Is the 1HBH really disadvantaged?

[andreh]

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.

Exactly the same reason few play S&V. Not taught anymore to the kids.

 

[TimeSpiral]

Really? Who returned Roddick's huge serves better than anyone else?

Oh, yeah, that would be Federer with his 1HBH.

I was speaking more generally. I don't think anyone is arguing that the 1HBH is obsolete, I mean, clearly it can be used at the highest level of play.

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.

I'm seeing this argument frequently, and it makes me wonder: didn't the pros of the earlier eras also start playing when they were young? What about the players of today's era who play with the 1HBH? Didn't they start when they were young? Didn't Gasquet beat Nadal with a 1HBH when they were kids?

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.

We already have this freak, in spirit. His name is Nadal! Nadal is naturally right-handed, and played tennis for a period of time RH'd. He was playing with a 2HFH and a 2HBH, I believe. Uncle Toni then suggested he switch to a traditional lefty FH/BH setup. I believe Federer is on record saying something to the effect; play [Nadal] is like playing someone with two forehands."

I've always sort of felt like Nadal had a 1HFH and a 2HFH (even if the grip would be considered goofy-foot).

 

[heninfan99]

The two hander is for people with less timing, feel and talent. HA!
The one hander is for coordinated players with feel and it also suits lazier players who would rather reach for a ball than run it down.

 

[Devilito]

Robredo didn't lose because of his 1hbh, he lost because he's a 5'11 150lbs soaking wet grinder. He has the shots and can be aggressive and has a good serve. If he was the same size as Rafa, Djokovic or Murray he would be able to compete, maybe even win. His serve would be in the mid 130s, his groundies would be heavier and the high backhand would be even less of an issue for him.

You guys have to remember that Nadal, Djov and Murray are BIG guys and are physically imposing to their opponents. That's why usually the players that challenge them are bigger guys like Delpo, Berdych, Tsonga etc. While guys like Ferrer just keep getting the snot beat out of them

 

[TimeSpiral]

Robredo didn't lose because of his 1hbh, he lost because he's a 5'11 150lbs soaking wet grinder. He has the shots and can be aggressive and has a good serve. If he was the same size as Rafa, Djokovic or Murray he would be able to compete, maybe even win. His serve would be in the mid 130s, his groundies would be heavier and the high backhand would be even less of an issue for him.

You guys have to remember that Nadal, Djov and Murray are BIG guys and are physically imposing to their opponents. That's why usually the players that challenge them are bigger guys like Delpo, Berdych, Tsonga etc. While guys like Ferrer just keep getting the snot beat out of them

165lbs dry, but I get what you're saying. And 5' 11" is essentially a six foot guy. Nadal is 6' 1" (two inches taller). Djokovic and Murray is 6' 3".

All three of those guys are straight-up jacked, ripped, super athletes, with Nadal being the most Conan of them all. Robredo got annihilated because Nadal is in a different class of skill. 5 points from a Golden Set? I've never even seen such a thing.

But I agree that Robredo did not lose because of his 1HBH preference.

 

[bluegrasser]

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.

Not only that, but at the teaching level where the 2hbh is encouraged & pushed.

 

[Vcore89]

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.

Uh-oh, finally saw the video. ...but until I show evidence (it's not an absence/lack of evidence, it's just the evidence of absence per se.:-|), there is no point really, yeah?

 

[DonDiego]

OMG! 2/3 in the semis are one-handed...

lol
This thread is not done yet.

 

[coloskier]

Yes. The 2hbh was invented for a reason. Why do most pros use the 2hbh?

Because they are too girly to hit 1HBH's.

 

[BeGreat]

the only reason you see 2hbh everywhere today is because 99% of the coaches out there are lazy idiots. it's what they teach. "run around your backhand to set up the forehand." the backhand is almost an auxiliary stroke, rather than 1 of 2 primary strokes. the 2hbh is significantly easier than 1hbh (hence why women play with it). so, naturally, the herd of coaches producing the next herd of players is going to teach 2hbh.

both strokes have their advantages.

 

[tennis_hack]

the only reason you see 2hbh everywhere today is because 99% of the coaches out there are lazy idiots. it's what they teach. "run around your backhand to set up the forehand." the backhand is almost an auxiliary stroke, rather than 1 of 2 primary strokes. the 2hbh is significantly easier than 1hbh (hence why women play with it). so, naturally, the herd of coaches producing the next herd of players is going to teach 2hbh.

both strokes have their advantages.

Yeh, this is what I hate - the mentality that a backhand is there only for staying in rallies long enough so you might get a forehand to attack with.

Why not force plays with both wings? Much more dynamic and exciting to see a player capable of doing this, imo.

 

[TimeSpiral]

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

He must have switched quite young, because he was hitting with a two-handed backhand when he was 6 years old.

Read above. That's been debunked as an urban myth.

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

As not to derail this thread, I've created this thread. It's not an urban myth. Djoker started when he was quite young, and started with a 1HBH and played it for about two years.

 

[BreakPoint]

As not to derail this thread, I've created this thread. It's not an urban myth. Djoker started when he was quite young, and started with a 1HBH and played it for about two years.

What someone does at the age of 4 it totally irrelevant. It's like saying I ate baby food when I was little. Well, is that relevant to what you eat later on?

Unless someone can prove that had a workable and consistent 1HBH when he was 4 years old and then lost a lot of tournaments at that age and that's why he switched to a 2HBH, it's totally irrelevant. It's obvious from that video of him at 6 1/2 that he could hardly hold the racquet up with only 1 hand, so it's obvious that he didn't really have a real 1HBH at age 4. He was probably just swinging the racquet around wildly with one hand and somehow he calls that a 1HBH.

 

[TimeSpiral]

What someone does at the age of 4 it totally irrelevant. It's like saying I ate baby food when I was little. Well, is that relevant to what you eat later on?

Unless someone can prove that had a workable and consistent 1HBH when he was 4 years old and then lost a lot of tournaments at that age and that's why he switched to a 2HBH, it's totally irrelevant. It's obvious from that video of him at 6 1/2 that he could hardly hold the racquet up with only 1 hand, so it's obvious that he didn't really have a real 1HBH at age 4. He was probably just swinging the racquet around wildly with one hand and somehow he calls that a 1HBH.

Whoa, tiger.

People have claimed that Djoker never played with a 1HBH, and that: that was an urban myth. It's not a myth though. And when Djoker talks about himself--and his history with tennis--I tend to take his word for it.

 

[BevelDevil]

Whoa, tiger.

People have claimed that Djoker never played with a 1HBH, and that: that was an urban myth. It's not a myth though. And when Djoker talks about himself--and his history with tennis--I tend to take his word for it.

Yeah, but Breakpoint is right about what we're able to infer from what Djoker says. Okay, so Djoker had a 1hbh at age 4. Maybe that means we can infer that the 1hbh is inferior... for 4-year-olds. That's something I think most of us would already agree.

 

[redpurusha]

The type of racquet seems to correspond with type of backhand used. And now with the popularity (for whatever reasons) of lighter Babolots with bigger head sizes, that type of racquet does not fit the 1HB. History's best.. Sampras, Federer.. they don't swing with those!

I am trying to use both styles during play depending on the situation. I don't see too many pros who use both regularly during play. When the ball is coming close to your body it appears more efficient, powerful, and easier to hit with 2HB, but when the ball is further out from the body, you almost have to hit with the 1HB to get a good clean shot. The 2HB fails unless you can get close enough to the ball on impact (I find). Any pros do this?

 

[Mick]

when Federer played Nadal, it seemed it's a disadvantage to play with a 1hbh. But when Henin played Serena, it didn't seem it's a disadvantage to play with a 1hbh. I guess it depends on the player.

 

[BreakPoint]

Whoa, tiger.

People have claimed that Djoker never played with a 1HBH, and that: that was an urban myth. It's not a myth though. And when Djoker talks about himself--and his history with tennis--I tend to take his word for it.

Unless Djokovic can produce a video of himself at 4 years old hitting 1HBHs, I don't believe him. Waving a racquet around with one hand is not hitting a 1HBH. I mean, who was he losing to at 4 years old that made him want to switch to a 2HBH? Can 4 year-olds even keep score to play a match? LOL

 

[BevelDevil]

when Federer played Nadal, it seemed it's a disadvantage to play with a 1hbh. But when Henin played Serena, it didn't seem it's a disadvantage to play with a 1hbh. I guess it depends on the player.

Serena's bh doesn't produce the spin and height that Nadal's forehand does, probably even when you account for Henin vs. Fed's height difference.

In addition, Henin's bh is better than Fed's. It wasn't just not a disadvantage for her, but it was probably an advantage since I don't see her generating the same pace and spin with a 2hbh.

 

[TimeSpiral]

10 sighs ...

 

[PhrygianDominant]

Unless Djokovic can produce a video of himself at 4 years old hitting 1HBHs, I don't believe him. Waving a racquet around with one hand is not hitting a 1HBH. I mean, who was he losing to at 4 years old that made him want to switch to a 2HBH? Can 4 year-olds even keep score to play a match? LOL

NOVAK DJOKOVIC: I always wanted to share the court with Pete [Sampras], my childhood idol and role model. All the memories would come back. I was six when Pete won his first Wimbledon in ’93, and it was one of the images that instilled in me [the desire] to become a pro. I asked my father to buy me a racket after that, and since then, it has been all Pete.

This confirms my suspicion that Djokovic in any videos at 6 years old was yet to make a switch to a one handed backhand. His attempt at a 1hbh definitely came after said video, so it is possible he had a onehander that was sound but didn't stick with it very long because he was getting pushed back.

I cannot confirm the source because I copied it from one of DKs threads, but I was already thinking along these lines. Djokovic started Tennis in 93 when he was 6 years old. If this quote is correct, and indeed if he ever remembers correctly and/or didn't mispeak in the interview, he tried the singlehanded backhand later.

 

[objectivity]

disadvantaged my SSS

 

[ubi1]

disadvantaged my SSS

1hbh>2hbh

 

[objectivity]

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.

maybe you should coach Federer against Nadal. in fact, maybe you should turn professional and you might have a winning H2H against Nadal too. who knows, you might be the greatest of all time.

 

[ubi1]

maybe you should coach Federer against Nadal. in fact, maybe you should turn professional and you might have a winning H2H against Nadal too. who knows, you might be the greatest of all time.

Init he might as well go for nadal.

 

[tennisaddict]

Doesnt seem that way when you see Wawrinka and Almagro.

 

[TimeSpiral]

This confirms my suspicion that Djokovic in any videos at 6 years old was yet to make a switch to a one handed backhand. His attempt at a 1hbh definitely came after said video, so it is possible he had a onehander that was sound but didn't stick with it very long because he was getting pushed back.

I cannot confirm the source because I copied it from one of DKs threads, but I was already thinking along these lines. Djokovic started Tennis in 93 when he was 6 years old. If this quote is correct, and indeed if he ever remembers correctly and/or didn't mispeak in the interview, he tried the singlehanded backhand later.

I posted this thread to put the argument to rest, but it never showed up on the boards: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=476212