Most people have disabled one hand !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
spaceman_spiff said:
For the same reason that people with two-handed backhands use two hands whenever they can: it's the swing that they've practiced the most, so they want to use it as much as possible.

Now for my question: why hasn't the two-handed forehand become more popular already? Fabrice Santoro and Monica Seles turned pro nearly 30 years ago. Marion Bartoli and Peng Shuai turned pro over 15 years ago. But, two-handed forehands are no more popular now than they were back in 2000.

However, in the meantime, tennis players and coaches around the world have embraced two-handed backhands, western and semi-western forehands, jumping backhands, squash-style slice forehands, between-the-legs shots, swinging volleys, and even sliding on hard courts. All of these things have become common now because they have proved to be effective for a large number of people (though I don't think between-the-legs shots are actually effective). But, two-handed forehands are still very uncommon.

Is it because the same coaches who have adopted all of these other new techniques are determined to stop people from doing this one particular thing? Or, is it because two-handed forehands simply aren't as natural or effective as one-handed forehands for most people?
Click to expand...
For people who were taught one handed forehand at the beginning two handed forehand with crossed hands seems very unnatural. One handed forehand is based on the speed od the racket. Two handed forehand as I said earlier uses the whole body to use the pace of upcoming ball. You are a moving wall. There is not even one professional lesson of two handed forehand on youtube( There will be one in the nearest future because I am going to do it when I eliminate last error in my forehand. Unfortunately my forehand is not the best yet). But how can you explain that two handed forehand was for years on the top of women`s tennis and if Monica Seles wasnt stabbed on the court she would rule even longer ? How can you explain why Marion Bartoli won Wimbledon though she was not a good runner. How was it possible that Hradecka and Peng won grand slams in doubles ? If you compare number of one handed and two handed players we can see great effectivenes of two handed players.
 
FYI, I just did a search on YouTube with the words "how to hit two handed forehands," and I found four instructional videos, two analyses of pros hitting two-handed forehands in slow motion, and another four that are just slow-motion videos of pros hitting two-handed forehands, all within the first 20 results.

You still haven't answered my question as to why the two-handed forehand isn't already popular. When Jimmy Connors and Chris Evert reached the top of the game, two-handed backhands were very uncommon. But within 20 years, it became the backhand of choice for a majority of young players, because people could see that it was an effective shot. Even tennis coaches who grew up hitting one-handed backhands were teaching their students how to hit two-handers, because they knew that it was a good choice for a lot of people. The guy who taught me how to hit two-handed backhands was one of those coaches. He played the game with one hand, but he taught most of his students to use two hands on the backhand.

It's been over 25 years since Monica Seles reached the top of the game, and most people still hit one-handed forehands. If the two-hander were a better option, most coaches would've adapted by now. Even if they didn't change their own games, they would have learned how to teach students to hit the more effective shot, just like they did with two-handed backhands. But they haven't. Why is that? Why have coaches learned to teach so many things that they weren't taught, such as jumping backhands, swinging volleys, sliding squash-style chop slice defensive forehands, and the basic two-handed backhand, but they haven't adapted to teach two-handed forehands?

Your logic about the effectiveness of shots is very flawed. Using the same reasoning, I could say that everyone should play left handed, because so few people are left handed and yet Nadal, McEnroe, Navratilova, Connors, and Laver have won so many titles playing that way. In fact, I could even say that everyone should play like Fabrice Santoro, because pretty much no one in the world sets up for a right-handed two-handed forehand and then hits a left-handed slice backhand with the left hand at the top of the handle. And yet, Fabrice Santoro did exactly that, and he was a top 20 player who played for 20 years and earned over $10 million in prize money.

If you're going purely on the statistical analysis of professional achievement relative to the percentage of the population using a particular style of shot, then Fabrice Santoro's left-handed slice backhand from a right-handed two-handed forehand setup is the most statistically effective style of any shot in the history of tennis. So, give me one good reason why that shot shouldn't be taught to a majority of tennis players as their go-to shot on the forehand side.
 
Gregory Diamond said:
More degrees of freedom is the main reason that causes loss of control.
Click to expand...

Again, you make assertions with no evidentiary support. The degrees of freedom on the 1 handed forehand allow significant advantages with adding spin. Spin is additional control in tennis. More speed of shot requires more spin for the ball to go in. More spin also allows more margin over the net, sharper angle options, more effective lobs, etc.
 
Gregory Diamond said:
Nadal`s backhand is not even average. Playing forehand he has straight arm in the moment when he hits the ball. It requires great strength. Dymitrov and Federer do the same. Most people would lose control if their arm was straight.
Click to expand...

Good hitting, btw. Both of you. Is that carpet? I have never played on it. It looks fast and low bounces. I bet one would develop strokes to match that if it was the main surface you played on. You go straight to slot on both of your wings without a drop, I bet that comes from that surface.

Straight arm fh or bh doesn't require great strength. Look no further than my arms :eek: and straight arm fh and bent/straight 2hbh.

My main point was regarding your comment about the 2hfh not being the same symmetrically/mechanically as the 2hbh. I politely disagree in your crazy ;) thread. I think they both have the same options at contact bent/bent, bent/straight, straight/straight, including how far away your elbows are from your body. They both have two arm/hands holding the racquet in the shoulder/arm triangle. With both, the trailing arm/hand should dominate (arguments coming here :p) leading into contact.

Probably my biggest disagreement is here in the bold:

"It is true that players who have a disabled second hand even if they use two handed backhand usually try to hit the balls using one handed forehand on the backhand side when it is possible. That only deepens deformation. They just accept their disability. Two handed forehand is not symetric to two handed backhand. It is much better than 2HB. The ball is hit near your body. You have much better control. That is why you can hit the ball using all your body."

I don't think any top level full ground stroke is hitting at contact with the body. I think the k-chain stuff has already happened. The shoulder turn has played out, and the arms continue on delivering the blow at contact. With the 2hbh and 2hfh in particular, you are talking 20ish lbs of arm triangle being delivered to contact. It took a lot of body to get that 20lbs moving in the forward swing, but by contact the 20lbs of mass are doing the work (not your body at contact).

The only real difference between the 2hbh and the 2hfh is there is WAY MORE absorption in the 2hfh. :p (you are new, you will need to search for the "absorption" thread in tips and techniques to get the joke).

Welcome to the ttw fray.
 
spaceman_spiff said:
FYI, I just did a search on YouTube with the words "how to hit two handed forehands," and I found four instructional videos, two analyses of pros hitting two-handed forehands in slow motion, and another four that are just slow-motion videos of pros hitting two-handed forehands, all within the first 20 results.

You still haven't answered my question as to why the two-handed forehand isn't already popular. When Jimmy Connors and Chris Evert reached the top of the game, two-handed backhands were very uncommon. But within 20 years, it became the backhand of choice for a majority of young players, because people could see that it was an effective shot. Even tennis coaches who grew up hitting one-handed backhands were teaching their students how to hit two-handers, because they knew that it was a good choice for a lot of people. The guy who taught me how to hit two-handed backhands was one of those coaches. He played the game with one hand, but he taught most of his students to use two hands on the backhand.

It's been over 25 years since Monica Seles reached the top of the game, and most people still hit one-handed forehands. If the two-hander were a better option, most coaches would've adapted by now. Even if they didn't change their own games, they would have learned how to teach students to hit the more effective shot, just like they did with two-handed backhands. But they haven't. Why is that? Why have coaches learned to teach so many things that they weren't taught, such as jumping backhands, swinging volleys, sliding squash-style chop slice defensive forehands, and the basic two-handed backhand, but they haven't adapted to teach two-handed forehands?

Your logic about the effectiveness of shots is very flawed. Using the same reasoning, I could say that everyone should play left handed, because so few people are left handed and yet Nadal, McEnroe, Navratilova, Connors, and Laver have won so many titles playing that way. In fact, I could even say that everyone should play like Fabrice Santoro, because pretty much no one in the world sets up for a right-handed two-handed forehand and then hits a left-handed slice backhand with the left hand at the top of the handle. And yet, Fabrice Santoro did exactly that, and he was a top 20 player who played for 20 years and earned over $10 million in prize money.

If you're going purely on the statistical analysis of professional achievement relative to the percentage of the population using a particular style of shot, then Fabrice Santoro's left-handed slice backhand from a right-handed two-handed forehand setup is the most statistically effective style of any shot in the history of tennis. So, give me one good reason why that shot shouldn't be taught to a majority of tennis players as their go-to shot on the forehand side.
Click to expand...
Santoro`s two handed topspin was really bad. That is why he almost always used two handed slice. I searched youtube writing "how to hit two handed forehands" and half of the results were videos from my channel :). Others just descriptions of Peng Shuai( false description of her play with great essential errors) or video with Kucova. There were some club players who tried to play two handed forehand but didnt know how to do it properly. There are several kinds of two handed forehands. Most common is with forefinger of left hand not taking part in the stroke(Hradecka, Kucova, Bartoli). My forehand is similar to that of Peng Shuai. All fingers hold the racket. Left thumb of Peng is more behind the racket than mine. That is the difference. Probably my injured right wrist is not strong enough and my left hand is forced to help more than in Peng Shuai forehand. Her right elbow goes higher than mine because of this difference in grip. I am going to get used to her grip. Her forehand is tested on highest level so I just have to work more.
 
ByeByePoly said:
Good hitting, btw. Both of you. Is that carpet? I have never played on it. It looks fast and low bounces. I bet one would develop strokes to match that if it was the main surface you played on. You go straight to slot on both of your wings without a drop, I bet that comes from that surface.

Straight arm fh or bh doesn't require great strength. Look no further than my arms :eek: and straight arm fh and bent/straight 2hbh.

My main point was regarding your comment about the 2hfh not being the same symmetrically/mechanically as the 2hbh. I politely disagree in your crazy ;) thread. I think they both have the same options at contact bent/bent, bent/straight, straight/straight, including how far away your elbows are from your body. They both have two arm/hands holding the racquet in the shoulder/arm triangle. With both, the trailing arm/hand should dominate (arguments coming here :p) leading into contact.

Probably my biggest disagreement is here in the bold:

"It is true that players who have a disabled second hand even if they use two handed backhand usually try to hit the balls using one handed forehand on the backhand side when it is possible. That only deepens deformation. They just accept their disability. Two handed forehand is not symetric to two handed backhand. It is much better than 2HB. The ball is hit near your body. You have much better control. That is why you can hit the ball using all your body."

I don't think any top level full ground stroke is hitting at contact with the body. I think the k-chain stuff has already happened. The shoulder turn has played out, and the arms continue on delivering the blow at contact. With the 2hbh and 2hfh in particular, you are talking 20ish lbs of arm triangle being delivered to contact. It took a lot of body to get that 20lbs moving in the forward swing, but by contact the 20lbs of mass are doing the work (not your body at contact).

The only real difference between the 2hbh and the 2hfh is there is WAY MORE absorption in the 2hfh. :p (you are new, you will need to search for the "absorption" thread in tips and techniques to get the joke).

Welcome to the ttw fray.
Click to expand...
It is carpet with quartz sand. It is too fast for me . My wrist cant block fast balls. That is the reason why my forehand in these videos is shortened. I just try to stop those bullets. I am the best on clay. Probably I am the best runner in my category in my country. I always try to throw out my opponent through side line and force him to run a lot. Two handed forehand is ideal tool for this task. After not very long time he understands that it is not healthy for him and the match ends.

Now I have to go out to play tennis so the rest of my answer will be later. It requires precise argumentation.
 
Gregory Diamond said:
It is carpet with quartz sand. It is too fast for me . My wrist cant block fast balls. That is the reason why my forehand in these videos is shortened. I just try to stop those bullets. I am the best on clay. Probably I am the best runner in my category in my country. I always try to throw out my opponent through side line and force him to run a lot. Two handed forehand is ideal tool for this task. After not very long time he understands that it is not healthy for him and the match ends.

Now I have to go out to play tennis so the rest of my answer will be later. It requires precise argumentation.
Click to expand...

Look forward to the precise answer. :cool:
 
ByeByePoly said:
Look forward to the precise answer. :cool:
Click to expand...
Some physics at the beginning. Change of Momentum = Force x Time.

When you hit the ball using one handed forehand the force is great but for a very short time. Short time -loss of control. The same effect you can achieve with smaller force acting longer. This is the case when you use two handed forehand. The ball interacts with the whole body so it is deformed when it touches the strings more than when it is hit using one handed forehand and stays on the strings longer. You have time to control the ball. When we have almost perfectly elastic collision of the ball with an object with a great mass kinetic energy of the ball doesnt change . Only velocity changes direction.

It is not the end of my answer. About rotation in next post.
 
Gregory Diamond said:
Some physics at the beginning. Change of Momentum = Force x Time.

When you hit the ball using one handed forehand the force is great but for a very short time. Short time -loss of control. The same effect you can achieve with smaller force acting longer. This is the case when you use two handed forehand. The ball interacts with the whole body so it is deformed when it touches the strings more than when it is hit using one handed forehand and stays on the strings longer. You have time to control the ball. When we have almost perfectly elastic collision of the ball with an object with a great mass kinetic energy of the ball doesnt change . Only velocity changes direction.

It is not the end of my answer. About rotation in next post.
Click to expand...
This principle can be applied to two handed backhand and one handed forehand. If you want more control you should use elbow(even rotate the balls using elbow) because behind your elbow is the rest of your body. I am not as strong as most players I played with but since last August I have lost only one match. I have won 5 tournaments in my category and in younger category. It really works
 
Gregory Diamond said:

Lesson of two handed forehand in subtitles. Could you imagine how good Roger Federer would be if he played like Peng Shuai ?
Click to expand...

Yeah, as good as a 23 ranked girl at best, behind 22 other, better, one-handed FH's and probably 1000+ ATP better one-handed FH's according to Mac.

The only point you have made so far is there are very few people that have bee taught it and it has no advantage.
 
Gregory Diamond said:
Some physics at the beginning. Change of Momentum = Force x Time.

When you hit the ball using one handed forehand the force is great but for a very short time. Short time -loss of control. The same effect you can achieve with smaller force acting longer. This is the case when you use two handed forehand. The ball interacts with the whole body so it is deformed when it touches the strings more than when it is hit using one handed forehand and stays on the strings longer. You have time to control the ball. When we have almost perfectly elastic collision of the ball with an object with a great mass kinetic energy of the ball doesnt change . Only velocity changes direction.

It is not the end of my answer. About rotation in next post.
Click to expand...

OMG ... a full body absorption :eek:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/holding-absorbing-the-ball.580640/
 
My backhand is usually my more consistent side. It's basically a left-handed forehand.

Thanks, OP, I always knew I was special.
 
Gregory Diamond said:
Some physics at the beginning. Change of Momentum = Force x Time.

When you hit the ball using one handed forehand the force is great but for a very short time. Short time -loss of control. The same effect you can achieve with smaller force acting longer. This is the case when you use two handed forehand. The ball interacts with the whole body so it is deformed when it touches the strings more than when it is hit using one handed forehand and stays on the strings longer. You have time to control the ball. When we have almost perfectly elastic collision of the ball with an object with a great mass kinetic energy of the ball doesnt change . Only velocity changes direction.

It is not the end of my answer. About rotation in next post.
Click to expand...

The successor to @oserver has been found.
 
ChaelAZ said:
Yeah, as good as a 23 ranked girl at best, behind 22 other, better, one-handed FH's and probably 1000+ ATP better one-handed FH's according to Mac.

The only point you have made so far is there are very few people that have bee taught it and it has no advantage.
Click to expand...

He finds 4 examples and somehow extrapolates that to mean the 2HFH is superior. To answer that, you'd need to know how they would have done if they had hit 1HFH. Then you need to take every great player with a 1HFH and figure out how well they'd have played with a 2HFH. Maybe Seles et. al. won in spite of the 2HFH rather than because of it. Who knows. I don't have any evidence in support of that conclusion so I don't present it as a realistic possibility.
 
S&V-not_dead_yet said:
He finds 4 examples and somehow extrapolates that to mean the 2HFH is superior. To answer that, you'd need to know how they would have done if they had hit 1HFH. Then you need to take every great player with a 1HFH and figure out how well they'd have played with a 2HFH. Maybe Seles et. al. won in spite of the 2HFH rather than because of it. Who knows. I don't have any evidence in support of that conclusion so I don't present it as a realistic possibility.
Click to expand...
Peng Shuai was 14. Lucie Hradecka 41. Marion Bartoli 7. Monica Seles 1.Peng, Hradecka and Bartoli are not good runners. Monica Seles was very weak when she was a child(You can see in video on the first page of this thread.) Yet they achieved a success. They all played offensive tennis because of two handed forehand. You all are stubborn. I have an injured right wrist and I have won 16 tournaments in my country during last 2 years. I respect other players so I believe that they are equally intelligent as I am. They for sure are stronger. Most of them played two handed backhand. The only real difference was on forehand side. I could neutralize their strenght with 2HF. I threw them out of the court playing great angles. I am a good runner but it wouldnt be enough to win so many matches. I could hide the direction of the ball to the last moment. Playing against me my opponents didnt have any points after the serve. Two handed forehand is ideal tool to return balls. Two handed forehand is the future of tennis. There is no doubt.
 
Seriously, it's awesome that it works so well for you, but your reasoning on why it's better is so flawed. I think it probably is better for some people. For most others it will be worse. I think it's sort of analoguous to the 1HBH. Most people are going to be better off with a 2HBH, but for some people, a smaller percentage most likely, the 1HBH will be clearly superior for them. I think it works opposite for the 2HFH. For most people the 1HFH will be clearly superior, but for a small percentage a 2HFH will be better. This is really going to be an individual thing. This is one reason I let students choose which backhand stroke they like better. Most will work on both strokes for a short period and then have a clear instinct which one is better for them. Usually this is the 2HBH, but occasionally it will be the 1HBH. I have yet to see someone stick with their 2HFH even if they start out that way in the beginning because they lack strength for the 1HFH. There are reasons for this, and there are reasons most people love to get into forehand to backhand rallies even against people who have good two handers. And of course all of this bloviating is irrelevant on an individual basis. You use what works best for you regardless of what might be best for most people.
 
Gregory Diamond said:
Peng Shuai was 14. Lucie Hradecka 41. Marion Bartoli 7. Monica Seles 1.
Click to expand...

Why is this relevant?

Those are very good rankings; I'm not arguing that. But they are 4 examples out of many dozens. The fact that they achieved that ranking cannot be proven to be solely because they hit a 2HFH. They could have achieved that ranking in spite of the 2HFH. But you fail to consider that because it doesn't fit your worldview.

Peng, Hradecka and Bartoli are not good runners.
Click to expand...

Again, how is this relevant to the 2HFH being superior? Couldn't I find other women who aren't good runners who also achieved similar rankings to your trio but who hit 1HFHs? Doesn't that undermine your case?

Monica Seles was very weak when she was a child(You can see in video on the first page of this thread.)
Click to expand...

What I saw was Seles hitting a feed with a 1HFH without any trouble and then hitting 2HFHs without any trouble. I can't conclude from that video that she was unable to hit 1HFHs during the rally. She didn't look particularly weak.


Yet they achieved a success. They all played offensive tennis because of two handed forehand.
Click to expand...

I agree they achieved success. I agree that they played offensive tennis. I can't conclude that it was due to the 2HFH, though.

You all are stubborn. I have an injured right wrist and I have won 16 tournaments in my country during last 2 years.
Click to expand...

That's awesome. That's 15 more tournaments than I've won.

I respect other players so I believe that they are equally intelligent as I am. They for sure are stronger. Most of them played two handed backhand. The only real difference was on forehand side. I could neutralize their strenght with 2HF. I threw them out of the court playing great angles. I am a good runner but it wouldnt be enough to win so many matches. I could hide the direction of the ball to the last moment. Playing against me my opponents didnt have any points after the serve. Two handed forehand is ideal tool to return balls. Two handed forehand is the future of tennis. There is no doubt.
Click to expand...

If you won 16 tournaments, I'd conclude you are a better player than your peers. I wouldn't necessarily conclude it was due to your 2HFH. Yes, your FH could be better than theirs but it's possible that it would be better anyway if you used a 1HFH and didn't have an injured wrist.

The problem I see is that you take an outcome [your wins] and then backtrack looking for an explanation. You see one obvious factor and assume that one factor must be responsible and so you stop looking for other factors.

You're never going to convince me using your current logic. 2 things that might convince me are:

- a bio-mechanical explanation
- more and more juniors successfully adopting it

Good luck in your future tournaments.
 
Gregory Diamond said:
Peng Shuai was 14. Lucie Hradecka 41. Marion Bartoli 7. Monica Seles 1.Peng, Hradecka and Bartoli are not good runners. Monica Seles was very weak when she was a child(You can see in video on the first page of this thread.) Yet they achieved a success. They all played offensive tennis because of two handed forehand. You all are stubborn. I have an injured right wrist and I have won 16 tournaments in my country during last 2 years. I respect other players so I believe that they are equally intelligent as I am. They for sure are stronger. Most of them played two handed backhand. The only real difference was on forehand side. I could neutralize their strenght with 2HF. I threw them out of the court playing great angles. I am a good runner but it wouldnt be enough to win so many matches. I could hide the direction of the ball to the last moment. Playing against me my opponents didnt have any points after the serve. Two handed forehand is ideal tool to return balls. Two handed forehand is the future of tennis. There is no doubt.
Click to expand...
Legit question .. What is your recommended racquet length for a 2 handed forehand? 28?
 
li0scc0 said:
I'm sorry to hear that...spamming? That seems curious.
So a regular length Pure Aero? I actually have wanted to teach my son two handers off both sides, as I've seen some powerful players do so. The main issue I've experienced when I tried it myself was the functional swingweight was so low with a standard length racquet. That said, it isn't a natural stroke for me (as I never tried it until my mid 40's!).
Click to expand...
In two handed forehand we are more a wall for a ball. Speed of the racket is not so important. Ball should be pushed by the whole body. That is why the stroke should be initiated by an elbow. Greater length and weight of the racket can help.
 
Gregory Diamond said:
When you hit the ball using one handed forehand the force is great but for a very short time. Short time -loss of control. The same effect you can achieve with smaller force acting longer.
Click to expand...

The real world doesn't work like that.


Gregory Diamond said:
The ball interacts with the whole body so it is deformed when it touches the strings more than when it is hit using one handed forehand and stays on the strings longer. You have time to control the ball.
Click to expand...

That's just not true.
 
jch said:
The real world doesn't work like that.




That's just not true.
Click to expand...
I listened to this lecture( it is in my language so I understood everything) and it only confirms what I said. The faster the racket when it hits the ball the less time we control the balls. This physicist is in my age and he cant be a very good player because I would know him. What I say( I am a physicist too) is proved by my results. I play the ball where I want because I control it longer than my opponents. It is true that if you accelerate the racket fast enough then the rest of the body doesnt count. You are just losing control. If you dont have supernatural powers then in the short time you cant transfer information to the ball.
 
Gregory Diamond said:
The faster the racket when it hits the ball the less time we control the balls.
Click to expand...

I have never said anything like this. In fact, I presented the opposite opinion. Explicite, at 06:20. Have you ever watched these excerpts?

Gregory Diamond said:
This physicist is in my age and he cant be a very good player because I would know him.
Click to expand...

Widać Polaka. Niestety.


I suppose you are technically better. May I see your strokes?

Gregory Diamond said:
What I say( I am a physicist too) is proved by my results.
Click to expand...

The results have NOTHING to do with physical or biomechanical optimality of the strokes. Nadal must howl to hit the fast balls. I can talk during the stroke.

Gregory Diamond said:
I graduated in theoretical physics.
Click to expand...

Where?
 
ByeByePoly said:
Good ... you will be able to explain those low rhs injuries mathematically.
Click to expand...
Most people dont understand that the racket should move during the stroke but the faster it moves the less control we have. For each person there is the velocity of the racket above which effectivness of strokes is much less. We should find this velocity and we shouldnt surpass it if we want to win more matches.
 
If you do not know how to use physics and biomechanics, then yes, the faster you hit the ball, the less control you have.
 
Gregory Diamond said:
Most people dont understand that the racket should move during the stroke but the faster it moves the less control we have. For each person there is the velocity of the racket above which effectivness of strokes is much less. We should find this velocity and we shouldnt surpass it if we want to win more matches.
Click to expand...

I always enjoyed watching beginner golfers try and guide their tee shots thinking they could control it better.
 
jch said:
I have never said anything like this. In fact, I presented the opposite opinion. Explicite, at 06:20. Have you ever watched these excerpts?



Widać Polaka. Niestety.


I suppose you are technically better. May I see your strokes?



The results have NOTHING to do with physical or biomechanical optimality of the strokes. Nadal must howl to hit the fast balls. I can talk during the stroke.



Where?
Click to expand...
I didnt try to offend you ,if it is your lecture, but I just dont know you. Maybe you are much younger. You didnt agree with my post but I dont know what you disagree with. It is difficult to argue with someone who does not present any arguments.
 
jch said:
I have never said anything like this. In fact, I presented the opposite opinion. Explicite, at 06:20. Have you ever watched these excerpts?



Widać Polaka. Niestety.


I suppose you are technically better. May I see your strokes?



The results have NOTHING to do with physical or biomechanical optimality of the strokes. Nadal must howl to hit the fast balls. I can talk during the stroke.



Where?
Click to expand...
You can see my strokes in the video at the beginning of this thread.
 
Just because you are using two hands on the forehand, it doesn't mean both hands are being used equally

In the end, you could still be "deforming" your body
 
jm1980 said:
Just because you are using two hands on the forehand, it doesn't mean both hands are being used equally

In the end, you could still be "deforming" your body
Click to expand...
In two handed backhand left hand is dominant but in two handed forehand the right hand. There is no deformation.
 
Gregory Diamond said:
I play the ball where I want because I control it longer than my opponents. It is true that if you accelerate the racket fast enough then the rest of the body doesnt count. You are just losing control. If you dont have supernatural powers then in the short time you cant transfer information to the ball.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute: are you saying that hitting a 2HFH allows you more time to control the ball? Do you have any evidence of this? The ball stays on the strings for about 4ms. I don't see how adding the second hand will change this markedly. By the time your brain registers that the ball has hit the strings, the ball has already left. It's too late for you to "control" anything.

Shades of @collotennis.
 
Gregory Diamond said:
In two handed backhand left hand is dominant but in two handed forehand the right hand. There is no deformation.
Click to expand...

Your previous definition of "deformed" was that one side was being used differently than the other. By that definition, both 2HBH and 2HFH are deformations, just in a lesser degree than a 1HBH or 1HFH.
 
S&V-not_dead_yet said:
Wait a minute: are you saying that hitting a 2HFH allows you more time to control the ball? Do you have any evidence of this? The ball stays on the strings for about 4ms. I don't see how adding the second hand will change this markedly. By the time your brain registers that the ball has hit the strings, the ball has already left. It's too late for you to "control" anything.

Shades of @collotennis.
Click to expand...
It is not the first time when I read about this false theory. It says that we cant feel the ball on the strings because it lasts very short. Maybe you cant feel tha ball if the speed of the racket is great but I feel the ball. Maybe it means that I have supernatural powers.
 
Gregory Diamond said:
In your lecture you try to promote using greater speed of the racket. There are millions of victims of this idea. That is why I win so many matches in my category though I have an injured right wrist.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood me. I do not promote naive hard hitting. What I promote is the idea that if you want to play in the physically and biomechanically optimal way, you have to work on initial conditions to reduce your actions to the minimum. In your tennis, you hit the ball. In inertial tennis, physics hits the ball. I do not even feel the moment of impact. That's why you injured your wrist, while my wrist is just happy.
 
Gregory Diamond said:
It is not the first time when I read about this false theory. It says that we cant feel the ball on the strings because it lasts very short. Maybe you cant feel tha ball if the speed of the racket is great but I feel the ball. Maybe it means that I have supernatural powers.
Click to expand...

I didn't write that you can't feel the ball on the strings. I wrote that by the time the brain has registered this, the ball is already gone. You don't have the time to sense that the ball is on the strings and then do something about it while the ball is still on the strings. The ball will probably be at the service line by that time.

What you feel or perceive you feel isn't the same thing as what is.
 
jch said:
You misunderstood me. I do not promote naive hard hitting. What I promote is the idea that if you want to play in the physically and biomechanically optimal way, you have to work on initial conditions to reduce your actions to the minimum. In your tennis, you hit the ball. In inertial tennis, physics hits the ball. I do not even feel the moment of impact. That's why you injured your wrist, while my wrist is just happy.
Click to expand...

I injured my wrist when I was using my hand to hit blocked metal door of the garage. It was not wise. Since then I was forced to play two handed forehand. In some sense tennis was responsible for my injury because I was then in Sopot and played in Interational Seniors Polish Championships.

I think that people dont understand that tennis of the best professional players is not the same as tennis of average professional players and that is not the same as tennis of amateurs. Using a great speed of the racket for most players is a very bad idea. They can be sure that in the future the only award will be a great frustration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Two Handed Forehand-the Future of Tennis !!!
20 21 22
Replies
1K
Views
41K
Jannick
Jannick
M
If 2HandedBackhand is a left handed Forehand for a righty, why CONTINENTAL lower Hand
Replies
10
Views
771
soyizgood
soyizgood
1
prefered forehand stance is open = prefered two-hand backhand open, too?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Sweden
S
I
A two handed volley?
Replies
38
Views
7K
LeeD
L
V
Left Hand Dominant 2 Hander...
Replies
1
Views
831
Bungalo Bill
Bungalo Bill
Back
Top