My thoughts on the two handed backhand vs one handed backhand

[Maximagq]

So my favorite player is Djokovic and I've tried to emulate his two handed backhand for fun sometimes. So tonight, I was hitting all two handed backhands. I realize I can hit it pretty well even though I'm a natural one hander, so I think past a certain stage, it doesn't matter whether you have a two hander or one hander. I think the real reason most kids have two handers is because at the earlier levels, strength is the biggest factor, and most people don't want to change what they are comfortable with. With the advent of Stan and some other top one handers, I think both one handers and two handers are equally successful. It all depends on the player.

 

[Topspin Shot]

I think two handers hold up slightly better the way the games's played nowadays, but mostly, it should be up to the player to decide what's best for him since clearly, one handers can still be superb. I personally can hit a one hander but pretty badly compared to my two hander.

 

[PhrygianDominant]

I have actually told Maxima this before, but I always felt that certain 1hbh and 2hbh techniques have a lot in common. The footwork is the part that really gets you.

 

[BevelDevil]

I think the real reason most kids have two handers is because at the earlier levels, strength is the biggest factor

With modern rackets I don't think strength is the limiting factor anymore. I think it's simply harder to learn and teach the 1hbh, especially in a group setting.

 

[Ash_Smith]

I think the real reason most kids have two handers is because at the earlier levels, strength is the biggest factor, and most people don't want to change what they are comfortable with.

Except that with the advent of mini-tennis/QuickStart/Hotshots etc this is no longer an issue and hasn't been for around 10 years in many countries running mini-tennis programmes.

I made a thread about it a couple of years back...

 

[GoudX]

Except that with the advent of mini-tennis/QuickStart/Hotshots etc this is no longer an issue and hasn't been for around 10 years in many countries running mini-tennis programmes.

I made a thread about it a couple of years back...

So will we be seeing a spate of 1HBHs coming through in 5 years or so?

(10 years after you noticed the change - which gives a few years for coaches to catch on that 1 handers were teachable in mini-tennis, then the rest of the time for the kids to get old enough to reach the tour)

 

[Ash_Smith]

^^^ maybe! who knows! I hope so!

My concern is that a lot of coaches today, who grew up and learned their tennis in the late 80's and 90's probably learned a two hander themselves and may not know how to properly teach a single hander.

 

[jasonmcmann]

Inferior stroke ?

Does anybody know - adding up all the GS winners, men/women, 1 handers vs. 2 handers..... what are the totals?

my guess is they are quite even.

 

[DefensiveTennis]

1hbh offers some things the 2hbh does not, and vice versa - that's all there is to it. Up to you which set of advantages you prefer to implement in your own game, and therefore which backhand you pick.

If you want to stand up on the baseline and hit everything flat and early, go with 2hbh. Be a machine baseliner.

If you want to stand back, and use more topspin and angles to open up the court (clay-court type 1hbh) - or if you want to slice and dice and approach the net and volley more (grass-court type 1hbh), go with the 1hbh.

You can't just say "I give the 2hbh 9 out of 10 and the 1hbh 8 out of 10, therefore you should pick the 2hbh." That's basically your argument.

Is modern tennis about slice and dice and approach the net like old school grass court tennis? NO.

Is modern tennis hitting loopy topspin shots with one handed backhand? Yes
Is modern tennis taking it early and being a machine baseliner with two hander? Yes, This is the two styles we see coming to the fore in the modern game.

In modern tennis the greatest quality is putting the ball in play. Modern tennis favours compact swings and consistency. Returning is much easier with two handed backhand and guess what that is the second most important shot in tennis.

Why dont you understand? You have debated this for ages and you still dont get it, its pretty simple if you weigh the pros and cons.

Being 5"5 is a height which is inferior to 6"1 in tennis terms. Fact.

 

[Ballinbob]

I can rally with a 1hbh, but returning serve is near impossible for me with it. That is the number one reason why I switched, I just could not handle a high kicking serve for the life of me

I agree with Topspin that the 2hbh is maybe slightly better for the modern game.

 

[DefensiveTennis]

I can rally with a 1hbh, but returning serve is near impossible for me with it. That is the number one reason why I switched, I just could not handle a high kicking serve for the life of me

I agree with Topspin that the 2hbh is maybe slightly better for the modern game.

Dont you mean you agree with me?

 

[Mechanism]

is it in the rules that you can only use one or the other per match?

 

[julian]

LTA and backhand

^^^ maybe! who knows! I hope so!

My concern is that a lot of coaches today, who grew up and learned their tennis in the late 80's and 90's probably learned a two hander themselves and may not know how to properly teach a single hander.

Mr Ash Smith,
I apologize for asking too many questions.

My last questions is:
does LTA have any documents/videos describing what USTA calls
10_and_under_tennis_competencies_green ?

Examples at the USTA end are called correspondingly
78 Green Backhand Technique
78 Green Backhand Play
in the link below (after removing xxx)
xxxhttp://www.usta.com/About-USTA/Player-Development/10_and_under_tennis_competencies_green/
Thank you
Respectfully yours,
Julian W.Mielniczuk
USPTA
Team Babolat

 

[julian]

Please see my post#23 below

So my favorite player is Djokovic and I've tried to emulate his two handed backhand for fun sometimes. So tonight, I was hitting all two handed backhands. I realize I can hit it pretty well even though I'm a natural one hander, so I think past a certain stage, it doesn't matter whether you have a two hander or one hander. I think the real reason most kids have two handers is because at the earlier levels, strength is the biggest factor, and most people don't want to change what they are comfortable with. With the advent of Stan and some other top one handers, I think both one handers and two handers are equally successful. It all depends on the player.

Please see my post#23 below

 

[Ash_Smith]

Hi Julian

No worries. Yes, there are competencies laid out, which are used when coaches assess players for talent id/talent selection purposes. No video's though and they are more in line with general stroke fundamentals, than specific stroke detail.

On our coaching courses (both LTA and RPT) there are technical teaching sections and progressions are taught to coaches for teaching both single and double handed backhands also, but i'm not sure that covers it all in enough detail.

 

[GoudX]

Is modern tennis about slice and dice and approach the net like old school grass court tennis? NO.

Is modern tennis hitting loopy topspin shots with one handed backhand? Yes
Is modern tennis taking it early and being a machine baseliner with two hander? Yes, This is the two styles we see coming to the fore in the modern game.

In modern tennis the greatest quality is putting the ball in play. Modern tennis favours compact swings and consistency. Returning is much easier with two handed backhand and guess what that is the second most important shot in tennis.

Why dont you understand? You have debated this for ages and you still dont get it, its pretty simple if you weigh the pros and cons.

Being 5"5 is a height which is inferior to 6"1 in tennis terms. Fact.

You are ignoring recent developments in 1hbh technique.

Your image of the 1hbh is the shot which is common throughout practise courts throughout the world. A shot hit with a conservative grip where the stance is completely closed, which is hit relatively flat with no movement in the shoulders and hips. This is very similar to the traditional closed stance forehand - and arguably as outdated.

However a silent revolution is occurring in 1HBH technique. A modern variant on the 1HBH has appeared at pro levels, essentially following the changes which occured to the forehand in the 90s/2000s. Using a more open grip, and engaging the hips and shoulders into the shot has allowed players to hit much more heavy shots, and allows open stance hitting, with a much higher contact point - even allowing players to push off the back foot into mid air shots! This allows the 1HBH to go toe to toe with the 2HBH.

While the 2hbh is still superior on serve returns, the best backhands in the world once a rally has started are arguably 1HBHs. Wawrinka and Gasquet both hit this more modern variant on the backhand, rotating through the shot and are able to go toe-to-toe against Nadal, who can break down most 2HBHs. Federer on the other hand hits a much more conservative shot. It is much closer to the traditional technique - and players like Nadal and Djokovic can pick on it, as it is nowhere near as flexible and is harder to hit 'safe' heavy topspin with.

Gasquet (modern): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwA90Bj0zyQ
Wawrinka (modern): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgNASyLyGAg
vs
Lendl (traditional): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd2DbLjM3fU
Sampras (traditional): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QMF5U-GdjE

 

[julian]

Thank you

Hi Julian

No worries. Yes, there are competencies laid out, which are used when coaches assess players for talent id/talent selection purposes. No video's though and they are more in line with general stroke fundamentals, than specific stroke detail.

On our coaching courses (both LTA and RPT) there are technical teaching sections and progressions are taught to coaches for teaching both single and double handed backhands also, but i'm not sure that covers it all in enough detail.

Thank you
Julian

 

[tennis_hack]

Is modern tennis about slice and dice and approach the net like old school grass court tennis? NO.

Is modern tennis hitting loopy topspin shots with one handed backhand? Yes
Is modern tennis taking it early and being a machine baseliner with two hander? Yes, This is the two styles we see coming to the fore in the modern game.

In modern tennis the greatest quality is putting the ball in play. Modern tennis favours compact swings and consistency. Returning is much easier with two handed backhand and guess what that is the second most important shot in tennis.

Why dont you understand? You have debated this for ages and you still dont get it, its pretty simple if you weigh the pros and cons.

Being 5"5 is a height which is inferior to 6"1 in tennis terms. Fact.

Not sure what you don't understand.

1hbh offers unique advantages to 2hbh. 2hbh offers advantages not found in 1hbh. Swings and roundabouts. It is up to the player to decide, definitely not up to you to tell everyone who uses a 1hbh that they are an idiot who will never improve.

1hbh can get increased topspin, and increased angles. You lose out on consistency in that the swing is longer than 2hbh so more can go wrong. But you gain in consistency in that you can put more topspin on the ball, so the ball can be hit higher over the net, and has less chance of being hit out.

Offensively, 1hbh loses out on being able to dictate the play by taking the ball early with aggressive court positioning (unless you hit the ball early like Federer, Blake and Haas). But it gains in offence by being able to hit sick angles due to that increased topspin.

And why do you care about aggressive court positioning, anyway? Taking shots on the rise is inherently more risky than standing back and being passive - so if you're truly into defence and consistency above all else as you seem to be claiming, then you would not advise anyone to hit the ball early.

Ultimately, the 2hbh can't hit shots like this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWoKA21Bm4k

And shots like these make watching tennis fantastic, so it is just as well that you aren't in a position to succeed with your objective of coaching the 1hbh out of the modern game.

I have no problem whatsoever with people playing like Gilles Simon. I would just have a problem if every single tennis player in the world plays like Gilles Simon. This seems to be what you want.

Tennis is at least partially about individuality and expression - at all levels in the game. Many different ways to get the job done and 1hbh is still a valid method at the very elite, as Wawrinka has just proven.

 

[DefensiveTennis]

You are ignoring recent developments in 1hbh technique.

Your image of the 1hbh is the shot which is common throughout practise courts throughout the world. A shot hit with a conservative grip where the stance is completely closed, which is hit relatively flat with no movement in the shoulders and hips. This is very similar to the traditional closed stance forehand - and arguably as outdated.

However a silent revolution is occurring in 1HBH technique. A modern variant on the 1HBH has appeared at pro levels, essentially following the changes which occured to the forehand in the 90s/2000s. Using a more open grip, and engaging the hips and shoulders into the shot has allowed players to hit much more heavy shots, and allows open stance hitting, with a much higher contact point - even allowing players to push off the back foot into mid air shots! This allows the 1HBH to go toe to toe with the 2HBH.

While the 2hbh is still superior on serve returns, the best backhands in the world once a rally has started are arguably 1HBHs. Wawrinka and Gasquet both hit this more modern variant on the backhand, rotating through the shot and are able to go toe-to-toe against Nadal, who can break down most 2HBHs. Federer on the other hand hits a much more conservative shot. It is much closer to the traditional technique - and players like Nadal and Djokovic can pick on it, as it is nowhere near as flexible and is harder to hit 'safe' heavy topspin with.

Gasquet (modern): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwA90Bj0zyQ
Wawrinka (modern): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgNASyLyGAg
vs
Lendl (traditional): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd2DbLjM3fU
Sampras (traditional): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QMF5U-GdjE

Single handers have come on an incredibly amount. They are now probably more suited to hitting heavy powerful shots on slower courts than the previous idea that one handers suited fast courts.

The modern two hander is a heavy heavy, powerful ball, like wawrinka or gasquet or almagro, yet they still make 2 many errors because it is easier to control a shot with two hands vs one.

Just accept it the difference is very very very small but it is there.

It would be like if someone had to choose between poly strings (2 hander) or synthetic gut (1 hander), then synthetic gut would be an inferior choice. Obviously you could still be amazing with a full string job of synthetic gut, it would give you some advantages over a full poly stringjob but overall it would be inferior.

Get it?

 

[Maximagq]

I think it's more the player than the stroke per se. Obviously, the sample size of good two handers at the moment is much larger than good one handers which skews the distribution, but Wawrinka's backhand was destroying Djokovic this year, and it hurt me as a fan to see that, but I admit how good Wawrinka's backhand is.

 

[tennis_hack]

Single handers have come on an incredibly amount. They are now probably more suited to hitting heavy powerful shots on slower courts than the previous idea that one handers suited fast courts.

The modern two hander is a heavy heavy, powerful ball, like wawrinka or gasquet or almagro, yet they still make 2 many errors because it is easier to control a shot with two hands vs one.

Just accept it the difference is very very very small but it is there.

It would be like if someone had to choose between poly strings (2 hander) or synthetic gut (1 hander), then synthetic gut would be an inferior choice. Obviously you could still be amazing with a full string job of synthetic gut, it would give you some advantages over a full poly stringjob but overall it would be inferior.

Get it?

They may make slightly more errors, but there is also a difference in the power and spin available to 1hbh vs 2hbh.

Wake me up when Djokovic is putting 3500+RPM @ 100+MPH on his backhands.

So there is more potential for winners, and don't keep up with your spiel about 'winners don't matter in tennis' either. 2hbh gets the nod in one department, 1hbh gets the nod in the other, so they are effectively 'side-grades' of each other, and the 2hbh is not a straightforward upgrade from the 1hbh.

Tennis is a balance between winners and errors. Whilst you can lose a match despite hitting more winners than your opponent - you can just as easily lose a match despite making fewer errors than your opponent.

 

[Ash_Smith]

^^^ Don't worry Hack DT has been struck by the Banhammer! Best start looking out for his next alias!

 

[GoudX]

Single handers have come on an incredibly amount. They are now probably more suited to hitting heavy powerful shots on slower courts than the previous idea that one handers suited fast courts.

The modern two hander is a heavy heavy, powerful ball, like wawrinka or gasquet or almagro, yet they still make 2 many errors because it is easier to control a shot with two hands vs one.

Just accept it the difference is very very very small but it is there.

It would be like if someone had to choose between poly strings (2 hander) or synthetic gut (1 hander), then synthetic gut would be an inferior choice. Obviously you could still be amazing with a full string job of synthetic gut, it would give you some advantages over a full poly stringjob but overall it would be inferior.

Get it?

Actually "The difference is very very" big.

The 2 hander is more stable, while the 1 hander produces heavier shots, but that doesn't make either better.

Wawrinka would not be able to blast player off the court as effectively with a 2 hander as he would not have the pace/spin to push players back AND open up the angles from the LHS of the court. He would not be a Grand Slam winner (or even finalist) with a 2 hander, as he wouldn't be able to dictate the point as effectively. Equally without his 1HBH, Federer would not be able to disguise the slice he uses to set up his forehand, and would be forced into more of a grinding role - which he is less suited to.

Likewise, Djokovic would not be the champion he is without his 2 hander. He wouldn't be able to consistently rifle shots DTL off the bounce with a 1HBH as it would have less stability, so he would not be able to position himself as aggressively on the baseline. And Nadal relies on the consistency of his 2hbh to allow him to defend against his opponents strength until he can set up a shot on his forehand.

It's horses for courses. They are not directly comparable as they are not trying to acomplish the same thing.

 

[GoudX]

^^^ Don't worry Hack DT has been struck by the Banhammer! Best start looking out for his next alias!

So everyone else wins the arguement by way of default right? :-?

 

[Ash_Smith]

^^^ Yep, pretty sure that's how it works

 

[LeeD]

Player preference, for sure.
If we look at backhands only, Nadal, DJ, Murray, Stan, Fed, and we're using the AO as an example, Stan's strength was him not only able to compete with topspin, but his slice was deeper and wider than the other guy's slices, allowing him to stay in the point and vary the pace/spin without getting constantly attacked.

 

[corbind]

^^^ Don't worry Hack DT has been struck by the Banhammer! Best start looking out for his next alias!

My block list is growing long with the aliases.

 

[LeeD]

We might need to separate this discussion and catagorize whether we are talking of 1hbh vs 2hbh for top level pro players, or for the general public at somewhat decent levels, say.... 4.0.

 

[Tight Lines]

My two cents.

IMO two handed backhand is better for hackers. My reason? hackers often don't have the proper swing mechanic because they tend not to lay the wrist back on impact.

Harry

 

[LeeD]

Good point TightLines, and one that expands our knowledge of your thinking.
StanWawrinka.
RogerFederer.
RichardGasquet.
NicolasAlmagro.
GregorDimitrov.
How about both those guys in that "5.5 vs 6.0" video?
According to you, all hackers.

 

[julian]

Does the 1 hander produces heavier shots?

Actually "The difference is very very" big.

The 2 hander is more stable, while the 1 hander produces heavier shots, but that doesn't make either better.

Wawrinka would not be able to blast player off the court as effectively with a 2 hander as he would not have the pace/spin to push players back AND open up the angles from the LHS of the court. He would not be a Grand Slam winner (or even finalist) with a 2 hander, as he wouldn't be able to dictate the point as effectively. Equally without his 1HBH, Federer would not be able to disguise the slice he uses to set up his forehand, and would be forced into more of a grinding role - which he is less suited to.

Likewise, Djokovic would not be the champion he is without his 2 hander. He wouldn't be able to consistently rifle shots DTL off the bounce with a 1HBH as it would have less stability, so he would not be able to position himself as aggressively on the baseline. And Nadal relies on the consistency of his 2hbh to allow him to defend against his opponents strength until he can set up a shot on his forehand.

It's horses for courses. They are not directly comparable as they are not trying to acomplish the same thing.

A speed of a ball produced by a double hander is between 3 and 10 percents HIGHER than a corresponding speed by a 1 hander
See Reid and Elliot Sports Biomechanics Vol.1(1),47-68

So if we take into account speed ONLY I disagree with your your statement
"the 1 hander produces heavier shots".
If we take into account speed AND spin one has to decide how both of these factors enter the definition of "a heavy ball"

 

[LeeD]

Is it important to first define what exactly IS a heavy ball, and what is not?
Most of us agree Nadal, when healthy and playing well, hit's a "heavy ball", right? Can we agree?
Now, if Nadal hits his "heavy ball" every time to Fed's forehand, and short to boot, is that still a "heavy" ball?
I think not.
Heavy ball is a combination of spin, speed , LOCATION, depth, and possibly a few other factors that gives the opponent problems, so the opponent cannot hit his best shots against it.
Now, what if the opponent was to change? Say....Nadal is crushing high topspin heavy balls to StanW's backhand. Is Nadal still hitting a "heavy" ball to Stan? Or is Stan eating up that ball and killing Nadal with it, meaning it's not heavy TO STAN.
Perhaps, PERCEPTION is one of the criterias?

 

[ProgressoR]

We might need to separate this discussion and catagorize whether we are talking of 1hbh vs 2hbh for top level pro players, or for the general public at somewhat decent levels, say.... 4.0.

Yes, I've always wondered why we have threads arguing about pro shots and which is better, when for us, the actual rec/club playing population, we are never going to get as much out of either a 1 or 2 hander as the pro's and we are never going to be able to maximise the advantages of each.......

Yet we have all the known deficiencies of these strokes and tons more, because we are not pro level players.

I am interested in what is best for me, and I decided that some time back and am focussing on trying to make that better, what the pro's do is fine and interesting, but how much of that applies to us, I mean.... really applies???

 

[GoudX]

A speed of a ball produced by a double hander is between 3 and 10 percents HIGHER than a corresponding speed by a 1 hander
See Reid and Elliot Sports Biomechanics Vol.1(1),47-68

So if we take into account speed ONLY I disagree with your your statement
"the 1 hander produces heavier shots".
If we take into account speed AND spin one has to decide how both of these factors enter the definition of "a heavy ball"

Firstly, if I had meant faster I would have said it. Heavier is generally taken to mean the combination of pace and spin on shot.

Secondly, I wouldn't put to much weight on a 12 year old study of 18 people when trying to assess how powerful the modern 1HBH is. A few players with particularly weak 1 handers could easily account for the measured difference in such a small sample group. Nevermind the fact that there could well be a bias drawing less powerful players towards the 1hbh, which would skew the results. Nonetheless, the recent developments in 1hbh technique have significantly increased the power available on a one hander, in order to fit the modern baseline game.

 

[GoudX]

Yes, I've always wondered why we have threads arguing about pro shots and which is better, when for us, the actual rec/club playing population, we are never going to get as much out of either a 1 or 2 hander as the pro's and we are never going to be able to maximise the advantages of each.......

Yet we have all the known deficiencies of these strokes and tons more, because we are not pro level players.

I am interested in what is best for me, and I decided that some time back and am focussing on trying to make that better, what the pro's do is fine and interesting, but how much of that applies to us, I mean.... really applies???

Being fit, having well practised efficient strokes, being mentally strong and memorising since standard plays, can make a player perform their best. Anything which improves any of those groups applies. This includes learning pro tactics and seeing how they hit efficient shots.

 

[julian]

Do you have any numbers?

Firstly, if I had meant faster I would have said it. Heavier is generally taken to mean the combination of pace and spin on shot.

Secondly, I wouldn't put to much weight on a 12 year old study of 18 people when trying to assess how powerful the modern 1HBH is. A few players with particularly weak 1 handers could easily account for the measured difference in such a small sample group. Nevermind the fact that There could well be a bias drawing less powerful players towards the the case, which would skew the results. Nonetheless, the recent developments in 1hbh technique have significantly increased the power available on a one hander, in order to fit the modern baseline game.

Roetert states that speeds of a ball from one hander and two hander are comparable.
I can dig up his quote if I have to.
Do you have any numbers of rotations per minute of top one hander?
The corresponding number for Djokovic should be available.
It is not clear why the article could contain a bias against a one hander and does not have a bias
against a two hander.
I assume that you have read the article in question.

 

[GoudX]

Oops, double post.

 

[tennis_hack]

Roetert states that speeds of a ball from one hander and two hander are comparable.
I can dig up his quote if I have to.
Do you have any numbers of rotations per minute of top one hander?
The corresponding number for Djokovic should be available.
It is not clear why the article could contain a bias against a one hander and does not have a bias
against a two hander.
I assume that you have read the article in question.

I saw a stat box at Wimbledon in Gasquet's match against Tomic last year (2013). The stat box said that Gasquet's average backhand is hit at '>3000RPM'. So Gasquet hits more than 3000 rpm at Wimbledon, where he'd be actually more likely to hit flatter.

By comparison that same stat box in that same match measured Tomic's average backhand RPM, and it was less than 1000rpm.

Djokovic's average forehand topspin RPM is 2550, so that's less than Gasquet's backhand topspin rpm. And bear in mind Djokovic hit's his backhand much flatter than his forehand, so I would not be surprised if his backhand topspin was around 1500 rpm - or less than half that of Gasquet's backhand topspin rpm. Murray's backhand is even flatter than Djokovic's.

So while Djokovic may crank out 103mph backhand winners (although I haven't seen him hit that big), it will in all likelihood have only half the topspin on it as Gasquet's backhands hit at the same speed, so a very big difference in ball 'heaviness'...

Again, not detracting from the 2hbh's advantages in the ROS and hitting on the rise, but, when given time to do so, I'm certain the modern 1hbh can hit a much heavier ball.

 

[GoudX]

Roetert states that speeds of a ball from one hander and two hander are comparable.
I can dig up his quote if I have to.
Do you have any numbers of rotations per minute of top one hander?
The corresponding number for Djokovic should be available.
It is not clear why the article could contain a bias against a one hander and does not have a bias
against a two hander.
I assume that you have read the article in question.

I haven't been able to read it in depth, however I know enough about statistics to say that a sample of 18 isn't enough to remove the effects of individual variation. I'd want at least 50 in each group before drawing any kind of conclusion. Furthermore bias could exist in the entire tennis population, and I'm not convinced that enough was done to identify cause and effect. It could be that the power difference comes from a trend in the strength, height or equipment used in the groups. After all, 1hbh players traditionally tend to use low power midsized racquets and rush the net, which would reduce power compared to a widebody middles racquet being swung by a baseline specialist who have developed faster swings.

I'm not doubting the accuracy of their study, but I'd be very careful about drawing conclusions about the differences between the underlying difference between the shots.

Plus what ^ he said about spin.

 

[ace_pace]

Look IMO its ultimately the players decision. Some people are just naturally better with one or the other, very rarely do you see a person who can do equally well with both.

Personally, I chose to use the 2HBH simply because of two things: serve returns and the fact that I was once right handed (I play tennis left handed so I can cheat like nadal).

 

[ProgressoR]

Being fit, having well practised efficient strokes, being mentally strong and memorising since standard plays, can make a player perform their best. Anything which improves any of those groups applies. This includes learning pro tactics and seeing how they hit efficient shots.

Learning from pro's is important and I would recommend it, however making key decisions on your game based purely on what you see pro's do needs to be questioned, because pro's can do what we can't.

In this context, if you like the 2h backhand because you see pro's with a great 2h BH but then when we try it its maybe adequate, or a bit better or worse than that, yet we seem to be happy because we made a choice based on what we see pro's do.

It seems to me we need to make choices based on what we can do, what we find natural, and on the amount of time we can spend to learn a skill. Similarly choosing a W FH grip because we see a pro use it incredibly well, then we use it only to develop a bad stroke and then the W grip becomes a liability, its like buying a rolls royce when all you can do is turn left as a driver.

Clearly both 1h and 2h are viable strokes at the very top of the game, that is all we really need to know isn't it?

 

[julian]

US and Eastern Europe

Learning from pro's is important and I would recommend it, however making key decisions on your game based purely on what you see pro's do needs to be questioned, because pro's can do what we can't.

In this context, if you like the 2h backhand because you see pro's with a great 2h BH but then when we try it its maybe adequate, or a bit better or worse than that, yet we seem to be happy because we made a choice based on what we see pro's do.

It seems to me we need to make choices based on what we can do, what we find natural, and on the amount of time we can spend to learn a skill. Similarly choosing a W FH grip because we see a pro use it incredibly well, then we use it only to develop a bad stroke and then the W grip becomes a liability, its like buying a rolls royce when all you can do is turn left as a driver.

Clearly both 1h and 2h are viable strokes at the very top of the game, that is all we really need to know isn't it?

NO
There is one problem-
around 95 precents of juniors in US and Eastern Europe are coached now double handed backhand (plus some variations of slice).
A single handed backhand (flat and topspin) is very rarely taught at a junior level in those two geographical areas.

 

[ProgressoR]

NO
There is one problem-
around 95 precents of juniors in US and Eastern Europe are coached now double handed backhand (plus some variations of slice).
A single handed backhand (flat and topspin) is very rarely taught at a junior level in those two geographical areas.

Ok, and I agree with that.

So are we saying that essentially the choice is made for us as juniors (those that started as juniors) and then in later life we have the choice to continue the 2 hander or leave it to learn what is essentially a new stroke?

For those, like myself, who learnt as adults, I tried both and found very quickly that a 2 hander just made no sense to me, and I could not hit it, whereas a one hander felt more natural, so I stuck with that.

In that context, surely it doesn't matter at all to me which stroke is more efficient, stable or better in the pro game? I am not, and did not make my choices on this basis!! I am sure there are lots of others who made the choice in the same manner as me (ie what just feels better for me).

It may matter to someone intending to earn his living in the game, but as far as I know this forum is made up of hacks like me (some better than others) and coaches.

So once we make our choice based on what works for us (or once our choice is made for us as juniors and we had no or little control over it) - why do we feel the need to try to prove one is superior to the other at pro level?

That's not the basis on which we made our choices surely?

 

[sadowsk2]

As a one hander I jut wanted to say this three is great and very informative! Thanks to all contributing to it

 

[thebluereverend]

Like someone else pointed out earlier there's nothing that says you have to use one or the other although I'm sure for high level play it's best to just pick one although there are obviously ATP pros to do occasionally bring the other style out of nowhere (Tsonga comes to mind). For me personally I use a one hander but sometimes if I am stretched wide and the ball is already getting behind my lead shoulder I will switch to a two hander in order to sort of lob the ball back.