Is the two-handed backhand really the easier shot?

Xievie

Xievie

Rookie
A lot of people say that the two-hander is the easier backhand groundstroke to learn, but in my experience I've had a lot of an easier time with my one-hander.

I wanted to make the switch to a two-hander because I found it difficult to hit a decent shot on a high one-hander and in general wanted a backhand that I can rely on since when my one-hander starts to fail on me I tend to frame a lot of shot and even whiff some.

The problem is, my two-handed backhand has been extremely difficult to learn. I feel uncomfortable in unit turning, hit with a lot less power, and is very loopy.
In fact, I've had an ever harder time hitting high balls with the two-hander, frame a lot more, and find that the one-hander is a lot less demanding on footwork.
I've been told that you can't be sloppy on footwork for the one-hander but the two-hander can get away with a lot, but I've experienced the exact opposite.

I had a two-hander ever since I began, but have used the one-hander the past two months until I realized that I wanted a more reliable shot, but reliable isn't what I'm getting. Is the two-hander really the easier shot as everybody says? Or perhaps I just have a natural inclination to the one-hander?
 
I don't think many people think a two hander is "easier" to hit. It's just better for high balls and balls with a lot of pace. I think we will eventually see a pro with a two handed return of serve and a one handed rally ball.
 
Even for high ball above the shoulder, it can still be tough for a 2-hander, just not as tough as hitting it with a 1-hander. But a 2-hander should be less demanding in terms of foot work and can be hit even from an open stance if you're caught out of position. The added stability from the non-dominant hand means it's also more forgiving in terms of contact point, whether you're caught jammed a little or a little late. If you find the 1-hander less demanding on footwork, well, that's kinda odd to be honest.
 
jga111 said:
2 Hander is less error-prone.
Click to expand...

As one who now does both I would agree with this, at least in certain situations.

I started with a 1hbh. As I moved up and faced better players at 4.0/4.5 I found my 1hbh getting jammed by more pace and high jumping spin. I tried a 2hbh and realized how much easier it is against such shots. So now I have three backhands.

vs low ball: 1hbh slice

vs slow to med pace rally ball in strike zone: 1hbh

vs fast or high rally ball: 2hbh

The low ball slice is very reliable can be used for drop shots or deep. I still feel like I get more power from my 1hbh so vs floaters I can t-off on those. A 1hbh also provides a lot more reach than a 2hbh. But if jammed the 2hbh feels safe since I'm using the incoming pace and hitting a loopier shot than my 1hbh which tends to be flatter. For me my 1hbh is offensive and my 2hbh is defensive.
 
Maybe you're naturally inclined to the one hander. Did you start tennis when you were already an adult? I coach a bit at the university tennis club and most of the beginners there find the two handed awkward/unnatural/restricted.

Personally I think the two hander is an easier shot. I've seen people improve on the THB a lot faster than the OHB.

If OHB natural to you then you may want to just work on it, take it on the rise but if you're determined to switch then switch and don't look back.
 
TimothyO said:
As one who now does both I would agree with this, at least in certain situations.

I started with a 1hbh. As I moved up and faced better players at 4.0/4.5 I found my 1hbh getting jammed by more pace and high jumping spin. I tried a 2hbh and realized how much easier it is against such shots. So now I have three backhands.

vs low ball: 1hbh slice

vs slow to med pace rally ball in strike zone: 1hbh

vs fast or high rally ball: 2hbh

The low ball slice is very reliable can be used for drop shots or deep. I still feel like I get more power from my 1hbh so vs floaters I can t-off on those. A 1hbh also provides a lot more reach than a 2hbh. But if jammed the 2hbh feels safe since I'm using the incoming pace and hitting a loopier shot than my 1hbh which tends to be flatter. For me my 1hbh is offensive and my 2hbh is defensive.
Click to expand...

Well played :)

IMO, the fact that you have A 1HBH, it would be good if you can mix it up within a high paced rally. If you can do that then you have truly mastered it. But to master it you will need to have improvisations at:

* Anticipation (so you can prepare early)
* Footwork (to ensure the ball is within your strike zone).
* TS - hit it hard and hit it in - in a fast paced rally you will not be required to generate the pace.

If you did stick to the 1HBH in this vein, I feel the improvement will manifest itself throughout your whole game. Just an opinion.
 
@jga111... I agree with you in theory, but being in my (very) late 40s I'm probably at the limit of my anticipation and footwork. In fact, despite my age, I'm often complemented on my speed getting to tough shots but it's really about anticipation for me. I focus on the ball intensely and start moving immediately after I hit the ball to where I think the next shot is going to be based on the Wardlaw directionals and my opponent's behavior. So I'm moving an preparing and in position usually as the ball just starts coming back over the net. What looks like "speed" is actually getting my middle aged body moving in the right direction really early. I take comfort in the fact that even the great Federer has trouble with high bouncing balls and his 1HBH and leave it at that. :)

@heninfan99...that's how I picked up a 2hbh. While hitting with my son so he could practice his 2hbh I started hitting that way. He still tries to hit a 1hbh but despite his very athletic 14 year old body (he's naturally strong and muscular) he still hits much better with a 2hbh and uses a frame weighing about 12 ounces and SW 330.
 
BuildStrikeCosmos said:
Maybe you're naturally inclined to the one hander. Did you start tennis when you were already an adult? I coach a bit at the university tennis club and most of the beginners there find the two handed awkward/unnatural/restricted.

Personally I think the two hander is an easier shot. I've seen people improve on the THB a lot faster than the OHB.

If OHB natural to you then you may want to just work on it, take it on the rise but if you're determined to switch then switch and don't look back.
Click to expand...

I started a bit more than a year ago. I do a lot of research and learn very well through watching others, so I think watching Federer and Wawrinka really helped develop that backhand. Watching Djokovic and Nishikori hasn't really lead to a good two-hander though.

I think there are a lot of reasons why my two-hander is so poor. I am often reaching far to the left or far to the right, getting jammed, being unsure about my contact point, and I mostly think it's a problem with my lower body than anything else.

Perhaps it's not that one-hander is more forgiving in footwork, but I am too used to the footwork of the one-hander that my legs naturally position as a one-hander even though I'm trying to hit with two hands.
Not sure if this is a habit I should fight or if I should just continue to foster the one-hander. I'm looking forward to competing with my school's varsity team during Spring next year, so I'm on a tight time frame for learning.
 
I think it is generally a well accepted fact that the one handed backhand requires more precise timing. At a lower level, this does not matter much. At a higher level (4.5 NTRP and above), though, you will get a lot more errors with the one hander.

Harry
 
If you are a person who would never use the left hand when you can use the right one (or the dominant), then 2HBH can be difficult and not as effective.
The problem with the 2HBH is that the brain gets a bit confused as it is not used to use both arms in parallel.
 
Trick question.

Most of us have a stronger aptitude for hitting one style or the other. The percentages may be tilted in favor of the two-hander, but one version of the stroke can't be "better" for a player with a stronger natural inclination for the other. Just my opinion...
 
One big problem with 2HBH: I feel it limits the trunk range of motion. So if you haven't got exceptional flexibility or technique, you'll be armswinging in no time.
 
torpantennis said:
But how is that related to using one or two handed (topspin) BH? ...
Click to expand...

It wasn't clear in the OP if he was referring only to the topspin for the 1-hander. He claimed that that he found the footwork less demanding which didn't make sense unless he was including the slice BH. However his later post revealed that it might be that he is more accustomed to the footwork for 1-hnaded BHs.
 
SystemicAnomaly said:
It wasn't clear in the OP if he was referring only to the topspin for the 1-hander. He claimed that that he found the footwork less demanding which didn't make sense unless he was including the slice BH. However his later post revealed that it might be that he is more accustomed to the footwork for 1-hnaded BHs.
Click to expand...

I think these days it doesn't really make sense to reference the slice backhand when comparing one handers and two handers, because pretty much every good 4.5+ player, regardless of whether they have a one or two handed topspin backhand, hits a solid one handed slice backhand. It's basically a universal staple.
 
I think the learning curve isn't as steep as one hander. Your body swings into the shot, and it's easier to keep control of your body; hence more consistent.

At the same time, I don't see a lot of "good" two handed backhand at recreational level (as much as we talk about lack of good one handers). More often than not, they can hit hard and be consistent, but technically it's flawed without good hip and leg involvement.

HIgh shots are tough for two handers as well as one hander. If a ball really kicks up on two hander, it's hard to follow through with two hands unless they take it on the rise.
 
President said:
I think these days it doesn't really make sense to reference the slice backhand when comparing one handers and two handers, because pretty much every good 4.5+ player, regardless of whether they have a one or two handed topspin backhand, hits a solid one handed slice backhand. It's basically a universal staple.
Click to expand...

Do we know what NTRP level the OP is? Most tennis players on the planet play at a level lower than 4.5 NTRP. Many 2-handed novice and intermediate players hardly ever play a 1-handed BH (or don't have a decent one).

On the other side of the coin, there are plenty of 1-handed BH players who rarely, if ever, play a topspin BH. Back when I was playing at a 3.5/4.0 level, over 85% of my BHs were of the slice variety (even tho' my topspin BH could be a deadly weapon on slow or moderate-paced incoming balls). Steffi Graf played far fewer topspin BHs in competition than I did. I've seen plenty of intermediate players who slice most of their BHs.
 
Xievie said:
I started a bit more than a year ago. I do a lot of research and learn very well through watching others, so I think watching Federer and Wawrinka really helped develop that backhand. Watching Djokovic and Nishikori hasn't really lead to a good two-hander though.

I think there are a lot of reasons why my two-hander is so poor. I am often reaching far to the left or far to the right, getting jammed, being unsure about my contact point, and I mostly think it's a problem with my lower body than anything else.

Perhaps it's not that one-hander is more forgiving in footwork, but I am too used to the footwork of the one-hander that my legs naturally position as a one-hander even though I'm trying to hit with two hands.
Not sure if this is a habit I should fight or if I should just continue to foster the one-hander. I'm looking forward to competing with my school's varsity team during Spring next year, so I'm on a tight time frame for learning.
Click to expand...

I don't know if Federer and Wawrinka are very good models for learning the one handed backhand. Federer keeps his arm bent through most of the motion, Wawrinka opens up alot before contact.

if you position your legs like a one hander you are maybe having it too much in a closed stance which will restrict your upper body rotation in a THB stroke. You also want to hit a little later than the OHB. I sometimes play the THB for fun and I notice the power zone is later and closer to the body.
 
I tried for almost a year to learn how to hit a 2HBH....in vain. I just couldn't get a feel for it. I felt too restricted in my rotation to hit it consistently. 1HBH for me, is much easier:)
 
junbumkim said:
I think the learning curve isn't as steep as one hander. Your body swings into the shot, and it's easier to keep control of your body; hence more consistent.

At the same time, I don't see a lot of "good" two handed backhand at recreational level (as much as we talk about lack of good one handers). More often than not, they can hit hard and be consistent, but technically it's flawed without good hip and leg involvement.

HIgh shots are tough for two handers as well as one hander. If a ball really kicks up on two hander, it's hard to follow through with two hands unless they take it on the rise.
Click to expand...

I am with you. The thing is that you are allowed to be more lazy with a two hander. Even on my bad days against people hitting hard, I can sort of make it work. I started with OHB, but as a skinny small kid, I changed quite quickly. I can hit one handed top spin shot if it's set up well for me. But as lazy two hander, with a hard incoming ball at the wrong height for me, I fail. Also, I know people with elbow issues with OHB, but none among THB players (though I think some friends have changed due to other issues)... so I think I would have elbow issues as well, lazy and late me.

Actually when I practiced one hander for a couple sessions (it was the topic on those lessons, I was the only one who hits a twohander), I lost my twohander for a bit, as the strike zone is different. But otherwise, THB is such that you can hit it even with just the hands, it still sort of works. Open stance is no problem either.

I do sometimes follow through with only one hand (a la Borg?), when the ball is very high. But that comes naturally, to me.
 
junbumkim said:
At the same time, I don't see a lot of "good" two handed backhand at recreational level (as much as we talk about lack of good one handers).
Click to expand...

No doubt. Rec level backhands are everyone's weakness. Is a 1HBH slice that is consistent and hit with placement not as good as a 2HBH that can rip a serve return but can't hit the ball in most of the time? Both have weaknesses. Just different ways to play the game.
 
Moveforwardalways said:
No doubt. Rec level backhands are everyone's weakness. Is a 1HBH slice that is consistent and hit with placement not as good as a 2HBH that can rip a serve return but can't hit the ball in most of the time? Both have weaknesses. Just different ways to play the game.
Click to expand...

Yeah you have OHB guys that just consistently slice and then you have THB players that consistently block it back. They are pretty much the same, trying to keep the ball in play till they can hit a forehand.
 
Moveforwardalways said:
No doubt. Rec level backhands are everyone's weakness. Is a 1HBH slice that is consistent and hit with placement not as good as a 2HBH that can rip a serve return but can't hit the ball in most of the time? Both have weaknesses. Just different ways to play the game.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I'm a 2HBH player who returns serves well with it and also hits passing shots okay, but just cannot hit a deep rally ball consistently. As a result, I'm currently hitting like maybe 50-70% of BHs as (1H) slices. That works, my slice is more consistent and a great variety tool with good disguise. Even though I'm 2HBH player, I'm considering a switch to all-slice on rally ball BHs.
 
President said:
I think these days it doesn't really make sense to reference the slice backhand when comparing one handers and two handers, because pretty much every good 4.5+ player, regardless of whether they have a one or two handed topspin backhand, hits a solid one handed slice backhand. It's basically a universal staple.
Click to expand...

IDK man, look at Djokovic. Best player in the world, and I'm not saying his slice isn't good, but he doesn't use it that often. I'd say he's like an 80/20 perhaps 85/15 guy.
 
Big_Dangerous said:
IDK man, look at Djokovic. Best player in the world, and I'm not saying his slice isn't good, but he doesn't use it that often. I'd say he's like an 80/20 perhaps 85/15 guy.
Click to expand...

He doesn't use it that often because he moves so well and has such good spacing that it's like he is hitting every ball from a ball machine.
 
2hbh and 1hbh are totally different and different things are more important in each shot

2hbh is not a shot that you can reach and still hit a good topspin, but with a 1hbh you can be completely sideways at a full sprint and hit a 1hbh(roddick did this, and tsonga does this)

2hbh is more stable and reliable, but lacks the dimensions that a 1hbh has, less ability to angle and be creative

1hbh takes more precise timing and eye hand coordination, but not footwork as you can adjust a lot of things, tho ideally you want to be in the same position every time

2hbh will not hit as many errors if caught late or shanked, but there can be more of these if your footwork isnt good
 
Yes, 2hbh is easier. This is true for vast majority of new players but some people don't jive with it and develop 1hbh.

Also you could make a good argument that older players might do better with 1hbh when they lose speed and flexibility. Personally, I plan on sticking with 2hbh and not changing. I am late 50s and know an 82 year old who does well with 2hbh and 2hfh
 
Short answer is yes, simply because with 2 hands you can hit the ball a little too early, or a little too late in the strike zone, and you can still put the ball on the other side, with decent pace. If you're a bit late or a bit early with your one-hander, the result is an unforced error. In the net or in the fence.
 
torpantennis said:
One big problem with 2HBH: I feel it limits the trunk range of motion. So if you haven't got exceptional flexibility or technique, you'll be armswinging in no time.
Click to expand...

Not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean but how do you call something a "big problem" with a stroke and then go on to describe this "problem" is actually just hitting the shot completely incorrectly? You can armswing with any shot you like if you don't have proper technique. Your post comes off as though you're criticising the stroke when you should be criticising people who hit it incorrectly...it's not a problem with the 2HBH, it's a problem with the players using terrible technique. The 2HBH doesn't limit any range of motion - you probably just feel like it does because it's a different shot to the 1HBH and you're not used to it/haven't practised it. You actually get MORE trunk rotation in the 2HBH than you do in the 1HBH. Noone even half-competent "arms" the 2HBH, it's not even an issue for people who learned 2HBH 101 because players who hit 2HBH know that the main power comes from the rotation into the shot...noone tries to "arm" the ball. That's probably more of an issue with the 1HBH than anything.

One of the most important parts of the 2HBH is the unit turn and it's one of the first things taught, so if someone doesn't do that, it's not the stroke's fault. You don't need exceptional flexibility or technique at all...just the basics of how to execute the stroke really. You turn the shoulders just like you turn the shoulders on the forehand...it's not complicated. I mean nearly everyone learning the game now learns a double hander, it's not some mysterious shot that only elite athletes can hit.

Just sounds like a one handed backhand player hating on the 2HBH when he's never given it a proper go. It takes some time to learn properly. Some strange posts in this topic. I mean the OHBH is basically a dinosaur at this point. Sorry for digging up a fairly old topic but how do posts like this get no response?
 
Last edited:
more timing and prep work +longer stoke mechanics compared to the 2 hander.
 
Powderwombat said:
I mean the OHBH is basically a dinosaur at this point.
Click to expand...
Watch a pro match some time. One handers have pretty consistently dominated at the top of the men's tour, and continue to.

What can truly be said for the two-hander as opposed to the 1H, is that it has a lower strength barrier to entry. That's why kids jump on the two fisted version: instant gratification. The one-hander demands enough forearm strength that you can stabilize the racquet face through contact, despite not having the bones of the hand behind the grip as a supporting structure (as with the forehand). That's the major factor that makes it so hard for some people to keep the ball in the court, or to handle the incoming pace of serves -- insufficient wrist strength.

Given merely adequate adult strength and athleticism, the two hander has literally no benefits above and beyond the one hander. None. Still, it stands to reason that those without these traits rage against the stroke with empty arguments born of personal experience and ignorance.

I teach both, but most good male athletes, upon being shown how easy a 1-hander is to develop by a qualified trainer, will embrace it as the superior option. Most of those who stick with the 2H are smaller athletes or females (and for them, the 2H often is the objectively better choice). Occasionally a two-hander who's been hitting that way since he was a toddler -- since he had to at that time, and balks against the fear of temporary decline (an argument that's understandable for those fighting for sponsorship and scholarship positioning).
 
Xievie said:
A lot of people say that the two-hander is the easier backhand groundstroke to learn, but in my experience I've had a lot of an easier time with my one-hander.
Click to expand...

I think the OHBH is easier because it uses the dominant, stronger side for execution with a natural rotation and pull across the body to generate pace where a 2HBH relies on the non-dominant side for stability and power, and is more confined in rotation/execution. That in no way is a discussion of effectiveness, which is done ad nauseum, but my observations with younger players learning the game. Many kids learning the 2HBH initially release the non-dominant hand and naturally do OHBH's.
 
i've used power and there's no doubt the 1 hander has the potential to generate more spin and power and i've hit both very hard and mine are about the same level of power. my 1 hander definately had about twice the RPM as my 2 hander does. but i prefer hitting through the court on the 2 hander while having the same amount of pace roughly. different strokes for different folks.
 
I have followed this thread closely because it is a decision i can't make. I have both a ohbh and a 2hbh each with there strengths and weaknesses. I know better players will use the ohbh when pushed wide and often use the 2 hbh for rallying. Should a rec player choose one and work to improve that style? I find myself jumping between the two and then blaming a poor shot on choice. In discussions with opponents they indicate the 2 hbh is much stronger but that ohbh just feels good.
 
need to pick one and stick to it. i wouldn't recommend constantly switching between 1 hander and 2 hander. you'll drive yourself mad.
 
SinjinCooper said:
Given merely adequate adult strength and athleticism, the two hander has literally no benefits above and beyond the one hander. None. Still, it stands to reason that those without these traits rage against the stroke with empty arguments born of personal experience and ignorance.
Click to expand...

I played with a one handed backhand for the first 8 years I spent on courts. I recently also fooled around a bit with it because I was holding a ball in my hand and I can still hit a decent shot. Believe me, it wasn't a lack of strenght that got me switching to a two handed backhand, especially not after 8 years of hitting the damn shot. The problem was consistency, not power -- I could get more kick and pace than with my forehand at the time, but it would break down way too quickly during rallies. Some of my friends even were shocked to see me change.

The genuine problem here is that I am not a very gifted athlete and I do not move so well on the court. It's not aweful at all, but I sense it when I play more potent opponents. So, I sometimes get caught a bit late, forced to back up, stretched, etc. Things improved over the years, of course. It's just that when you meet your match, you don't get fancy hitting conditions all the time. With a one handed backhand, your ideal contact point is pretty far in front of you and there is no way that the relevant side of your forearm and shoulder are going to be as powerful of those involved in a forehand. So, if you have to cheat a bit, force the shot... it's game over.

For a two handed backhand, it's an entirely different story. If you have a solid forehand grip on your top hand, even as an amateur you can take a ball behind you and hit a deep cross-court shot with it to neutralize the point. You're knee deep in it and you still can improvise a suitable passing shot...


In my experience, that's the main difference between the two backhands: you have more margin for error regarding footwork and posture with a two handed backhand than with a one handed backhand. As for your point regarding strength, I've seen 8 year olds hit decent one handed backhands... that's considerably weaker than an average man. It doesn't take huge strength, it takes getting the posture right and it is less of a problem with forehands and two handed backhands.
 
Bobs tennis said:
I have followed this thread closely because it is a decision i can't make. I have both a ohbh and a 2hbh each with there strengths and weaknesses. I know better players will use the ohbh when pushed wide and often use the 2 hbh for rallying. Should a rec player choose one and work to improve that style? I find myself jumping between the two and then blaming a poor shot on choice. In discussions with opponents they indicate the 2 hbh is much stronger but that ohbh just feels good.
Click to expand...

If you're looking to sustain rallies, the two handed backhand might be preferable. As I said above, it affords the chance to cheat and muscle a bit the shot if you're in too much trouble. You have to appreciate this possibility, even if the intention would be to never use that skill and always hit from a good posture with a good contact point. This is especially true if you can hit both backhands.

If you just enjoy your one handed backhand more, or if you don't mind playing your matches with a more aggressive style, you can go for it.

However, given how little time you probably can afford to spend on hitting, I strongly advise that you pick one backhand and commit to it entirely.
 
ChaelAZ said:
I think the OHBH is easier because it uses the dominant, stronger side for execution with a natural rotation and pull across the body to generate pace where a 2HBH relies on the non-dominant side for stability and power, and is more confined in rotation/execution. That in no way is a discussion of effectiveness, which is done ad nauseum, but my observations with younger players learning the game. Many kids learning the 2HBH initially release the non-dominant hand and naturally do OHBH's.
Click to expand...

It is hard to learn to use the non-dominant side of your body. Anyway, it has been in my case.
 
SinjinCooper said:
Watch a pro match some time. One handers have pretty consistently dominated at the top of the men's tour, and continue to.

What can truly be said for the two-hander as opposed to the 1H, is that it has a lower strength barrier to entry. That's why kids jump on the two fisted version: instant gratification. The one-hander demands enough forearm strength that you can stabilize the racquet face through contact, despite not having the bones of the hand behind the grip as a supporting structure (as with the forehand). That's the major factor that makes it so hard for some people to keep the ball in the court, or to handle the incoming pace of serves -- insufficient wrist strength.

Given merely adequate adult strength and athleticism, the two hander has literally no benefits above and beyond the one hander. None. Still, it stands to reason that those without these traits rage against the stroke with empty arguments born of personal experience and ignorance.

I teach both, but most good male athletes, upon being shown how easy a 1-hander is to develop by a qualified trainer, will embrace it as the superior option. Most of those who stick with the 2H are smaller athletes or females (and for them, the 2H often is the objectively better choice). Occasionally a two-hander who's been hitting that way since he was a toddler -- since he had to at that time, and balks against the fear of temporary decline (an argument that's understandable for those fighting for sponsorship and scholarship positioning).
Click to expand...

You make a few good points, but the big 4 (Federer, Nadal, Djoko and Murray) have dominated ATP and 3 of the 4 are 2HBH players. These 4 have dominated ATP for last 12 years or so. 7 of ATP top 10 hit 2HBH and 16 of ATP top 20 hit 2HBH. I think it is safe to say that 2HBH players in general dominate ATP and even dominate ATP grand slams.

On WTA, the 2HBH is even more dominate for majors and top 20 WTA. In general, about 90% of WTA players are using 2HBH.

I was a pretty strong athletic guy when I first learned to play 40 years ago. Strength was NOT why I went with 2HBH. I just found the 2HBH much easier to hit aggressive topspin strokes. My 1HBH topspin stroke never achieved the consistency of my 2HBH topspin stroke. Strength wasn't a factor.

Honestly, I am a Federer fan and hope Thiem wins RG. I like 1HBH but personally, I never could get the hang of it. I've played guys with dominating 1HBH at 5.0 and below but statistically, it is much more common to play against a guy with a 2HBH that is stronger. My experience is for 9 out of 10 1HBH opposing players, I want to target their 1HBH on serves, groundstrokes and approach shots. For 2HBH opponents, I would still target their 2HBH more than FH in general, but I think the ratio is more like 7 out of 10 2HBH. I find only 1 of 10 1HBH opponents has a back hand that is good enough that you want to stay away from it. While about 3 in 10 2HBH have a backhand that is good enough that you would target the FH instead. When playing mixed doubles, I find about 50% or more of the women have a better 2HBH than FH.

1HBH is pretty, graceful and the better choice for those with a natural inclination toward it. But, I run up against a lot more really good 2HBHs than 1HBHs through the years. It isn't even close really. I would say I see 3 or 4 really good 2HBH for every 1 really good 1HBH.
 
I think there is no doubt the 1HBH feels more "natural". It's driven by your dominant arm for heaven's sake. That's really not a good enough reason to stick with it over a 2HBH.

The 1HBH topspin drive requires precise timing to hit it well and that's the big learning curve for the stroke. If you can overcome that high entry fee like pro's can, then it's worthwhile learning. If you are a mere mortal with imprecise coordination, suspect footwork and a lack of practice time, you would likely fair better developing a 2 hander like most women do.

In my 3.5 world the next time I see a consistent 1HBH topspin stroke, it'll be the first time. Whereas I know at least 4 other guys at my level with good enough 2Handers, that I won't specifically target them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Q
one hander or two handed backhand?
Replies
10
Views
1K
Janne
Janne
The Unknown
The two handed backhand club
Replies
11
Views
1K
RudyHuxtable
RudyHuxtable
Respect for big 5
Switching to the two hander
Replies
25
Views
2K
ByeByePoly
ByeByePoly
J
Advice on Wide Balls on the one-handed backhand?
Replies
10
Views
4K
Vertiz
Vertiz
F
One handed vs. two handed BH:
Replies
6
Views
1K
andreh
A
Back
Top