Most people have disabled one hand !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
In two handed backhand left hand is dominant but in two handed forehand the right hand. There is no deformation.
Which hand is dominant on each stroke depends on your technique

The only way to perfectly balance hand usage is to hit every stroke with both hands. That means left and right handed serves, groundstrokes, etc.

To avoid "deformation" you would also have to extend this to other daily tasks. Eat with both hands, write with hands, and so on
 
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.
I can only repeat what I said. When the speed of the racket is not great and you use your body to push the ball there is a lot of time to direct the ball. But when you use your wrist or "snap" the racket then you cant feel anything. This "snapping" of the racket is not used by most women. You can ask why ? Only on the highest level it works.
 
Last edited:
Which hand is dominant on each stroke depends on your technique

The only way to perfectly balance hand usage is to hit every stroke with both hands. That means left and right handed serves, groundstrokes, etc.

To avoid "deformation" you would also have to extend this to other daily tasks. Eat with both hands, write with hands, and so on
You just agree with the title of this thread.
 
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.
Personally, I think that people don't understand physics and biomechanics of tennis, that's why they play like they play. For example, you will play like an amateur until the end of the world. You know, why? Because you have to win the next match and you create theories that work for you, just now. Real theories are a bit more complicated and you need more time to learn how to use them in practice.

I could play International Seniors Polish Championships in Sopot this year (but I won't), where I would have to compete against players like you. At the same time, I can compare my strokes with the strokes of Federer or Nadal (you... well... you can do that, too...). Thanks to real science, as a pure amateur, I can play on the technical level of the best players in the world, or even higher. And at the age of 50+, I can train with players from the Polish top 50 in national senior rankings. In your opinion, what gives me more satisfaction?
 
I can only repeat what I said. When the speed of the racket is not great and you use your body to push the ball there is a lot of time to direct the ball. But when you use your wrist or "snap" the racket then you cant feel anything. This "snapping" of the racket is not used by most women. You can ask why ? Only on the highest level it works.
If you gained some weight, wouldn't your body push stroke be even better? I know my body weight stroke would be better this year. :confused:

You could hit a little later for more body contact ... you are hitting that 1hfh out in front.

Speaking of serve ... that wasn't in your video. How do you pull that off with your hurt right hand? Does it hurt when you hit your 1h fh on wide shots in your video?
 
What you call a "disabled" hand, people just call it the non-dominant hand. And they accept that it's just not going to be as good as their dominant hand. That is fine, it's not a "deformation" or a "disability" of any kind.
If you play one handed forehand and you use it even on backhand side when it is possible ,as professionals do, then it has to cause a serious distortion.
 
Personally, I think that people don't understand physics and biomechanics of tennis, that's why they play like they play. For example, you will play like an amateur until the end of the world. You know, why? Because you have to win the next match and you create theories that work for you, just now. Real theories are a bit more complicated and you need more time to learn how to use them in practice.

I could play International Seniors Polish Championships in Sopot this year (but I won't), where I would have to compete against players like you. At the same time, I can compare my strokes with the strokes of Federer or Nadal (you... well... you can do that, too...). Thanks to real science, as a pure amateur, I can play on the technical level of the best players in the world, or even higher. And at the age of 50+, I can train with players from the Polish top 50 in national senior rankings. In your opinion, what gives me more satisfaction?
There is no doubt that you would have more satisfaction if you were Master of Poland in +50 category. You just try to avoid frustration. It is easy to lose to better and younger players. You dont play tennis. You play aritstic tennis,were you can gain points for style. I work on my technique but only to win more matches in my category. I like competition.

Last year Master of Poland in +50 category, vice-master in +55 category, International Master of Poland from 2016 in +35 category are from my town. The last one was a student in my tennis school. I taught him to play tennis.He was 13 years old then. The first one was forced to compete with me for years so he had to learn a lot about effective tennis. Dont you think that there is something exceptional in my play ?
 
Last edited:
The faster the racket when it hits the ball the less time we control the balls.
Given that the collision between the ball and the racket is elastic, can you explain to me how the time of contact is decreasing when the speed of impact is increasing?

Increasing the time of contact means making the ball and/or strings deform more. What you're saying is that you are somehow causing more deformation in an elastic collision by decreasing the speed of impact.
 
There is no doubt that you would have more satisfaction if you were Master of Poland in +50 category. You just try to avoid frustration. It is easy to lose to better and younger players. You dont play tennis. You play aritstic tennis,were you can gain points for style. I work on my technique but only to win more matches in my category. I like competition.
I think the match between us would be just... boring, especially for me. I perfectly know players like you - with your level of technique and your level of ego. The reality: during my practice, you wouldn't be able to hit 5 balls in a row.

Last year Master of Poland in +50 category, vice-master in +55 category, International Master of Poland from 2016 in +35 category are from my town. The last one was a student in my tennis school. I taught him to play tennis.He was 13 years old then. The first one was forced to compete with me for years so he had to learn a lot about effective tennis. Dont you think that there is something exceptional in my play ?
To be quite honest, you have the exceptionally bad technique and you don't understand physics and biomechanics of the game, what is very clearly visible in your style. That's just an observation. Nothing offensive. Seriously.
 
There is no doubt that you would have more satisfaction if you were Master of Poland in +50 category. You just try to avoid frustration. It is easy to lose to better and younger players. You dont play tennis. You play aritstic tennis,were you can gain points for style. I work on my technique but only to win more matches in my category. I like competition.

Last year Master of Poland in +50 category, vice-master in +55 category, International Master of Poland from 2016 in +35 category are from my town. The last one was a student in my tennis school. I taught him to play tennis.He was 13 years old then. The first one was forced to compete with me for years so he had to learn a lot about effective tennis. Dont you think that there is something exceptional in my play ?
So do you brush your teeth with a two handed grip too?
 
Given that the collision between the ball and the racket is elastic, can you explain to me how the time of contact is decreasing when the speed of impact is increasing?

Increasing the time of contact means making the ball and/or strings deform more. What you're saying is that you are somehow causing more deformation in an elastic collision by decreasing the speed of impact.
 
Given that the collision between the ball and the racket is elastic, can you explain to me how the time of contact is decreasing when the speed of impact is increasing?

Increasing the time of contact means making the ball and/or strings deform more. What you're saying is that you are somehow causing more deformation in an elastic collision by decreasing the speed of impact.
There is no contradiction here. It is true that deformation is greater when the racket is faster but the time between first contact of the ball with the strings and the moment when amplitude of deformed strings reaches maximum value is shorter. Greater speed of the ball and less control. This is the only result. We see it everyday on courts when players try to hit the ball harder than they can control it.
 
I think the match between us would be just... boring, especially for me. I perfectly know players like you - with your level of technique and your level of ego. The reality: during my practice, you wouldn't be able to hit 5 balls in a row.



To be quite honest, you have the exceptionally bad technique and you don't understand physics and biomechanics of the game, what is very clearly visible in your style. That's just an observation. Nothing offensive. Seriously.
After your last post I should consider beginning of international career. If my technique is so bad it means I can improve a lot. If using this bad technique I have won during last 2 years 15 tournaments in central Poland (all tournaments I took part in) we can only imagine what I would achieve if my technique was better. Thanks.
 
There is no contradiction here. It is true that deformation is greater when the racket is faster but the time between first contact of the ball with the strings and the moment when amplitude of deformed strings reaches maximum value is shorter. Greater speed of the ball and less control. This is the only result. We see it everyday on courts when players try to hit the ball harder than they can control it.
You're forgetting that the strings then have to travel farther to return back to their resting position and lose contact with the ball. Also, the compressed surface of the ball has to travel farther in order to return back to its normal resting position. And the main thing that you're forgetting is that, even if there is a difference, it's probably at most 1 ms.

There's a much more reasonable explanation for why people swinging fast don't have control: it's because a lot of people don't have good enough footwork and technique to consistently get everything right on a fast swing. Their bad technique and footwork means that they often mistime the shot or don't have the racket lined up at the right angle at the moment of impact.

Such people would probably be better off with a smoother swing that has a larger margin for error, but a two-handed stroke isn't necessary to accomplish that. There are plenty of people who can swing smoothly and redirect the ball with one hand. I played a match against just such a player last Thursday.

You obviously have a deep desire to believe that you are an exceptional person who is able to make a groundbreaking observation that no one else can see. But the thing is, the two-handed forehand is nothing new. It's been around for decades, and enough people have experimented with it to know that it doesn't come naturally to most people and, as such, won't suit them.
 
Last edited:
I think the match between us would be just... boring, especially for me. I perfectly know players like you - with your level of technique and your level of ego. The reality: during my practice, you wouldn't be able to hit 5 balls in a row.



To be quite honest, you have the exceptionally bad technique and you don't understand physics and biomechanics of the game, what is very clearly visible in your style. That's just an observation. Nothing offensive. Seriously.

And here I am playing with International Master of Poland in +35 category(2016). Of course it is fragment when I was lucky to win some points :)
 
Dont you think that there is something exceptional in my play ?
I mean, it's nice that you are doing well, but if you look at the very best players in the world, nearly all of them use a one handed forehand.

Don't you think that's more impressive and relevant than someone winning regional senior tourneys?
 
After your last post I should consider beginning of international career. If my technique is so bad it means I can improve a lot. If using this bad technique I have won during last 2 years 15 tournaments in central Poland (all tournaments I took part in) we can only imagine what I would achieve if my technique was better. Thanks.
Seriously... Man... Look at yourself, please. Poor serves, poor spin, weak and high balls, lack of elementary movement skills, no rhythm, no balance. That's great you won a few local amateur 50+ tournaments. With techniques like these that's something I really admire.

Forgive me, I prefer my tennis, my techniques, my knowledge and my sparring partners (btw some of them won more than 15 amateur OPEN tournaments). And the fact that I was able to construct a coherent theory of tennis techniques and one of these inertial techniques recreates the most famous stroke in the history of the game gives me more satisfaction than anything else. Personally, I think that winning Wimbledon could give me less satisfaction, because we have a new Wimbledon winner every year, while there are just two players in the world that can hit inertial forehands and just one player who is able to hit inertial backhands. So, please do not talk about Polish 50+ master titles. Just. Do. Not.
 
Last edited:
Dont you think that there is something exceptional in my play ?
No. You're a decent adult player. There are tons of decent adult players, including on this forum. And some of the posters here would destroy you. By all means use a two handed forehand if it works for you. But stop acting like you or your technique is something special because it isn't and it makes you really annoying.
 
Seriously... Man... Look at yourself, please. Poor serves, poor spin, weak and high balls, lack of elementary movement skills, no rhythm, no balance. That's great you won a few local amateur 50+ tournaments. With techniques like these that's something I really admire.

Forgive me, I prefer my tennis, my techniques, my knowledge and my sparring partners (btw some of them won more than 15 amateur OPEN tournaments). And the fact that I was able to construct a coherent theory of tennis techniques and one of these inertial techniques recreates the most famous stroke in the history of the game give me more satisfaction than anything else. Personally, I think that winning Wimbledon could give me less satisfaction, because we have a new Wimbledon winner every year, while there are just two players in the world that can hit inertial forehands and just one player who is able to hit inertial backhands. So, please do not talk about Polish 50+ master titles. Just. Do. Not.
3 people from not great town are on the top or near the top in their categories in Poland. It is obvious that there is something interesting in their play. It is even more interesting if they have bad technique. Maybe you dont understand what is important in tennis.

Federer is an average player on clay where you have to hit the ball many times to win a point. His forehand is the main reason of his failure. His grip is archaic. Old-fashioned. It only works on fast surfaces where balls bounce low. Of course on clay Federer can win some tournaments but it doesnt happen too often. Federer`s success is based on his excellent physical fitness. The same problem is with Nadal. His forehand technique is tragic. His backhand is even worse but it doesnt matter because he is so strong that he only needs to hit the ball safe.

.
 
Federer is an average player on clay [...]. His forehand is the main reason of his failure.

[...]

The same problem is with Nadal. His forehand technique is tragic.
Yes. I bet Federer and Nadal would lose all forehand to forehand exchanges if they were to play you, who has the best forehand the world has ever seen

:rolleyes:
 
I see that you dont agree with my post but I dont know what you think is not true in what I wrote.
Fed and Nadal have forehands that are widely regarded as the best FHs ever. The spin and power behind their FH shots would probably break your wrists all over again in a handful of shots. Then you come in here and call their FHs "failures" or "tragic."

How all the top pros manage to consistently lose to these guys with bad forehands (and they use their FHs a lot) remains a mystery, I guess
 
Fed and Nadal have forehands that are widely regarded as the best FHs ever. The spin and power behind their FH shots would probably break your wrists all over again in a handful of shots. Then you come in here and call their FHs "failures" or "tragic."

How all the top pros manage to consistently lose to these guys with bad forehands (and they use their FHs a lot) remains a mystery, I guess
Technique is only one of the tools in tennis. Strength, fitness ,reflex,..., are equally important. Federer`s technique is only good on fast surfaces and it requires great strength. We cant be surprised that he won so many Wimbledons. Any trainer who would teach children Federer`s or Nadal`s forehand would be just irresponsible person. Most women dont use snap in forehand. If they tried it would cause serious injures of the wrist. Trying to copy technique of the best players by an amateur or average professional player is just stupid. It cant work.
 
Technique is only one of the tools in tennis. Strength, fitness ,reflex,..., are equally important. Federer`s technique is only good on fast surfaces and it requires great strength. We cant be surprised that he won so many Wimbledons. Any trainer who would teach children Federer`s or Nadal`s forehand would be just irresponsible person. Most women dont use snap in forehand. If they tried it would cause serious injures of the wrist. Trying to copy technique of the best players by an amateur or average professional player is just stupid. It cant work.
But if their technique were so poor, then how come it's not exploited by other players with similar strength, fitness, and reflexes but superior technique?

Also, plenty of amateur players who have one handed forehands would also beat you, even in your age category.

You think you're somehow special, but if you just took a step back from trolling these boards you would see that in the grand scheme of things, that's not really true
 
Last edited:
But if their technique were so poor, then how come it's not exploited by other players with similar strength, fitness, and reflexes but superior technique?
The problem is that we cant find other players with similar strength, fitness and reflexes. If I say that Nadal`s and Federer`s technique is not so good it doesnt mean that I dont respect them. They are the best tennis players in the history of tennis. I only say that main reason of their success is not their technique but their physical fitness. If their technique was so good now we would see dozens of players in top 100 playing like Federer and Nadal. I cant see them. Those who tried to copy them lost their careers.
 
The problem is that we cant find other players with similar strength, fitness and reflexes. If I say that Nadal`s and Federer`s technique is not so good it doesnt mean that I dont respect them. They are the best tennis players in the history of tennis. I only say that main reason of their success is not their technique but their physical fitness. If their technique was so good now we would see dozens of players in top 100 playing like Federer and Nadal. I cant see them. Those who tried to copy them lost their careers.
But no two pros have identical strokes. It's a foolish endeavor to attempt to copy someone's stroke. I also don't believe Fed's physical fitness is that stellar compared to other players on tour. What almost everyone agrees on (except you, apparently), is that Fed and Nadal have excellent forehands.

A lot of amateur players make the mistake of looking at this pro or that pro's strokes and getting lost in irrelevant details; when they should be looking at things every pro does. Because those are the solid fundamentals to build your own strokes on.
 
3 people from not great town are on the top or near the top in their categories in Poland. It is obvious that there is something interesting in their play. It is even more interesting if they have bad technique. Maybe you dont understand what is important in tennis.

Federer is an average player on clay where you have to hit the ball many times to win a point. His forehand is the main reason of his failure. His grip is archaic. Old-fashioned. It only works on fast surfaces where balls bounce low. Of course on clay Federer can win some tournaments but it doesnt happen too often. Federer`s success is based on his excellent physical fitness. The same problem is with Nadal. His forehand technique is tragic. His backhand is even worse but it doesnt matter because he is so strong that he only needs to hit the ball safe.

.

07:52.
 
Federer is an average player on clay where you have to hit the ball many times to win a point. His forehand is the main reason of his failure. His grip is archaic. Old-fashioned. It only works on fast surfaces where balls bounce low. Of course on clay Federer can win some tournaments but it doesnt happen too often. Federer`s success is based on his excellent physical fitness. The same problem is with Nadal. His forehand technique is tragic. His backhand is even worse but it doesnt matter because he is so strong that he only needs to hit the ball safe.

.
Federer has won 11 clay court titles, including the French Open, and has played in the French Open finals another four times on top of that. That's a hell of a record for an average clay court player.

He's also won 6 Australian Open titles on slow, high-bouncing hard courts, which again is a hell of a record for someone whose forehand only works on fast, low-bouncing courts.

I'm starting to get the impression that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
 
Federer has won 11 clay court titles, including the French Open, and has played in the French Open finals another four times on top of that. That's a hell of a record for an average clay court player.

He's also won 6 Australian Open titles on slow, high-bouncing hard courts, which again is a hell of a record for someone whose forehand only works on fast, low-bouncing courts.

I'm starting to get the impression that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
On average, he won less than one tournament on clay a year.
 
Goffin, Zverev, Wawrinka, Thiem, Nishikori,...
Let's look at their accomplishments on the surface

Federer:
  • Best FO result: 1x W (+4x F)
  • Clay Masters titles: 6
  • Other clay titles: 4
A pretty respectable resume.

Goffin:
  • Best FO result: 1x QF
  • Clay Masters titles: 0
  • Other clay titles: 1
Zverev:
  • Best FO result: 1x QF
  • Clay Masters titles: 2
  • Other clay titles: 2
Wawrinka:
  • Best FO result: 1x W (+1x F)
  • Clay Masters titles: 1
  • Other clay titles: 5
Thiem:
  • Best FO result: 1x F
  • Clay Masters titles: 0
  • Other clay titles: 8
Nishikori:
  • Best FO result: 2x QF
  • Clay Masters titles: 0
  • Clay titles: 2
All 5 combined:
  • Best FO result: 1x W (+2x F)
  • Clay Masters titles: 3
  • Clay titles: 18
All these guys combined have achieved less than Fed on clay in big tournaments. Some "average" clay courter. :rolleyes:

Aside from the best clay courter ever (who you also think has a "tragic" forehand), the only guy one could rationally argue is a better clay courter is Djokovic.
 
Let's look at their accomplishments on the surface

Federer:
  • Best FO result: 1x W (+4x F)
  • Clay Masters titles: 6
  • Other clay titles: 4
A pretty respectable resume.

Goffin:
  • Best FO result: 1x QF
  • Clay Masters titles: 0
  • Other clay titles: 1
Zverev:
  • Best FO result: 1x QF
  • Clay Masters titles: 2
  • Other clay titles: 2
Wawrinka:
  • Best FO result: 1x W (+1x F)
  • Clay Masters titles: 1
  • Other clay titles: 5
Thiem:
  • Best FO result: 1x F
  • Clay Masters titles: 0
  • Other clay titles: 8
Nishikori:
  • Best FO result: 2x QF
  • Clay Masters titles: 0
  • Clay titles: 2
All 5 combined:
  • Best FO result: 1x W (+2x F)
  • Clay Masters titles: 3
  • Clay titles: 18
All these guys combined have achieved less than Fed on clay in big tournaments. "Average" clay courter :rolleyes:
Federer knows that he is not good on clay so he hasnt played tournaments on this surface this year. We dont need better proof.
 
Federer knows that he is not good on clay so he hasnt played tournaments on this surface this year. We dont need better proof.
Or maybe he knows he is almost 37 years old, an age where most players are already retired, and that playing on such a physically demanding surface is not good for him

His achievements on clay are leagues ahead of any of the guys you listed. So how exactly is he an "average" clay courter?
 
Or maybe he knows he is almost 37 years old, an age where most players are already retired, and that playing on such a physically demanding surface is not good for him

His achievements on clay are leagues ahead of any of the guys you listed. So how exactly is he an "average" clay courter?
We have already established that Federer`s physical fitness is exceptional. Even with his average technique on clay courts he still can achieve more than most players. But players who would try to copy his technique wouldnt have any chance for success on clay courts.
 
We have already established that Federer`s physical fitness is exceptional. Even with his average technique on clay courts he still can achieve more than most players. But players who would try to copy his technique wouldnt have any chance for success on clay courts.
I already copying any pro's technique is a waste of time. Regardless, nobody else in the world thinks Federer or Nadal's forehands are mediocre (or worse). That's pure delusion on your part.

Let's get back on topic here. If the 2HFH is so great, how come there are no men in the Top 500 in singles who uses this shot?
 
I already copying any pro's technique is a waste of time. Regardless, nobody else in the world thinks Federer or Nadal's forehands are mediocre (or worse). That's pure delusion on your part.

Let's get back on topic here. If the 2HFH is so great, how come there are no men in the Top 500 in singles who uses this shot?
Because all children are taught one handed forehand. Only weak girls are allowed to do that and those weak girls (Seles, Bartoli, Peng) won grand slams.
 
Because all children are taught one handed forehand. Only weak girls are allowed to do that and those weak girls (Seles, Bartoli, Peng) won grand slams.
But why are children being taught 1HFH? There was a time when there was a similar stigma attached to the 2HBH (only weak girls hit them), but that quickly changed when it produced results.

These are professionals competing for millions of dollars in prize money. If a stroke like the 2HFH would give them an advantage, they would use it.
 
But why are children being taught 1HFH? There was a time when there was a similar stigma attached to the 2HBH (only weak girls hit them), but that quickly changed when it produced results.

These are professionals competing for millions of dollars in prize money. If a stroke like the 2HFH would give them an advantage, they would use it.
Trainers just dont know how to hit the ball using two hands. As far as two handed forehand is concerned almost all trainers are amateurs.
 
Then why didn't they learn like they did with the 2HBH?
They couldnt find trainers who could teach them. I have been trying to copy two handed forehand of Peng Shuai for 3 years. Unfortunately my injured right wrist forced me to modify it. Even today I have changed it a little. There is no professional lesson of two handed forehand on youtube. And those lessons that I found contain false advises.
 
Because all children are taught one handed forehand. Only weak girls are allowed to do that and those weak girls (Seles, Bartoli, Peng) won grand slams.
What about all of the weak girls that were taught it and did not win slams? How can you take 3 [I noticed you dropped Hradecka] data points out of thousands and form a conclusion? What kind of theoretical physicist does that? Only if you're into string theory.
 
They couldnt find trainers who could teach them. I have been trying to copy two handed forehand of Peng Shuai for 3 years. Unfortunately my injured right wrist forced me to modify it. Even today I have changed it a little. There is no professional lesson of two handed forehand on youtube. And those lessons that I found contain false advises.
How come the 2HBH didn't have this problem back when everyone hit one handers?
 
What about all of the weak girls that were taught it and did not win slams? How can you take 3 [I noticed you dropped Hradecka] data points out of thousands and form a conclusion? What kind of theoretical physicist does that? Only if you're into string theory.
String theory can not be experimentally verified. I dropped Hradecka because now she is strong but she moves very slow. .....There were not so many slams so that all weak girls could win it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top