Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by Gregory Diamond, Jun 3, 2018.
It is the main reason why they play one handed forehand.
You're a good player, but this thread is a bad troll job.
This post is provocative but the problem is real. Most football players usually use one foot but their second one can do things on professional level too.
Playing using only one hand deformes the body. It is obvious.
You’re intentionally playing loose with language here. There’s a distinct difference between “deformed” and “non dominant”. I don’t use my left arm other than to switch grips yet my arm isn’t deformed.
Not to mention the fact that a two handed forehand is not only ugly, but awkward, and more difficult to hit. No reason one should use two hands on the forehand unless they started off not strong enough to use one.
It has been scientifically proven that people who play tennis using only one hand have a deformed body. You cant be an exception.
Do you serve both right- and left-handed?
Do you write with both hands?
Do you use utensils with both hands?
Most people don't have that level of ambidexterity and don't care to practice it. I wouldn't call this deformation but that's more semantics than anything else.
Following your logic, you could more optimally solve the problem by using the Battitstone two-handled racquet so you can hit 2 single-handed forehands and volleys. I've seen several high-level players use this racquet but none of them serve or hit OHs with their off hand.
Provocative will get you attention but it will also get you ridiculed and eventually banned. So I don't recommend it.
You only proved that playing tennis on professional level is a pathology. You are trying to say that without deformation of your body you cant achieve success in tennis.
I think the main reason the logic is false of a why a 2HFH is better than a 1HFH because of the analogy of the 2HBH to a 1HBH is bio-mechanical:
A 1HFH hit with the dominant side is internal rotation.
A 1HBH hit with the dominant side is external rotation.
Internal is stronger than external. That's why people who have no problem hitting a 1HFH might struggle with the strength needed to hit a 1HBH.
To propose hitting a 2HFH is, IMO, solving a problem that doesn't exist.
Are there advantages to 2HFH? Of course. I just don't think it's worth the disadvantages. Justifying the 2HFH over the 1HFH because it's the same comparison as the 2HBH vs the 1HBH is based on a false assumption.
I never wrote "professional" in my post. I'm speaking generally.
I also disagree with your use of "deformation".
I would generalize your statement: what I'm trying to say is that achieving success in any physical task that's not inherently symmetrical [ie pushups with both hands] will favor those who choose to develop one side [or, in your terms, deform the other side] and specialize rather than trying to achieve parity on both sides. You can certainly achieve success without specializing. The debate over which method is superior seems to have been settled by natural selection.
I noticed that you failed to directly answer any of my questions about doing things ambidextrously.
Battistone brothers use rackets with two handles but because of deformation of the racket it affects service, volley, slice so it is not a good solution. Using two two handed backhands like Hsieh Su-wei or two one handed forehands would ba a solution but it requires changing of grips. Lost of time is a problem. So we should agree that Peng Shuai`s version of two handed forehand is the best. It is the future of tennis. I mean "healthy tennis". It is irresponsible to force children to play tennis knowing that we deform their bodies.
I had a deformed, overdeveloped, right quad muscle from too much soccer.
Thanks to OP, now that I kick with both legs, they look the same. But for some reason, I haven't scored any goals as of late.
One guy that uses this racquet [club teaching pro; high 4.5] said the "deformation" of which you speak is actually an advantage because it accomplishes laying the racquet back for volleys automatically, something that many find difficult.
I've seen Open level guys [no women, though] using this racquet. However, they, like Monica Seles with the 2HFH, are outliers. It's hard to draw a conclusion with such a small sample size.
We don't agree. That's why we're having the discussion. I've stated why I disagree, as have others.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - I. Montoya
If by "deform" you mean assymetrical development then you need to force children to do everything ambidextrously, right?
I agree with you that sport is not healthy. Do you believe that the best tennis players can hit the balls with great speed for almost 5 hours without chemical support ?
Why 2hfh? Why not this? Less chance of 'deformity' with this:
Two handed forehand gives the best stability. Changing of grips is a problem when you play two one handed forehands.
You have to move much more too with 2hfh. So there are pros and cons to both approaches. Plus this guy is also serving both ways. If 'deformity' was truly your concern, this player's style is much more suited to avoiding it than what you're preaching.
There is logic in what you say but two handed forehand has been tested on highest level(Monica Seles, Marion Bartoli, Peng Shuai, Lucie Hradecka. All these women won grand slams).
Changing grips is not a problem with the Battistone racquet.
However, the bigger issue is not grip changes per se. Grip changes are part and parcel of a list of pros and cons, some of which are more important than others and some which are specific to the individual [ie one guy gets vertigo when looking up so a Berdych high toss is definitely not for him].
For example, if grip changes were the most important variable, then use a continental grip for everything like they used to. Problem solved. Of course, that introduces other issues but you've solved the most important problem.
Maybe for you the 2HFH solves the most important problems; if so, awesome. Your mistake is concluding that this applies equally to everyone else.
All that implies is that the 2HFH is legit, not that it's superior to the 1HFH.
Also, how well would the aforementioned group have done using a 1HFH? Can you prove they would have done worse? Of course not. Maybe they were so talented that they would have achieved equal success using either technique [unless they had some bio-mechanical issue which made the 1HFH difficult].
How about men? How many GS winners?
I'm always for experimenting and seeing what works for you. If it works for you...great! Keep doing it. However, as @S&V-not_dead_yet says, no need to assume that if something unconventional works for you that is the best approach for everyone. You're veering into oserver territory with that type of logic.
(of a person or part of the body) not having the normal or natural shape or form; misshapen.
"his deformed hands"
Not seeing how being right handed makes me deformed. By that notion, anyone who isn't perfectly ambidextrous is deformed.
Oh yeah, how many guys have won slams with a 2 handed forehand?
The fact that we cant remember any man who has won grand slam playing two handed forehand is the best proof that it is the best forehand. Do you know why there are women who won grand slams ? Almost all children are forced to play one handed forehand. The best and stronger the child is the less chance that they will let them play two handed forehand. Only the weakest girls are allowed to do it. And those weakest girls have won grand slams. The only explanation why they did it is two handed forehand.
You took the words right out of my keyboard.
I see his logic, although I disagree with it: if there is a relative difference in ability, that means there is deformation. Most of the rest of us don't look at it this way.
If right and left hand start out at a skill level of 1 and you increase the right to a 5 but only increase the left to a 3, Mr. Diamond would call that a deformity. I'd call that developing the right more than the left. Only if the left degraded to something < 1 would I call it a deformity.
Now that I understand how he defines things, it will help me understand why I disagree with his conclusions.
stop trying to convert people or else i won't be a special snowflake anymore.
Except there's no proof the 4 you mentioned were the weakest in their peer group when they learned how to play. And again, how do you know they succeeded because of the 2HFH and not in spite of it? You don't. You have a belief and then work backwards to find data to support it and ignore all contradictory evidence, which is how most people think without even realizing it.
If all snowflakes are unique, isn't it redundant to be a "special" snowflake?
Most people accept their disabilities and deformations because they were taught that it is normal.
They were the weakest because they were not strong enough to hit the ball using only one hand. You can see young Monica Seles in video below.
Maybe you havent scored any goals but you are healthy. You have won much more.
Whenever I teach small children tennis I let them hit with whatever hands they want for forehand or backhand. The real truth of the matter based on my experience is that most kids at some point decide they'd rather hit with one hand on their dominant side. I've seen this happen many times, and it happens with one handed backhands as well, but not that often.
One child I started teaching with recently has gone back and forth with two hands and then one hand on his forehand side. He's not quite strong enough to handle one hand, but he likes it better. So he started with one, realized he wasn't strong enough, went to two hands, gained some confidence with his stroke, and then went back to one for a while. Had reasonable success with one the second time around, but got tired quickly and realized he couldn't control that swing any more, so went back to two again. This is all within about 3-4 hours of court time. I fully expect this to continue until he becomes strong enough to stick with one hand on his forehand side.
It's seems to me that he's already realized at the age of 5 what you either want to deny or perhaps place at a lower priority, and that is the one handed forehand is a better swinging technique than the two handed forehand.
Now I would agree with you that a two handed forehand can be effective, and it could help promote more symmetrical development, but many people have played tennis or done archery, or other asymmetrical sports or activities, and I've never heard of any major consequence to such an activity.
I've played with many players who are aged 60+, and some that are 70+, and they seem quite healthy and active for their age. So as far as I'm concerned, until you or someone else provides a tangible health reason to promote hitting two hands I will continue to encourage people to make that decision for themselves based on what feels best to them. And I have yet to find a boy or girl who starts playing tennis at a young age that doesn't naturally switch on their own to a one handed forehand simply because it feels better to them at some point. Lots start out that way, maybe most even when they start at 5 or 6, but I don't see them staying that way.
What I see is Seles hitting a 2HFH. What I don't see is that she is not strong enough to hit a 1HFH. That conclusion cannot be drawn from the video.
Also, how did she hit her first shot [the feed]? With a 1HFH.
I can only ask why Monica Seles, Marion Bartoli, Peng Shuai or Lucie Hradecka always chose to hit the ball using two handed forehand when the ball was within the reach if they could do it using one hand. Each player using two handed forehand can hit the ball using one hand when the ball is not close to his body but they always choose two handed if it is possible.
You name 4 while ignoring that others can name most of the other WTA players who won a ton of GSs by hitting a 1hfh, and ask you the same question.
And what was their answer?
And did you ask Williams [S & V], Halep, Wozniacki, Stephens, Keys, Osaka, Pliskova, Kerber, Muguruza, Radwanska, et. al. why they chose to hit their FH with 1 hand rather than 2?
I can answer. Players who didnt practice two handed forehand always chose one handed because they didnt have any choice.
That's because those 4 support his hypothesis whereas the dozens or hundreds of others do not. The exception must rule, ergo 1HFH is superior. QED.
How do you know what choices they had unless you were there when the decision was made? Or, probably more accurately, being made over time?
So you have seen all of the WTA players from their very first practices? C'mon man.
Pittsburgh Dad who used to post here talked about his daughter and how in that first year she was forced to exclusively hit 2hfh and 2hbh so that unit turn would be 2nd nature. Once he and her coaches were convinced that she was ready to transition to a 1hfh, they moved her to that. This is just one example of a kid. Now extrapolate that to the millions of kids who practice. Don't assume things or feel that you've invented a better mousetrap that no one has thought of before.
If it works for you, go for it.
Again ... because of those tiny tiny tiny stick figure arms you were forced into the 2hfh. I am proud of you for overcoming the challenging obstacle.
IMO there are far too few special snowflakes, and I would appreciate you not melting the one named @Searah.
This is a dumb thread, it is obvious for symmetry and health all 1hbh players should play with a 1hfh, and all 2hbh players should play with a 2hfh.
Edit: And let's not ignore the elephant in the room ... you need to hit an equal number of open and closed stances.
Separate names with a comma.