Is the 1HBH really disadvantaged?

O

objectivity

Banned
recent results not withstanding, i think many fans here fail to recognize that correlation does not imply causation. While it appears that the 1HBH is disadvantaged in the modern game because there are fewer players using the stroke, this does not actually mean the stroke is disadvantaged. There are at least 2 other plausible reasons to explain the phenomena.

1) the supply of 1HBH players are lesser.
2) players with 2HBH are higher quality players on average, so they would have done better even with a 1HBH.

in reality, i think what really happened, is that there are more juniors using the 2HBH than the 1HBH, because the 2HBH is much easier to learn. that is why we see fewer and fewer players using the 1HBH. together with the accelerated process of turning professional, there is strong pressure for players to become good FAST. and that takes precedence over becoming the BEST. as a result, players are being pressured to learn the 2HBH instead.

on the other hand, i also think that higher bouncing surfaces do favor the 2HBH, because the high backhand is just so much easier with a double handed stroke. however, by and large, on a largely neutral surface like the US Open hard court, in my opinion, there is no inherent disadvantage to using the 1HBH.
 
There are pros and cons to the two different shots, and what we're seeing in today's game, is that the pros of a 2HBH are typically more desirable and consistently produce better results.
 
TimeSpiral said:
There are pros and cons to the two different shots, and what we're seeing in today's game, is that the pros of a 2HBH are typically more desirable and consistently produce better results.
Click to expand...

the thing is, it is extremely difficult to prove causally, that a player with a 2HBH would not have done as well as he/she has, if he/she is using a 1HBH instead. we do not have the luxury of conducting a lab experiment to test that. however, one simple observation i have made, is that although there are extremely few 1HBH players now, they are all very highly ranked relatively. wawrinka, almagro, haas, federer, gasquet etc. in other words, the few 1HBH players we have, they are all doing very well relative to the entire ATP world. it suggests that it is more probable that this is a supply question i.e. there are just fewer 1HBH players, rather than 1HBH is disadvantaged.
 
objectivity said:
the thing is, it is extremely difficult to prove causally, that a player with a 2HBH would not have done as well as he/she has, if he/she is using a 1HBH instead. we do not have the luxury of conducting a lab experiment to test that. however, one simple observation i have made, is that although there are extremely few 1HBH players now, they are all very highly ranked relatively. wawrinka, almagro, haas, federer, gasquet etc. in other words, the few 1HBH players we have, they are all doing very well relative to the entire ATP world. it suggests that it is more probable that this is a supply question i.e. there are just fewer 1HBH players, rather than 1HBH is disadvantaged.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. But unfortunately it is just conjecture.

Why don't you dig up some statisics and data to support your theory?

You would want to look for the distribution of 1hbh players across the top 500 players and see if whether there is an even distribution of 1hbh players or whether they are concentrated in a particular ranking range.

At the moment personal subjective opinion & common consensus is that 1hbh is a bit more tricky to time on the rise aggressively.
 
Last edited:
TimeSpiral said:
There are pros and cons to the two different shots, and what we're seeing in today's game, is that the pros of a 2HBH are typically more desirable and consistently produce better results.
Click to expand...

Coaches know that for most players the FOREHAND is what matters. So while you build up that side you try to minimize the errors on the other side, the BH side. What do you pick for that? A two-hander in most cases. And a 2H-BH is easier for kids to pick up since most don't have the strength to hit a 1-H at that age.

This forehand>backhand works even in the top 4 microcosm. Nadal and Federer have overall better results than Murray and Djokovic because they can do more with forehands. I don't think anyone can deny that Djokovic and Murray have far better BH than Fedal and yet they suffer in result when compared to them.
 
objectivity said:
the thing is, it is extremely difficult to prove causally, that a player with a 2HBH would not have done as well as he/she has, if he/she is using a 1HBH instead. we do not have the luxury of conducting a lab experiment to test that. however, one simple observation i have made, is that although there are extremely few 1HBH players now, they are all very highly ranked relatively. wawrinka, almagro, haas, federer, gasquet etc. in other words, the few 1HBH players we have, they are all doing very well relative to the entire ATP world. it suggests that it is more probable that this is a supply question i.e. there are just fewer 1HBH players, rather than 1HBH is disadvantaged.
Click to expand...

You're right that answering a hypothesis objectively would be difficult.

I think that right now, by many metrics, you could make the case for 2HBH superiority, and the 1HBH's that are doing well, are on the extremes of the bell curve. I think the general answer to your question is "yes."

I do take issue with the opportunity cost (what if the 2HBH played with a 1HBH?) comparison. I think it is completely irrelevant. Players get to choose, and coaches get to choose, and the choice is pretty clearly favoring the 2HBH.

I tried both, and ultimately went with the 2HBH, so perhaps my anecdotal experience is biasing me.
 
namelessone said:
Coaches know that for most players the FOREHAND is what matters. So while you build up that side you try to minimize the errors on the other side, the BH side. What do you pick for that? A two-hander in most cases. And a 2H-BH is easier for kids to pick up since most don't have the strength to hit a 1-H at that age.

This forehand>backhand works even in the top 4 microcosm. Nadal and Federer have overall better results than Murray and Djokovic because they can do more with forehands. I don't think anyone can deny that Djokovic and Murray have far better BH than Fedal and yet they suffer in result when compared to them.
Click to expand...

This was me. I was initially taught a 1hander, but because of my lack of strength, I adopted a 2hander. But I still knew how to hit a 1hander. So I had the strength necessary to hit a 1hander starting in high school, I stuck with it since.

By the way, I struggled mightily with my 2hander.

So, I hope teaching pros are still teaching the 1hander. If strength is an issue, at least the kid can choose to come back to it later when the upper body strength develops.
 
I think guys like Nadal and Djokovic would have been just as good or maybe even better with a 1HBH. These guys win because of their incredible speed, movement, anticipation, mental toughness, and sheer determination. 1HBH or 2HBH wouldn't have made a difference. In fact, a 1HBH would have given them more variety off their BHs.
 
objectivity said:
the thing is, it is extremely difficult to prove causally, that a player with a 2HBH would not have done as well as he/she has, if he/she is using a 1HBH instead. we do not have the luxury of conducting a lab experiment to test that. however, one simple observation i have made, is that although there are extremely few 1HBH players now, they are all very highly ranked relatively. wawrinka, almagro, haas, federer, gasquet etc. in other words, the few 1HBH players we have, they are all doing very well relative to the entire ATP world. it suggests that it is more probable that this is a supply question i.e. there are just fewer 1HBH players, rather than 1HBH is disadvantaged.
Click to expand...

I think we should look at the ATP 2hbh players with the strongest ranking year in year out, titles, deep runs outside of ATP 250 events and see what the "few" 1hbh players H2H's are with each of these respective players.

The only basic logic that I would say would put 1hbh players at a disadvantage is that you use the same hand, wrist, elbow, shoulder to do everything from serving, hitting a forehand, hitting a backhand, and hitting a overhead.

If something happens and a pain or a injury aggravates any of these areas in your dominant playing hand you lose consistency on both sides. At least with 2hbh your non dominant hand is shouldering some of the work when your not hitting a forehand.
 
I can hit both and I find that in my off days I at least have the option of bunting 2 handers back. With a 1 hander you are either on game or you slice all day...
 
TimeSpiral said:
I do take issue with the opportunity cost (what if the 2HBH played with a 1HBH?) comparison. I think it is completely irrelevant. Players get to choose, and coaches get to choose, and the choice is pretty clearly favoring the 2HBH.
Click to expand...

no it isn't irrelevant. you must understand that these professional players start young, and almost certainly must go through the grind of junior tournaments. my sense is that because of the need to perform early and fast, they are pushed to pick up the 2HBH because it is an easier stroke for a junior. however, this does not mean that the 1HBH is disadvantaged for a professional eventually. my hypothesis is that we are seeing more 2HBH not because the 2HBH is a better stroke, but that more juniors are using it.
 
Dimcorner said:
I can hit both and I find that in my off days I at least have the option of bunting 2 handers back. With a 1 hander you are either on game or you slice all day...
Click to expand...

i agree with that. i started with a 1HBH as well, and finally changed to a 2HBH. because at least i can bunt / push back a high ball with my off-hand. but low balls are now my anathema.
 
The use of 1HBH is declining because of fewer players willing to serve and volley (slower surfaces, faster serves, better return games, better defense, poly strings), the slightly increased safety of the 2HBH - both in terms of timing and strength, and the slight advantage at handling higher bouncing balls.

Having a 1HBH has lots of advantages too - better reach, easier to hit a natural slice and volley, and ability to create acute angles a bit more easily.

In the current top 30, there are 10 players with a 1HBH. This ratio was higher in the past, but it is not like you absolutely *need* a 2HBH to be successful.
 
1hbh and 2hbh have their inherent advantages and disadvantages. Higher racket speed, spin, forgiveness, high balls, low balls, feel. They have their pros and cons, and whether or not one is better than the other is dependent on the player themselves.

It would not be argumentative to say that the modern game has pushed young players to adopt a 2hbh over a 1hbh, regardless of innate talents. If Federer used a 2hbh, he'd probably win 17 majors still, the guy is that good.

It's also of note that we don't see a lot of conti (Johnny Mac) or eastern (Sampras) forehand grips, and its not because those grips are inferior, it is likely the move to the higher spin, stiffer rackets, poly string emphasis on the game of tennis in the 21st century.

The 1hbh is fine. You'll likely see these dudes hitting with more of an aggressive eastern to semi grip to get that shiny, topspin ball over a conti.
 
BreakPoint said:
I think guys like Nadal and Djokovic would have been just as good or maybe even better with a 1HBH. These guys win because of their incredible speed, movement, anticipation, mental toughness, and sheer determination. 1HBH or 2HBH wouldn't have made a difference. In fact, a 1HBH would have given them more variety off their BHs.
Click to expand...
Completely WRONG. Djokovic used a one handed backhand when he was young and switched to a two hander. He found that he was pushed around too easily with the one hand and switched to two hands which became his bread and butter. In the end it is all up to preference...
Both backhands seem to generate the same amount of power. Though the two hand tends to be much more flat and low. The one hand lacks manueverability of a two hand but has the top spin/shot making element along with disguise and increased skills in volleying and slicing. It is all up to the user of the racket many greats have used a two handed backhand and a one handed backhand. Its just sad that many people are automatically teaching children the two handed backhand, if anything a child should learn both these days like Tsonga
 
i rock the newly termed "hybrid".

now, what was the OP talking about?

oh, how can anyone say it matters when Fed (1hbh) is the GOAT while Nadal (2hbh) is even greater (GGOAT).

it's all about how you learned and the footwork you chose to adapt, IMO. yes, some pro's have switched, mostly from
2 to 1 if so, but hey..........it's all about the player.
 
HailDjokovic said:
Completely WRONG. Djokovic used a one handed backhand when he was young and switched to a two hander. He found that he was pushed around too easily with the one hand and switched to two hands which became his bread and butter. In the end it is all up to preference...
Both backhands seem to generate the same amount of power. Though the two hand tends to be much more flat and low. The one hand lacks manueverability of a two hand but has the top spin/shot making element along with disguise and increased skills in volleying and slicing. It is all up to the user of the racket many greats have used a two handed backhand and a one handed backhand. Its just sad that many people are automatically teaching children the two handed backhand, if anything a child should learn both these days like Tsonga
Click to expand...

He must have switched quite young, because he was hitting with a two-handed backhand when he was 6 years old.
 
More than the 1hb being a weaker shot compared to the 2hb its the fact that the courts have become slow and high bouncing.

The 1hb still is top dog on fast courts...!!!
 
HailDjokovic said:
Completely WRONG. Djokovic used a one handed backhand when he was young and switched to a two hander. He found that he was pushed around too easily with the one hand and switched to two hands which became his bread and butter. In the end it is all up to preference...
Both backhands seem to generate the same amount of power. Though the two hand tends to be much more flat and low. The one hand lacks manueverability of a two hand but has the top spin/shot making element along with disguise and increased skills in volleying and slicing. It is all up to the user of the racket many greats have used a two handed backhand and a one handed backhand. Its just sad that many people are automatically teaching children the two handed backhand, if anything a child should learn both these days like Tsonga
Click to expand...
Haven't we already established that little kids are not strong enough to have a powerful and consistent 1HBH and that's why most use 2HBHs? Do you think as a full grown adult Djokovic still doesn't have the strength to hit a 1HBH?

Djokovic or Nadal with Gasquet's or Wawrinka's 1HBH would be almost unbeatable.
 
BreakPoint said:
Haven't we already established that little kids are not strong enough to have a powerful and consistent 1HBH and that's why most use 2HBHs? Do you think as a full grown adult Djokovic still doesn't have the strength to hit a 1HBH?

Djokovic or Nadal with Gasquet's or Wawrinka's 1HBH would be almost unbeatable.
Click to expand...

How would the ball travel with Nadal's western grip (if he used a 1HBH)?
 
objectivity said:
recent results not withstanding, i think many fans here fail to recognize that correlation does not imply causation. While it appears that the 1HBH is disadvantaged in the modern game because there are fewer players using the stroke, this does not actually mean the stroke is disadvantaged. There are at least 2 other plausible reasons to explain the phenomena.

1) the supply of 1HBH players are lesser.
2) players with 2HBH are higher quality players on average, so they would have done better even with a 1HBH.

in reality, i think what really happened, is that there are more juniors using the 2HBH than the 1HBH, because the 2HBH is much easier to learn. that is why we see fewer and fewer players using the 1HBH. together with the accelerated process of turning professional, there is strong pressure for players to become good FAST. and that takes precedence over becoming the BEST. as a result, players are being pressured to learn the 2HBH instead.

on the other hand, i also think that higher bouncing surfaces do favor the 2HBH, because the high backhand is just so much easier with a double handed stroke. however, by and large, on a largely neutral surface like the US Open hard court, in my opinion, there is no inherent disadvantage to using the 1HBH.
Click to expand...

I think a strong argument could be made that higher bouncing surfaces favor the 1hbh because they find it easier to spin the ball up high and create angles - the 2hbh is a flatter stroke.

This may explain the legions of dirtballers with 1hbh's (Almagro, Berlocq, Volandri, Montanes, L. Mayer, Gaudio, Kuerten - even Wawrinka and Gasquet play some of their best on clay).

Again, not all 1hbh's are the continental gripped fast-court suited strokes of the 90's, these days a lot of them favor high bouncing and slow surfaces.
 
There is only one player on tour where it is at a disadvantage (Nadal) and that is only because they have slowed down the balls and made them bounce higher. Go back to the old 90's balls (and court speeds) and that would even things up.
 
coloskier said:
There is only one player on tour where it is at a disadvantage (Nadal) and that is only because they have slowed down the balls and made them bounce higher. Go back to the old 90's balls (and court speeds) and that would even things up.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

The 1HBH can be at a disadvantage when dealing with huge serves, or in situations where you are rushed/jammed.
 
Nadal with Gasquet's backhand would be a monster, huge topspin and angles off of both wings? Unbeatable. He already stands so far back to return serve that the ROS with a 1HBH would hardly be much of a change for him.
 
I use a 1-hander and have absolutely no problem with high balls. In fact, I love them. I prefer the balls high rather than low, it's much easier to put spin on the ball and keep it deep. In fact, I think it should be much harder with two hands, because of the smaller reach.

Also, one advantage of the one-hander that few people mention: since you hit the ball more in front (compared with two hands), your opponent has a bit less time to react to your ball. If you hit hard, you can really hit some winners DTL or crosscourt (because, in part, of that split second).

You make more mistakes, but you hit more winners.
 
In the current era? You bet. In the 80's/90s, the 2HBH was at a disadvantage IMO.
 
DonDiego said:
I use a 1-hander and have absolutely no problem with high balls. In fact, I love them. I prefer the balls high rather than low, it's much easier to put spin on the ball and keep it deep. In fact, I think it should be much harder with two hands, because of the smaller reach.

Also, one advantage of the one-hander that few people mention: since you hit the ball more in front (compared with two hands), your opponent has a bit less time to react to your ball. If you hit hard, you can really hit some winners DTL or crosscourt (because, in part, of that split second).

You make more mistakes, but you hit more winners.
Click to expand...

This is all true... I once hit with a promising junior who was basically a Nadal clone. He targeted my 1HBH constantly with his Western FH and I basically rained huge topspin rips upon him. After a bit of that I explained how not all 1HBHs are the same, some like high balls. Gasquet and Wawrinka both come to mind amongst pros.
 
objectivity said:
recent results not withstanding, i think many fans here fail to recognize that correlation does not imply causation. While it appears that the 1HBH is disadvantaged in the modern game because there are fewer players using the stroke, this does not actually mean the stroke is disadvantaged. There are at least 2 other plausible reasons to explain the phenomena.

1) the supply of 1HBH players are lesser.
2) players with 2HBH are higher quality players on average, so they would have done better even with a 1HBH.

in reality, i think what really happened, is that there are more juniors using the 2HBH than the 1HBH, because the 2HBH is much easier to learn. that is why we see fewer and fewer players using the 1HBH. together with the accelerated process of turning professional, there is strong pressure for players to become good FAST. and that takes precedence over becoming the BEST. as a result, players are being pressured to learn the 2HBH instead.

on the other hand, i also think that higher bouncing surfaces do favor the 2HBH, because the high backhand is just so much easier with a double handed stroke. however, by and large, on a largely neutral surface like the US Open hard court, in my opinion, there is no inherent disadvantage to using the 1HBH.
Click to expand...

Yes. The 2hbh was invented for a reason. Why do most pros use the 2hbh?
 
rajah84 said:
Yes. The 2hbh was invented for a reason. Why do most pros use the 2hbh?
Click to expand...
Because most pros started playing tennis when they were babies and not too many babies are strong enough to rip hard and consistent 1HBHs. Once they got used to using the 2HBH, it was too late for them to switch and have to re-learn the 1HBH, which is a totally different stroke. The pressure to win from an early age discourages them from risking switching and suffering many losses while they're learning the 1HBH.
 
BreakPoint said:
Read above. That's been debunked as an urban myth.

Djokovic must have meant he's always dreamed of hitting a 1HBH.
Click to expand...

He's used a 1HBH until he can't beat the opposition consistently in his younger years. But he is already at the top of the heap while playing age-group tourneys back then with great success. Now, translatng that to a full grown man's game is something else--he needed that added precision; merely returning balls minus the pinpoint accuracy doesn't cut it anymore.

What the heck, I just love 1HBH and it doesn't make any difference whether the ball bounces high or low (admittedly, I have more powerful returns on low bouncing balls). Obviously, not talking about hitting against 7.0s and 6.0s.
 
BreakPoint said:
Because most pros started playing tennis when they were babies and not too many babies are strong enough to rip hard and consistent 1HBHs. Once they got used to using the 2HBH, it was too late for them to switch and have to re-learn the 1HBH, which is a totally different stroke. The pressure to win from an early age discourages them from risking switching and suffering many losses while they're learning the 1HBH.
Click to expand...

I had two coaches, an Aussie and a Polish, the Aussie started me with 2hbh and gradually as I got stronger switched me to 1hbh. However, my Polish coach insisted on a 1hbh even when I was just starting as a kid.
 
Vcore89 said:
He's used a 1HBH until he can't beat the opposition consistently in his younger years. But he is already at the top of the heap while playing age-group tourneys back then with great success. Now, translatng that to a full grown man's game is something else--he needed that added precision; merely returning balls minus the pinpoint accuracy doesn't cut it anymore.
Click to expand...
No, he didn't. Did you watch that youtube video? It's of Djokovic playing tennis when he was 6 years old, and every backhand he hit was a two-handed backhand. I highly doubt he was strong enough to hit a 1HBH when he was younger than 6 and then switched to a 2HBH when he turned 6. Heck, in that video, he could barely hold the racquet upright with just one hand when he was 6 years old.

mattennis said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oeid5ioDF2Y
Click to expand...
 
Jay_The_Nomad said:
Why don't you dig up some statisics and data to support your theory?
Click to expand...

http://beveldevil.blogspot.com/2013/06/atp-top-100-statistics.html

^^^ in short, within the top 100, there is no evidence of the superiority or inferiority of the 1hbh when taking into account factors such as age, height and weight.

Also it is noted that players with 2hbhs tend to be younger and taller. Thus any apparent advantage of the 2hbh may actually be the result of these other factors.

Therefore, it seems likely that any disadvantage of the 1hbh is taking place outside of the top 100, and likely at the junior level in particular.
 
I'm still waiting for the ambidextrous player with two one-handed forehands. Sooner or later some freak is gonna come along who can do it.
 
Bilders said:
Been thinking that too. Would be ridiculous!
Click to expand...

Think of all the advantages. Reach. Power.

I can hit overheads quite well with left or right hand (rather than hitting a high backhand volley) so its always been on my mind. Luke Jensen could serve with either hand. When I have a baby and start coaching my tennis progeny its going to be something I encourage them to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lendl and Federer Fan
Nice to see 1HBH players are dominating, to heck with the boring 2HBH players.
2 3
Replies
103
Views
7K
Lendl and Federer Fan
Lendl and Federer Fan
S
Which players with 1hbh have the best ROS?
Replies
22
Views
4K
Relinquis
Relinquis
BreakPoint
Anyone who saw the semis & final of Halle and still thinks the 1HBH is inferior is...
2 3 4
Replies
163
Views
21K
mightyrick
mightyrick
T
Jack Sock topspin 1hbh
Replies
4
Views
1K
halalula1234
halalula1234
THE FIGHTER
Anyone who saw the quarters of Wimbledon and still thinks the 1HBH is inferior is..
2
Replies
79
Views
8K
BreakPoint
BreakPoint
Back
Top