Observation, experience, intuition
Is the 1HB harder on the body than the 2HB?
- Thread starter THESEXPISTOL
- Start date
Observation, experience, intuition
K
Kilco
Guest
Lopez is a boss, big serve and forehand, slice slice slice even a simple backhand put away and he goes for outrageous slice dropshots lol
That is what we were struggling to say and which you put so lucidly. You should become a coach.
1 H BH is easier on the body for lazy players who slice a lot and like to finish points quickly by coming to the net. Taylor Dent, the serve and volleyer, split with a coach because he did not want to practice groundstrokes! He viewed them as a waste of time.
But if you insist on baseline game and topspin, 2H BH is easier on the body.
roman40
Rookie
Why? Has there been a record of more injuries for players who have 1H BH vs 2H BH? To me, backhand topspin shot is no more effort (perhaps less) than a forehand. The problem is that you have to take the ball early on the rise, so it takes a lot of learning/practice to play against people who can hit with heavy topspin. 1H BH slices are done by 2H BH players as well, although much less, so it's not so relevant.
BTW, saying that slicing is somehow "lazy" is ridiculous, it's just a shot that you can play, which can be very effective against some players. You still have to get to the ball to slice it.
Last edited:
I really doubt that 1HB or 2HB makes a difference at the highest levels, as long it is a solid shot that won't break down. The qualities that get a player to the top twenty are more dependent on their weapons, IMO, like the forehand, serve, mobility/quickness, and fitness. I have a good laugh when someone says Federer has a weak backhand - yeah, the poor guy only has 17 slams. 
At the lower levels, I agree folks are able to learn the 2HB faster. I have a 2HB myself. I converted to it some years ago from a 1HB (due to an injury) and I love it. But a few of my 4.5/5.0 level friends have one handers that are as good as any club level two handers I've seen. Ultimately, I feel it is a matter of personal preference and how much work one wants to put into it. Six of one, half a dozen of the other...
At the lower levels, I agree folks are able to learn the 2HB faster. I have a 2HB myself. I converted to it some years ago from a 1HB (due to an injury) and I love it. But a few of my 4.5/5.0 level friends have one handers that are as good as any club level two handers I've seen. Ultimately, I feel it is a matter of personal preference and how much work one wants to put into it. Six of one, half a dozen of the other...
10isfreak
Semi-Pro
Out of all the possible wordings, as you pointed out, Suresh chose a pejorative term (lazy) to qualify a certain playing style. It tells a lot about what Suresh considers to be the appropriate way to play a match since some are apparently "lazy."
10isfreak
Semi-Pro
May you expand the depth of your thought? How is not a matter of preference? What makes you think otherwise?
10isfreak
Semi-Pro
I have seen a few coaches teaching 1HBH to young girls (I mean, they're not even 10 years old!) with the explicit purpose of throwing off their 2HBH counterparts who are so well grooved into a passive baseline game...
Our courts, a couple of soon to be state ranked top 10 junior girls are using 1hbh exclusively, for now anyways. They don't slice any groundies, ever.
Lazy is not necessarily a derogative word. I use a slice backhand mostly, am lazy to be sure. If I wanted to hit 1hbh topspin on every ball, I'd have to set my feet, turn my shoulders, and swing low to high, which takes more energy than slicing. Let's just say slicing is more efficient on the body.
Lazy is not necessarily a derogative word. I use a slice backhand mostly, am lazy to be sure. If I wanted to hit 1hbh topspin on every ball, I'd have to set my feet, turn my shoulders, and swing low to high, which takes more energy than slicing. Let's just say slicing is more efficient on the body.
By lazy, I mean choosing easy options like slice and conserving energy. I have spent a lot of time trying not to slice but to go over the ball. I could have chosen the easier path of slicing all the time. And actually done better with the old farts who cannot move.
One can argue that slice is not lazy, just like one can argue about anything. But when I see the number of male club players who seize up on a backhand ball and always turn to the safety of the slice in an actual match, I have to say that I don't admire them at all. Fed has come over the ball more and more as his career has progressed, and even Feliciano is hitting more flats and tops now.
It is surprising how some are not capable of understanding what lazy meant in the context it was said. I think they are just looking for words to attack people instead of understanding the big picture.
10isfreak
Semi-Pro
So, here it is! As expected, it's the Federer-Nadal rivalry.
This rivalry was the absolute worst show case for the 1HBH... but it's also the most known, viewed and analyzed show case. Not surprising you'd like to get rid of all 1HBH on the tour or view them as a substantial disadvantage: it's your experience.
I think both Fed and Nadal are just REALLY good and Nadal just happens to have Fed's number. Seriously they both will roll thru a draw full of both 1hbh and 2hbh players so it's not 1 specific type of shot that kills Fed. If that were they case he'd be loosing all the time since most players on the way to the finals are 2hbh.
You would think if the 2hbh was just THAT bad for him then EVERYONE would just pick up on it and at least make it interesting. I mean he has been losing to Nadal for years so if it was just that ONE shot all the other players would have picked up on it and just beat the hell out of Fed. Fed's weakness is Nadal as a package, not that one shot. That and he is no spring chicken anymore.
You would think if the 2hbh was just THAT bad for him then EVERYONE would just pick up on it and at least make it interesting. I mean he has been losing to Nadal for years so if it was just that ONE shot all the other players would have picked up on it and just beat the hell out of Fed. Fed's weakness is Nadal as a package, not that one shot. That and he is no spring chicken anymore.
10isfreak
Semi-Pro
Where do you live? In North America, productivity and efficiency are excessively valued. Here, laziness will be understood by nearly every person as being a pejorative term -- because it's the opposite of what is being valued.
You could say that these players are more relaxed, more passive, less aggressive, less intense, playing a more loose game, enter the court with a "mellow" mood, approach the game with more of a let-go attitude, etc. All of this suggests a difference, but it doesn't put the emphasis on effort -- in the above context, it means that it won't perceived as an insult.
Use words to suit your audience (or your readers, in this case), not yourself. I am not necessarily doing better, but saying that people are cherry picking on you or that they're not trying to understand you is going a little far, I think.
10isfreak
Semi-Pro
I do like this idea: committing yourself to hitting more top spin ground strokes is what enables you to grow better at hitting them.
Leed lives in North America and can understand what I said just fine.
Also, lazy can be pejorative everywhere, nothing to do with North America.
arche3
Banned
tennis_hack
Banned
Again, don't play the victim. You're the one with inflammatory arguments.
Those 'supporting' the 1hbh (myself included) are the ones recognizing that each shot (2hbh and 1hbh) has pros and cons, and it's up to the player to choose if they want to live with the cons of the 1hbh/2hbh in order to benefit from the pros of that stroke.
This is a perfectly reasonable argument.
YOU are the unreasonable one taking unwanted digs at the 1hbh at every opportunity you can, and insisting that it offers no advantage whatsoever compared to the 2hbh - and all because you are a butt-hurt Federer fan.
Get over it, Federer isn't the only guy out there with a 1hbh, and Nadal is breaking down much more 2hbh's than 1hbh's.
You also seem to have it in your head that everyone with a 2hbh must be some sort of Nadal-slaying GOAT off that wing like Djokovic is. Murray has a great 2hbh, and his backhand still gets abused by Nadal's high bounce.
Lukhas
Legend
This has to be one of your weakest arguments so far in this thread. Using one match, of one event, played on fast hard court it try to answer to the fact Nadal topspins his forehand to backhands whoever his opponent is... Are you even trying? Are you trolling the board? What's your problem with the one hander? Can't you see the hole in your post? I could too bring videos of players winning BH to FH rallies with Nadal, and most people know it; and I think you know it. So your motive has to be different. Why so bitter about the one-hander?
tennis_balla
Hall of Fame
10isfreak
Semi-Pro
There's only one exception to this and he's current world number one. His DTL BH is just too big for Nadal and Nadal's BH isn't nearly as good as that of Djokovic... He plays much fewer CC FH against Djokovic than against anyone else.
Besides this, you are right: Nadal's FH is just plain immense and it gets him loads of weak balls, regardless of who's on the other side.
10isfreak
Semi-Pro
It doesn't have to do with North America; it has to do with the people who live there and I never said that laziness wasn't or couldn't be pejorative elsewhere (or with other group of people). I said that it's when you value work and effort that laziness sounds pejorative...
Take an other example. In a debate, your position can be "radical." It's supposed to indicate that your position is rooted in something, that is fundamentally associated with a certain ideology or movement. If you use that word in an academic paper, it will flow like any other word because they'll understand the above. If you use it in a public place with ordinary people, you won't get the same reaction: "radical" echoes some form of extremism and it's as if someone radical wasn't reasonable or wouldn't listen to counter arguments... That's what they'll think when you'll use that word.
LeeD is one person out of millions. Some people might get your point and won't view the word as being pejorative -- just like writing words like "radical" in academic journal won't get people to react a lot.
However, try this experiment for us, would you? Go on a court and find a stranger. Tell him that he's got a lazy attitude. Don't say anything else, don't expand your thoughts and do not explain it... just say he's got a lazy attitude on the court. See how many strangers do not perceive it as an insult.
You'll get threatened so often as a response that you might get the point I made earlier... it's likely to be read as a pejorative term.
Lukhas
Legend
I wanted to edit, but TT is awfully slow for me as of late for some reason. Said exception avoids playing to the FH and/or has patterns for avoiding that cross-court rally. He's not winning those rallies, he finds ways to avoid that rally. Pretty logical.
tennis_hack
Banned
Yeh, I think this sums up your intelligence right there. 0 out of 8, wtf. All the 1hbhers were old, washed up vets who already proved the worth of their stroke by getting to qf. Imagine if they were in their mid twenties - might have pushed the 2hbhers a bit morr
arche3
Banned
For trolling. Duh. Just admit 75% of your 25k posts are trolling people to get a rise and be done with it. All of a sudden your mr innocent. "Who me? What did I do"? Funny stuff.
tennis_hack
Banned
Yeah, once in a while he'll come out with the "it's amazing how people can be so closed-minded/only see the side of the argument they're on" line - when he's the one taking the absolutist argument a good 95% of the time - just like his absolutist argument here: "there is nothing worth learning about the 1hbh."
I never said that. In fact, your statement does not make sense. If someone is a 2 hander, there is nothing worth learning about the 1 hander (of course I am not talking about slice, so don't bring that up). Just like it is not worth learning the 2 handed FH if you have a 1 hander.
The question is about the efficacy in today's game (I think results show 2 hander is superior) and the original topic of being harder on the body (I think 1 hander can be easier if more topspins are replaced by slices).
When 4 out of 8 qfinalists were 1 handers, it seems that it was OK talking about that. When 0 in the semifinal are 1 handers, the topic has become taboo.
tennis_hack
Banned
arche3
Banned
That is the way suresh trolls. He wears you out with the stuff. Its like commenting to a computer program. Every so often he spits out something so random it makes you question your own sanity. Like your in an alternate universe or something because he conveniently ignores the things he has actually posted. Pretends he never did so.
Lukhas
Legend
There's so much stuff to argue with this document I don't even know were to start. Or if I'm willing to start.
You think so?
Somehow I've come to this bold conclusion, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Every point in that article is correct. No coach I have heard about has been able to do this kind of thorough analysis. It has confirmed what I have observed and experienced personally over the years. The fact that some successful pros have fantastic 1 handers does not mean much. It only shows that they have mastered it to a very high level and can actually turn it into an advantage. I am sure there are guys who can win races with a 100 pound sack on their back, but it is not the suggested way to succeed.
tennis_hack
Banned
Once again, poor analogy, but I'd expect nothing less.
Suresh, are you honestly telling me that the 1hbh does not have a single advantage over the 2hbh? You're telling me the 2hbh does every single thing that a backhand can possibly do, better than the 1hbh?
You're telling me that you can hit higher maximum topspin with an elite 2hbh than an elite 1hbh? You're telling me you can transition to the net better?
If not, then why not just pipe down? Because all we 'pro-1hbh' people really are arguing is that the 1hbh offers some unique benefits relative to the 2hbh, so as long as there are some 1hbh's on the tour, the spectator benefits as they make the game more varied.
Only people like you wish to see the tour homogenized with every player using the same techniques and having the same strengths and weaknesses so that almost every single match is a repeat of the last one, and consists of clones of each other grinding each other down.
As a 1hbh-hater, that is your idealistic vision of the tennis future.
BirdieLane
New User
Just got off the court and saw this thread got bumped and I have a few thoughts I think I'm qualified to make regarding OP.
I'm an aging ex 5.5-/5.0+ player...down to a 4.5 now. Two hander was my weapon in prime. Better than FH. The book on playing me was go to my FH. I learned a one-hander in my 40s and dropped the two hander completely for years. 1BH is a good/stable shot - but I'm not here to compare merits of shots, but rather to address OP.
Last few months, I've dusted off the 2hander again which I hadn't used in many years. It's not what it once was, but definitely a steady/powerful shot (and a completely different tool from my 1BH)
So from the perspective of having a '5.5' 2BH and now a '4.5' 1BH:
No question that the 1BH is far easier on the body. Not even close. Today, I spent first 20 minutes hitting 2BH, then I got tired of the effort and grind and I switched to my 1BH (and I had a come from behind win I might add...)
The twisting and yanking in the hips and core is brutal on 2BH while the 1BH just flows. The strength element required to hit a 1BH is massively exaggerated as the 1BH is more about technique than strength. In fact, I'd argue that players with 2BHs end up muscling the ball much more than players with 1BH. (partially because the 1BH technique cannot be muscled..)
And by the way, I respect both shots....but that linked PDF from itftennis is brutally flawed. What a piece of garbage.
I'm an aging ex 5.5-/5.0+ player...down to a 4.5 now. Two hander was my weapon in prime. Better than FH. The book on playing me was go to my FH. I learned a one-hander in my 40s and dropped the two hander completely for years. 1BH is a good/stable shot - but I'm not here to compare merits of shots, but rather to address OP.
Last few months, I've dusted off the 2hander again which I hadn't used in many years. It's not what it once was, but definitely a steady/powerful shot (and a completely different tool from my 1BH)
So from the perspective of having a '5.5' 2BH and now a '4.5' 1BH:
No question that the 1BH is far easier on the body. Not even close. Today, I spent first 20 minutes hitting 2BH, then I got tired of the effort and grind and I switched to my 1BH (and I had a come from behind win I might add...
)The twisting and yanking in the hips and core is brutal on 2BH while the 1BH just flows. The strength element required to hit a 1BH is massively exaggerated as the 1BH is more about technique than strength. In fact, I'd argue that players with 2BHs end up muscling the ball much more than players with 1BH. (partially because the 1BH technique cannot be muscled..)
And by the way, I respect both shots....but that linked PDF from itftennis is brutally flawed. What a piece of garbage.
BirdieLane
New User
I agree that it is easier on the body and suitable for older players. That is why I still use it
Then you can't agree on all points of your article... (#7..)
Ok, then onto the merits. So #1, we agree easier on the body. That's actually very important considering how brutally physical the game has become.
Next...just taking today: The guy I was playing liked the pace/tempo of my two hander and read it far better. I got tired of pounding (and twisting) away, and I went to one hander. This gave me a) a heavier/higher bounce; and b) some better angles. No longer were we having a mano-a-mano BH crosscourt ripping contest. And result of the more varied and angled balls was setting up my FH for more short balls and open cross courts. Also, hit 3 or 4 DTL balls with my 1BH the guy never saw coming. I.e. No way is it easier to read a 1BH...quite the opposite in my experience (if only because there are so few?)
So just agreeing with those that note the 1BH has it's own merits over the 2BH, even if it's not as obvious as a screaming Agassi 2BH return winner.
I would say even #7 is correct in the sense that slightly bad technique in 1 hander or weakness can lead to TE.
DavaiMarat
Professional
No. Just different kinds of injuries.
2 handed. Lower back and hips.
1 Hand. Wrist and Shoulder Elbow.
2 handed. Lower back and hips.
1 Hand. Wrist and Shoulder Elbow.
BirdieLane
New User
I sort of agree with you (sureshs)...but one thing that I love about 1BH is that there is far less middle ground. The technical points are almost 100% uniform in every player with a 1BH and variances are very small. Meaning if you have a 'real' 1BH, your technique is very good by definition - because any 1BH with poor technique is really bad.
Therefore, I stand by my point that a good 1BH is much less about strength and strain on joints and much more about proper technique..and thus I reject #7 and TE risks, etc.
Therefore, I stand by my point that a good 1BH is much less about strength and strain on joints and much more about proper technique..and thus I reject #7 and TE risks, etc.
BirdieLane
New User
Again, not with good technique on 1BH. I have virtually nothing left of shoulder and 1BH drive causes least pain...serving kills it. My elbow is also a mess...any slice caught slightly late triggers twinge/numbness for a bit. But no problem on 1BH drive. Arm/elbow straight and structurally no strain on shoulder/elbow.
Agree the 'hack' 1BH seen in lots of club players is a nightmare, but that's not the shot we are talking about. (At least I'm not...)
BirdieLane
New User
And also, wrist breaks down/fatigues after hitting a lot of FH, but feels great still on the 1BH drive.
Jeez...Writing my ailings here...and wondering why I even play this darn sport!!:-?
