie
Exactly - the advantages are spin and power. Although versatality and longer reach are significant advantages as well. We do see a lot of amateur one hander players who flop the ball back which is probably why the average tt forum members seems to think that the one hander hits a slower ball. A player with good timing can crush the backhand wing with a one hander.
ringwraith
Rookie
If they bring back carpet and ban poly strings, it is the two hander that will be in danger of extinction
Bionic slice
Semi-Pro
The 1 handers is style of legends and classic tennis but just like rackets have evolved,..ie getting longer/new kinds of rackets...we see tennis getting, stronger, faster, more powerful stokes and styles have also evolve. Players are stronger, fitter, taller, to the more classic style we see of old tennis in general.
I play with a one handed, I can blast OHBH just as hand as my forehand but wont have any control like to do with my forehand so I normally hit a slice to set up my forehand.
Pro game has def changed and more to the 2HBH more and players have become very proficient with this stroke. I think the years of baseball have ruined my changes to hit a 2 hander so I will stay with my OHBH and keep this stoke alive.
I play with a one handed, I can blast OHBH just as hand as my forehand but wont have any control like to do with my forehand so I normally hit a slice to set up my forehand.
Pro game has def changed and more to the 2HBH more and players have become very proficient with this stroke. I think the years of baseball have ruined my changes to hit a 2 hander so I will stay with my OHBH and keep this stoke alive.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Yup, exactly!If they bring back carpet and ban poly strings, it is the two hander that will be in danger of extinction
And especially if they also limit head sizes to 85 sq. in. max. :shock:
Tennisknowledge99
Banned
To be honest, it looks more beautiful than the 2HBH. Also 1HBH is not more peak brute force, power and spin than 2HBH. The two main advantages of 1HBH are versatility and reach.
Last edited:
crazyups
Professional
So if there were 2 leagues, one with no poly and limited head sizes allowed, and the other the way the ATP currently is, which league would have more spectators(in the long run) assuming the same pros played in both? No comparison in my opinion. People would rather watch the league with the faster ball, more spin, and more athletic requirements.
President
Legend
That is just false.
robok9
Semi-Pro
It's unfortunate that most, when they first start tennis, try a OHBH without focusing on proper technique. Like many have said, "The two hander is easier to learn and be good with." Too often I see people beginning with a "ping pong like" OHBH, and it's disastrous for their learning because of their lack of technique. On my high school team, I'm at #2 and use a OHBH, and my coach says it's actually pretty good. Everyone else in the top 5 uses a 2HBH. However, outside of that, most of the others "try" a OHBH, but none of them are any good at it, since they lack proper technique. Then, the idea is that the OHBH is bad, since all the bad players use it.
Tennisknowledge99
Banned
2HBH is easier to learn by kids; 1-handed BH is quite difficult for kids to learn.
There are more body parts involved in 1HBH, than 2HBH.
1HBH looks more elegant to most people imo.
Topspin with 2HBH is quite natural; with 1HBH it is also possible.
Easier to drive with 2HBH, also with 1HBH.
1HBH have natural slice, 2HBH must learn it.
Wide, out of reach balls, are difficult to return with 2HBH because of limitation of reach. 1 handed BH is good for such conditions such as wide balls, slice approach shots followed by 1-handed BH volley.
With 1 handed BH could be hit with topspin as well as underspin. With 2HBH you always hit with topspin, slice is almost impossible with two hands on the handle.
With 1 handed BH you have more economy of movement i.e. movement is easier with 1hand BH; with 2 hands on the handle, movement is quite cumbersome. Example: Handcuff your both hands and sprint for 10 seconds (measure the distance). Now, open the handcuffs and sprint for 10 seconds (measure the distance). You will discover that you were more speedier without handcuffs!
In certain situations, such as wide return of serve, or you have been pulled wide on your forehand side, and then there is a wide ball to your backhand side, it is almost impossible to return with 2HBH. In such situation, single handed BH comes in handy!
1HBH requires more strength, time, and experience to master than the 2HBH.
If you are a step slower, you tend to hit more slices with 1HBH than topspin drives that require more time and space to execute.
Should we say then that the 2HBH is more powerful because there are two hands on the handle? I know with 1handed BH you have more upper body rotation and with this the distance over which the racket will travel to hit the ball is more, thus more power! But then this added advantage is even out by 2HBH because additional power comes from the left hand as well.
Because of limitation of reach, the 2HBH player must be fast on his feet to overcome this deficiency.
Because the 1HBH employs more upper body rotation, more loop-type backswing, the single handed BH player must be quick on his feet to create time and space to hit his backhands with authority. If this player is a bit slower, he will end up hitting his backhands with slices!
You can see that both backhands have advantages and disadvantages.
Look at Safin, his double handed BH is the most powerful and cleanest shot you will ever see.
Look at Kuerten, his single handed BH is the most devastating shot you will ever see!
Did we resolve this issue?
Last edited:
DerekNoleFam1
Hall of Fame
Having got tennis lessons way back in the early 80's, it was nearly all one handed backhand that was taught.
Slicing and even volleying comes more naturally with the OHBH, it can get more power but it is also more prone to errors hitting over the ball - even Lendl had to master this initially.
By contrast nearly all players at Junior level are now taught the 2-hander, and both of my kids have trained with that as the shot of choice.
The OHBH will continue to die in popularity, but will never be completely obsolete.
Slicing and even volleying comes more naturally with the OHBH, it can get more power but it is also more prone to errors hitting over the ball - even Lendl had to master this initially.
By contrast nearly all players at Junior level are now taught the 2-hander, and both of my kids have trained with that as the shot of choice.
The OHBH will continue to die in popularity, but will never be completely obsolete.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Nope, people would rather watch the league with more variety, more finesse, more strategy, more point construction, more all-court play, more cerebral tennis, etc. rather than the mind-numbing, sleep-inducing, boringly robotic, mindless endless baseline bashing. I mean how many people actually enjoyed watching the Djokovic-Murray 2015 Aus Open final?
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
False. The 1HBH does indeed have more power and spin than the 2HBH, due to the longer, less restricted stroke, and thus, faster racquet head speed. But, of course, you have to know how to hit it properly.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
This post is colored by a terrible self-serving bias. Why do you think tennis got to where it is now?
100% guaranteed that once the nostalgia/novelty wears off, the "old school" league would die out pretty fast.
Every now and again I watch some videos of old school tennis and it just looks like modern tennis in super slow motion. After seeing modern tennis, I doubt anyone would want to go back to watching old tennis.
You have to look no further than two sports in America: baseball and (gridiron) football. Baseball put restrictions on equipment (although they did make sense for safety reasons) and left everything else pretty much the same. Football just let the game evolve, not just the equipment but also they actively changed the rules which caused drastic changes in how the game is played.
Now baseball is slowly dying out while football is more popular than ever before. TV ratings for MLB postseason games lose to NFL regular season games. Not a lot of people care about the World Series (compared to the old days) but the Super Bowl is a de facto holiday. If you fight evolution, you are doomed to failure.
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Nothing could be further from the truth:
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973-2008/4209/
Heck, I'd bet poker gets higher ratings than tennis does. Is that also because they now flip the cards faster than they used to? LOL. People enjoy watching something that takes thinking and strategy, not just a fast moving ball like a video game Pong. Even golf gets better ratings than tennis - people enjoy watching the player slowly setting up to putt and then watching the ball slowly rolling into the cup.
Football only gets higher ratings because each game happens only once a week! Whereas baseball games happen every day, sometimes twice a day. If Wimbledon happened every week, would you be interested in watching any particular match? The Super Bowl is one game, the World Series is best of 7 games. BIG difference. The Super Bowl is also marketed to death. Heck, I only watch it for the commercials. And ask anyone from San Francisco if they've had any interest in the World Series over the past 6 years?
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Football only gets higher ratings because each game happens only once a week! Whereas baseball games happen every day, sometimes twice a day. If Wimbledon happened every week, would you be interested in watching any particular match? The Super Bowl is one game, the World Series is best of 7 games. BIG difference. The Super Bowl is also marketed to death. Heck, I only watch it for the commercials. And ask anyone from San Francisco if they've had any interest in the World Series over the past 6 years?
How often games are played is beyond the point. Ratings for football are rising, baseball ratings are falling. The number of games played hasn't changed, but one sport stagnated while the other evolved.
World Series ratings vs Super Bowl ratings
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Breakpoint said:
What does this really prove? That Americans like tennis less? That TV coverage of tennis in the US has been getting worse every year? And could it be because there aren't any good American tennis players? You can see here how tennis viewership in America correlates with how many American players are in the finals.
Attendances figures are on the rise for practically every major event. There's nothing suggesting the audience dislike baseline tennis. If anything, they dislike the serve and volleying crap - which is why the ATP moved tennis in this direction with the slowing down of the surfaces.
Tennisknowledge99
Banned
Read post #61.
winstonlim8
Professional
Hallulujah! Finally someone agrees with me.
I think those of us who didn't grow up playing video games like Pong are in the minority, however. But having said that, I think I also need to point out that the most popular games all involve some form of strategy to some degree, even those with a platform format.
Kalin
Legend
Attendance figures being on the rise probably has most to do with new, bigger and better stadium complexes, better marketing & social media presence and the opening of new markets like China and the Middle East.
As for the OHBH, it will never die but it needs to fend for itself. The moment a few years pass without a single OHBH GS winner coaches will be even less inclined to teach it. A pity.
As for the OHBH, it will never die but it needs to fend for itself. The moment a few years pass without a single OHBH GS winner coaches will be even less inclined to teach it. A pity.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Hmmm....tennis viwership in the U.S. continued to drop precipitously throughout the 80's, 90's and 00's. Lots of Americans were at or near the top of the sport throughout those years, including McEnroe, Connors, Gilbert, Agassi, Sampras, Courier, Chang, Martin, Washington, Roddick, Blake, Fish, Williams sisters, Bryan brothers, etc.
Mindless baseline bashing bores viewers to tears. I can't imagine anyone who doesn't play tennis suffering through matches like the '15 Aus Open final without being put on suicide watch. It's pretty sad when even golf and poker get higher ratings than tennis.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
It is the point. A baseball season has 162 games. A football season has only 16 games. So of course each football game is going to get higher ratings than each baseball games. Add up all the viewers of all 162 baseball games and compare that to all the viewers of all 16 football games. I'd bet it's pretty close, if not more total viewers for baseball.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Are you slow or something? I am comparing the sports with themselves 40, 50 years ago more so than with each other.
Baseball seasons had 162 games 40 years ago, same as they do now. But baseball viewership has declined because of stagnation.
Football seasons used to have 14 games 40 years ago, and they have 16 now. If your argument made sense, wouldn't football viewership have declined as a result? But no, it's only increased as a result of its evolution.
Last edited:
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
No evidence of that whatsoever. You still haven't answered my question: why do you think the ATP/WTA created conditions that favor "baseline bashing" (LOL) if they thought it was detrimental to the popularity of the sport?
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Oh really? http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=524573
The ATP/WTA also allows poly strings and big racquets, so it's obvious they have no interest in protecting the integrity of the sport.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
So the opinion of this one guy and a few disgruntled forum-goers represent the opinion of the tennis audience as a whole?
ATP/WTA are businesses first and foremost. Nobody wants to watch slow motion tennis. Implementing the restrictions you want on equipment would kill the sport.
Also it's ridiculous to suggest poly strings and big racquets somehow violate the "integrity" of the sport. Whatever that means.
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Yet, the average salary of a MLB baseball player is $3.8 million, whereas the average salary of a NFL football player is only half that at $1.9 million. In fact, the biggest contracts in all pro sports all go to baseball players, not football players: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_sports_contracts
Hmmm....so where does a sport that's in decline, has no fans, and nobody watches get all that money to pay its players huge salaries (including a recent $325 million contract for a single player)? LOL
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Try playing with a 65 sq. in. wood racquet and you would know exactly what I mean. Big racquets allow even people without any eye-hand coordination to take huge swings and still hit the ball even blindfolded. Of course that ruins the integrity of the sport. You no longer have to focus on hitting the ball in a sweetspot the size of a pinhead. It's like allowing fencers to use samurai swords and two hands. Integrity of the sport gone.
"A few disgruntled forum-goers"? It's the majority of people! When they take a poll, do they poll everyone in the country or just a small sample? Yet, polls are usually very accurate in representing the opinions of the population at large.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
How well athletes get paid doesn't necessarily reflect the popularity of a sport or its profitability. The NFL still leads the American professional sports leagues in revenue by some distance.
I also wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth; I never said any of that stuff about pro baseball, just that it's in decline. They obviously still have quite a bit of a margin.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
I am sorry, I do not used antiquated technology. Are you Amish or something? What made you decide tennis as it was played in some specific point in time is perfect, but not what came before or after?
Polls are accurate, as long as proper sampling techniques are used and the questions themselves are impartial. Internet polls usually have strong selection bias. This is only made worse when the thread itself was made to whine about the final, drawing more whiners to it.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I'll have to assume you didn't major in economics nor business in college nor ever worked at an investment bank. LOL
Oh, and didn't you emphasize how viewership for baseball has declined? Yet salaries keep increasing? LOL
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Did you miss the part where I said the NFL leads American pro leagues in revenue, or did you just choose to ignore that?
Enron kept giving their execs pay raises. I see that worked well for them.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Tennis is a sport, not a computer. Why is technology even needed in tennis? It's not. How much technology are the competitors allowed to employ in gymnastics, swimming, track, baseball, basketball, wrestling, archery, weight lifting, judo, soccer, curling, diving, volleyball, handball, water polo, boxing, billiards, chess, bowling, etc.?
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
By the way, how is this for a poll?
http://thebiglead.com/2014/10/16/ga...ually-tied-for-americas-no-2-spectator-sport/
http://thebiglead.com/2014/10/16/ga...ually-tied-for-americas-no-2-spectator-sport/
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
NFL revenue is not much higher than MLB revenue and MLB revenue is growing faster than NFL revenue: http://www.businessinsider.com/spor...venue-still-dwarfs-other-major-sports-2012-10
All that NFL revenue must be going to pay for marketing (instead of salaries), which I'm sure is why so many people watch it. It's all about the marketing.
Enron paid its executives in stock, which became worthless when the company went under. Nothing to do with baseball. Movie stars that bring in the most revenue (ticket/DVD sales) get paid the biggest salaries. Same goes for professional athletes.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Apples and oranges comparisons, a BreakPoint specialty. None of these sports have personalized equipment that greatly impacts the game, like tennis racquets.
More apt comparisons would be things like cycling, motorsports, golf, skiing, etc. Though I am sure in golf and cycling forums somewhere there are BreakPoint analogues claiming carbon fiber frames ruined cycling; or bigger driver heads and hybrid clubs have ruined golf :lol:
Kalin
Legend
As a matter of fact, many people (including one Jack Nicklaus of 18 majors fame) have complained that golf has suffered from the new equipment. Having to lengthen some classic courses to almost 8,000 yards in order to make them difficult enough for the modern pros is one result and it's costing golf-course owners a lot of money. Not to mention it makes average golfers who try to manly play from the back tees (and even from the blues) end up looking like complete chumps.
Having said that, tennis has equipment rules already (so does golf, of course). I don't think there's a chance of going back in time.
Back to the original topic- OHBH. The OHBH is also much easier to hit with modern equipment. The problem with the OHBH is that it's not coached enough; not that modern equipment makes it obsolete.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
In my personal experience, the OHBH is a much harder shot to hit. When I first started playing I tried both shots, and I tried my hardest to get the OHBH to work because of its advantages (mainly the easier power). Alas, I could never get it to work. Power doesn't do me any good if half the shots land out of play.
The double hander is much, much easier to pick up and control. And in time, you'll learn to add the power back to the shot. I still haven't been able to get as much pace and spin on the two hander as my one hander initially had, but it's a solid shot that can't be picked apart.
The control and stability problems the one hander has are compounded by underdeveloped upper bodies in juniors, and the power advantage is also much less pronounced. That's probably why coaches steer clear of this shot. You'll lose a lot with a one hander as a junior, and the "return" in that investment is questionable at best later on. And if you have been brought up with a two hander, there's no reason to switch to the one hander seeing how you already have a functional stroke.
Last edited:
thomasferrett
Hall of Fame
That's what I can't stand. Players seem content with a backhand that is 'functional' instead of striving to hit a backhand that is optimal.
They are content to use their forehand as a weapon and their backhand as a 'hang in the rally' shot. I admire the most players who have BOTH groundstrokes as a true weapon, if that's a 2hbh, then fair enough, but these sorts of players tend to be 1hbh player because of that leverage advantage;
Djokovic
Almagro
Nishikori
Gulbis
Wawrinka
Kohlschreiber
- all examples of players who hit BOTH their groundstrokes as great weapons instead of having to run miles around their backhand whenever they want to get ahead in a rally.
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
You don't think aesthetics in tennis matter ?
Most people I've chatted with over the years at a tennis match -- it's a lot of matches and a lot of people.
-- would differ, if that is your view.I would go so far as to say the reason that even people with little tennis interest will take an interest in watching Federer alone is purely because his game is aesthetically pleasing. Even those with zero tennis knowledge both can see it and appreciate it.
Kalin
Legend
JM, I fully agree that the OHBH is more difficult and takes longer to master. And you're also absolutely right that physically weak juniors generally have a hard time hitting a full-bore 1-hander. I learned tennis as a skinny little kid using a heavy, adult-sized woodie and it was years before I could come over the ball with any authority; all I could do for years was hit weak slices. Virtually nobody around me hit 2-handers at the time.
But now with the availability of shorter & lighter, junior-friendly sticks it should be actually easier to learn one-handers. And I don't think the skill of teaching a OHBH is gone at all- in our league there's a ton of guys in their 20's and 30' who hit a mean one-hander (mostly European- and Asia- trained, mind you); and then, of course, pretty much everyone above 40 hits a one-hander. So the knowledge is out there but it seems coaches to the young budding pros prefer to go for the 'sure thing' nowadays which is the 2HBH.
Similar threads
- Poll