One-handed backhand effectiveness?

L

LowProfile

Professional
Why do almost all the pros who use one hand on the backhand side have great backhands? Many two-handed backhand users (Roddick comes to mind) have mediocre or plain bad backhands while one-handed backhand users almost all have great backhands. Ljubicic, Gasquet, Federer, Henin, Mauresmo, Gaudio, Haas, Pavei (guy who took out Roddick at Davis Cup), Blake, and Srichaphan (just to name a few) all have forcing backhands that can hit winners.

On the other hand, you'd be hard pressed to name a pro whose one handed backhand is way below the rest of his/her game (perhaps Sampras, but he didn't really have a bad backhand, just an amazing game).

Not to say that there aren't good two-handed backhands in existence (there most certainly are), but why is it that nearly all one-handed backhands are good? If it's such a great shot, then why don't the tennis academies teach the shot more often?
 
Great point, you never see a one-hander where that side is the noticeably worser side, where as with two-handers there's lots of players where its almost a crutch that can't even help enough to keep it from being a noticeably worser side. Most of the time the one-hander is either the more reliable and/or power side. Even on the women's side now with mauresmo and henin at the top of the game. You know, I really think the the two-handed hype from the past few years have finally outlived its fad. I think same reason why people shouldn't have two handed forehands unless they absolutely need to, they shouldn't develop two-handed backhands unless they absolutely have to. You're just constricting yourself.
 
There are many players that have mediocre 1 handed backhands. Greg Rusedski, Max Myrni, Ivo Karlovic, Kenneth Carlsen all have mediocre backhands.
 
Well, mechanically, one-handed backhands are very tough on the shoulder.

(The follow through phase of the one-hander is very bad on the shoulder. The shoulder is not as stable when it's raised that high. The supraspinatus tendon of the rotator cuff, along with a sac of lubricating tissue called bursa actually rubs against a bone called acromion. Repetitive irritation can be very painful, this is called impingement syndrome. Further irritation and the bursa becomes useless as a cushion, and the supraspinatus tendon rubs against the acromion bone, eventually the tendon tears away. This is why serves lead to shoulder problems, especially the kick serve.
A strong rotator cuff will prevent such rubbing. Trust me, coming back from torn rotator cuff surgery taught me a lot about the shoulder. I had a partially torn supraspinatus, my bursa was removed because of inflammation and it was basically useless, supraspinatus was repaired. So i have to keep my rotator cuff strong to prevent tearing my surgically repaired supraspinatus again. I was 16 when i had the surgery, i'm 20 now. Made a full recovery but i need to work on my shoulders all the time, to prevent and keep it strong
Sorry for such a long explanation, but it helps my argument)

Tennis lesson usually starts when a person is young, the supporting tendons around the shoulder (rotator cuff) arent strong enough. So it's recommended that kids start with two-handers, they then get so comfortable with it, it's hard for them to change to a one-hander. And in tennis, you stick with what works.

Luckily for me, i was taught one-hander first, two-hander second. And i chose one-hander. It just feels so comfortable. For me, two-hander is the harder of the two shots.
 
I think mediocre 1hbs are easier to attack than mediocre 2hbs, so it forces you to develop a decent one if you want to get any better.
 
Because one-handed backhands are just plain better IMHO. More reach, more variety, more power, more slice, more spin, better transition game, better volleys, etc. Why not more academies don't teach it is beyond me. Maybe now with top players like Federer, Ljubicic, Blake, Haas, Srichaphan, Henin-Hardenne, Mauresmo, etc., more academies will start teaching it again like they did 25 years ago.

I know I certainly wouldn't send my kid to an academy that only teaches two-handed backhands.
 
Ever notice no one ever hits back handed punches in boxing, but in martial arts it's a knock out punch? It's out lawed casue it's a more natural motion, more powerful motion, once the rotator is strong enough. (Too bad for most kids the 2hb is standard, due to weak rotators.)

All the current 1hb players who have good ones can learn from Henin. She has great power with a small frame, due to good technique. She arm bars the shot way out in front of hitting foot, with full powerful follow through, and stays down beautifully, with explosive recovery step. Makes her dangerous off both sides.


Fed's bh is still his weak pt. Santoro attacks it as does Rafa. Once his confidence on that side goes, he loses. It's really the only way to beat him now. Fed's feel is so good he often hits amazing 1hb anyway, just as Sampras used to do against Agassi, for winners. But that's his weak side, and can be improved, esp. with putaway power from baseline, something he has less problem with on his fh side.
 
lucky leprechaun said:
Great point, you never see a one-hander where that side is the noticeably worser side, where as with two-handers there's lots of players where its almost a crutch that can't even help enough to keep it from being a noticeably worser side. Most of the time the one-hander is either the more reliable and/or power side. Even on the women's side now with mauresmo and henin at the top of the game. You know, I really think the the two-handed hype from the past few years have finally outlived its fad. I think same reason why people shouldn't have two handed forehands unless they absolutely need to, they shouldn't develop two-handed backhands unless they absolutely have to. You're just constricting yourself.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's because two-handers are people who never learned how to hit a real backhand with one hand?

I hit a one-handed backhand and it's more reliable, more powerful, and has more variety than my forehand. I often run around my forehand to hit my backhand, including inside-out one-handed backhands for clean winners. :D
 
BreakPoint said:
Perhaps it's because two-handers are people who never learned how to hit a real backhand with one hand?

I hit a one-handed backhand and it's more reliable, more powerful, and has more variety than my forehand. I often run around my forehand to hit my backhand, including inside-out one-handed backhands for clean winners. :D
Click to expand...

Everyone that uses a 1 handed backhand is going to say a 1 handed backhand is the best, while people that use a 2 handed backhand is going to say a 2 handed backhand is the best.
 
One handed backhand is a good when it's good but extremely bad when it's bad. On the other hand a two handed backhand is good when it's good and not as bad when it's bad.

One handed backhands has it's limitations such as high bouncing shots to the backhand side is very difficult to deal with slicing or topspin.

For me I love the one handed backhand. It's what I started with and what I've kept. The two handed backhand is pretty nice as well depending on the person heh. My varsity coach switched from a one handed backhand to a two handed backhand because he's old and wear & tear on the body. Very beautiful and heavy backhand that's hard to deal with.
 
A two-handed backhand is like a monkey f****** an elephant. It just looks awful....Visual pollution of the lowest form. Brad Gilbert's fault, I'm sure.....

-Robert
________
Honda cbr150r
 
Last edited:
quest01 said:
Everyone that uses a 1 handed backhand is going to say a 1 handed backhand is the best, while people that use a 2 handed backhand is going to say a 2 handed backhand is the best.
Click to expand...

True. But I hear a lot of two-handers say they wish they were able to hit a one-handed backhand but I never hear a one-hander say they wish they could hit a two-handed backhand. That leads me to believe that two-handers are mostly people that are not able to hit one-handed backhands but wish they could.
 
I think everyone agrees that if you did a poll of the general public and a poll of the general tennis playing public, you will find the result that 1-handers are more aesthetically pleasing. If you couple this with the conclusion here that as far as results, one-hander and two-handers are equal. You must then come to the conclusion that the "total package" makes one-handers the winner. Sometimes the same tasty dish presented in an attractive manner makes the most delectable meal. I must admit safin's agassi's kafelnikov's two handers look quite delectable too :mrgreen:
 
That's true. And i hate it when someone tells you on an off day "why dont you just use a two-hander?" That gets annoying because one-handers are stereotypically more risky than a two-handers.
 
The 1-hander is better on running backhands. It's hard to hit a 2 hander while running unless you want to slide like Nadal. That's why you might hear some 2-handers say they wish they had a 1-hander. But the 2-hander is perfect for hitting those flat, heavy crosscourt shots.

The reason the 1-handers are often very good on that side is probably because they had very knowledgable parents. No kid wants to hit the one-handed backhand. I didn't even like hitting a one-handed forehand. But these guys had parents/coaches who were trying to mold them into something special from a young age. The 1-hander is probably easier and more fluid, but there is plenty of proof that you can be just as good with a 2-hander.
 
chess9 said:
A two-handed backhand is like a monkey f****** an elephant. It just looks awful....Visual pollution of the lowest form. Brad Gilbert's fault, I'm sure.....

-Robert
Click to expand...
:D
I got a hearty laugh out of that one. Just wish I had read this in the morning instead of before going to bed. Now there can be no sleep.
 
Bottom line is results, and what you feel more confident in. I've used both, and each have their advantages and disadvantages.

I suggest using the one hander first, but if it turns out too unstable then switch to the 2 hander. Whichever you decide upon, practice the heck out of it.

My one hander feels so beautiful when I connect with it, but that is usually on an easy ball when I have plenty of time and can set up. On most forcing shots, I see the value in the extra stability of the 2 hander and the consistency it brings. Your mileage will vary
 
AngeloDS said:
One handed backhand is a good when it's good but extremely bad when it's bad. On the other hand a two handed backhand is good when it's good and not as bad when it's bad.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Kids who start very early playing tennis usually don´t have enogh strenght to hold the racquet to make a 1hbh. That´s the main reason that they go with the 2h crap.
 
It's not to say that people with two-handed backhands automatically have worse backhands than those who use one hand (this is hardly the case, I'd rather have Safin or Agassi's backhand than that of Federer or Ljubicic).

I'm just wondering why there seems to be so few people with great two-handed backhands compared to those with one handers.
 
Tennis strokes go through fads as well. In the tennis boom of the 70's, new players wanted to play like Connors, Evert, or Borg (notice that no one ever really wanted to emulate McEnroe). In the 80's and 90's, 3 out of the 4 top American men (Agassi, Courier, Chang) had great 2-hand backhands as well. I still have vivid memories of trying to emulate Agassi's 2-hd backhand topsin lob, mostly ending with a ball hitting the fence on the fly.

Amateur players like to copy the world's best players because those players are models of success. With super slo-mo and Tivo, watching tennis on television can now be very instructional in addition to entertaining. In the years that Henin first come on the scene, I can't count how many times I saw that gorgeous backhand in slow motion. I even had 2 tennis lessons that year where my instructors tried to teach that backhand with the extreme eastern grip (also futile).

As more and more all court games have seen success at the pro level, one-handed backhands have regained in prominence. For all of it's advantages, the 2-hander is really a baseliners stroke and nothing can beat the one-hander for the transition game to the net.

I use a one-handed backhand myself, but its not from lack of trying to hit a 2-hander. The one-handed backhand is better suited for all the doubles I play, but I still wish I could hit that 2-handed topspin lob.
 
splitstep said:
Tennis strokes go through fads as well...
Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail on the head. I was taught with a two-hand backhand, and the stroke just never felt natural. Didn't matter though, because in the early 90's everyone hit a two-hand backhand.

It took a high school teammate who learned to play in Denmark to open my eyes to a one-hander. It was amazing how much more natural it felt. When I told my pro that I wanted to switch he was against it until he saw me hit with one hand. My backhand quickly went from being a shot I hated hitting to a weapon.

I can see how teaching a two-hander to a child who's two weak too hit with one hand is a necessity, but I think the fad aspect kepy many of the teenagers and adults stuck on that stroke when they should've moved past it.
 
quest01 said:
There are many players that have mediocre 1 handed backhands. Greg Rusedski, Max Myrni, Ivo Karlovic, Kenneth Carlsen all have mediocre backhands.
Click to expand...

Tim Henman.

And Safin's two handed backhand is devastating. So is Sharapova's.
 
AngeloDS said:
One handed backhand is a good when it's good but extremely bad when it's bad. On the other hand a two handed backhand is good when it's good and not as bad when it's bad.
Click to expand...

Very nicely put. The one-handed backhand of most adult male club players. sucks. Their backhand is usually much worse than the 2 H BH of low level juniors and even adult women. I can't tell you how many such men can't hit a 1 H BH topspin or drive - in fact they are horrible to look at when playing any ball on the BH. The 2 H BH is a much more symmetric shot, easier to learn if you are young, and much more reliable.

I have a 1 H BH, BTW. Could never learn to coordinate both hands and rotate my body.
 
The one hander has much less room for error. Even a great ball striker like Federer will have a wild mishit about once a set.

The one hander is definitely a harder shot. To hit a decent shot. you've got to take the ball much earlier with your racquet foot planted.

The two hander you can hit it much later. Even when the ball is almost behind you, you can push it back but for the one hander that is impossible.

This is probably why anybody who's attempted to use the one-hander and wasn't able to do so effectively would most likely switch to the two hander. Also, the one hander doesn't seem to enable you to do much more than a good 2 hander would, but a two hander has some clear advantages; stability and the ability to hit the ball much closer to your body.

Basically to sum it all up, I don't think anybody on the pro level would use the one hander unless they were able to do so very effectively.
 
sureshs said:
Very nicely put. The one-handed backhand of most adult male club players. sucks. Their backhand is usually much worse than the 2 H BH of low level juniors and even adult women. I can't tell you how many such men can't hit a 1 H BH topspin or drive - in fact they are horrible to look at when playing any ball on the BH. The 2 H BH is a much more symmetric shot, easier to learn if you are young, and much more reliable.

I have a 1 H BH, BTW. Could never learn to coordinate both hands and rotate my body.
Click to expand...

I feel you brother... many people say I'm "talented" for having a very nice looking one hander that is effective. (By effective, I mean that I can do drives with decent power and directional control. I can hit very short crosscourts and open up the court)

However, inside I wish they knew, that my ability to hit a 1HBH has nothing to do with talent. Took many long hard hours against a wall. At first just pushing it back with consistency, and then slowly learning to drive the ball harder.

Learning the proper footwork, rotation of the body, co-ordination of the hands, generation of racquet head speed, and expansion of the chest was BRUTAL. Once you remember one thing, you tend to forget another.
 
The one hander is such a beautiful shot and there are reasons for its appeal. Reasons such as its "stretched out" look and its "open" and "free" look. It makes us think of somebody backhanding someone else....in a way we are disgracing the ball back to the opponent with our power...SMACK!

Anyway, I agree with what 156MPHserve has said. The one hander I own has been through many phases of development. Even though my forehand is my powerful winning shot, I'd almost always rather hit a beautiful backhand even if it is a bit slower. The feeling of a well struck one handed backhand is something a two hander unfortunately does not get to experience. I think there are similar looking moves in ballet....when they do that thing with their hands....all graceful like.
 
LowProfile said:
Why do almost all the pros who use one hand on the backhand side have great backhands? Many two-handed backhand users (Roddick comes to mind) have mediocre or plain bad backhands while one-handed backhand users almost all have great backhands. Ljubicic, Gasquet, Federer, Henin, Mauresmo, Gaudio, Haas, Pavei (guy who took out Roddick at Davis Cup), Blake, and Srichaphan (just to name a few) all have forcing backhands that can hit winners.

On the other hand, you'd be hard pressed to name a pro whose one handed backhand is way below the rest of his/her game (perhaps Sampras, but he didn't really have a bad backhand, just an amazing game).

Not to say that there aren't good two-handed backhands in existence (there most certainly are), but why is it that nearly all one-handed backhands are good? If it's such a great shot, then why don't the tennis academies teach the shot more often?
Click to expand...
I can think of a few poor one handers (Lopez, Arthurs, Gonzalez), but for the most part, what you say is true, more 1 handers have spectacular backhands than 2 handers, but there are also fewer of them in the pro ranks so perhaps so that's why it seems like they all have great backhands.
 
I just HATE all those who never bothered to properly learn the backhand and hit 1H slice all the time..I think it all comes down to what feels more natural to an individual.Personally I used to play 1H as a kid (Guga influence) but have permanently made the change to the 2H,which to me proved to be a more natural and effective shot.Recently though I've been teaching a somewhat overweight friend of mine and he just couldn't hit a 2HBH,so I taught him the 1H shot and in the process hit a few myself and loved it I must say.I think that indeed the 1H is a beautiful shot,when it's done correctly,and it does have it's advantages,but it's also a more difficult shot with a higher risk and one big diadvantage:the return of serve.I think the main reason for teaching players the 2H shot is exactly that,when serves nowadays are so huge..
 
Whenever I watch Safin play, I seriously want to adopt the 2-hander. But, when I watch Gasquet play, it just inspires me to try to improve my 1-hander.
From time to time, I like fooling around and hitting jumping 2-handed backhands a la Safin, and I must say it feels sweet (when the ball goes in that is). But, when I'm in a more serious mood, I hit jumping 1-handed backhands (a la Gasquet) whenever a ball comes up high on my backhand side, and that also feels very sweeeet...
Both backhands have advantages & disadvantages. If learned right, the 1-hander can be a lethal weapon, but you must not be lazy or else you'll suffer the consequences. I think the 2-hander is more forgiving in that sense.
 
To me, the freedom of one handed backhand just make it feels much better than 2HB. And if you charge it up enough it can be more powerful than your forehand. It's motion reminded me of a samurai drawing his sword. It's just a beautiful and swift motion. The only shortcoming of 1HB is of course that it takes longer to charge up, bad if you want to return serves aggresively. But it just feels so much better :)
 
I think everyone here is forgetting one of the key weaknesses of a one hander: the return. With the exception of a few remarkable pros (Mr. Fed being the best example), you don't see too many people with western or semi-western forehands who can hit attacking topspin one-handed backhand returns against big servers. This is because of the change of grip.

I just switched back to a one hander after using two for many years, and it is more effective for me almost everywhere. However, I still return with two, taking a full swing at any serve no matter how fast it comes in, except of course anything I have to stretch for (desperation returns). With two hands, I can hold the racket with my forehand grip but still hit a good return if it comes to the backhand. With one hand, I just can't do this and would have to block back the return, which is a wasted chance to hit an attacking shot when many players are least ready for it.
 
I love hitting a 2HB. I can hit a 1HB, but I prefer not to. My 2 hander is so freakin consistent, it would be stupid for me not to hit it. And personally, I think it looks graceful. I could watch Roddick hit a 2 hander all day. While it's not "textbook"...I love his high, straight-armed takeback as he lines it up. My man Cliff Drysdale was critizing his form the other day, but he wasn't exactly correct in doing so. After his takeaway, he dropped the racket down into perfect position before his forward explosion, so his initial high takeback matters very little. Look at Jim Furyk in golf with his unorthodox backswing. He still drops the club perfectly on the ball, so who cares how you take it back? Different sport, i know, but same concept.


rounick said:
I think that indeed the 1H is a beautiful shot,when it's done correctly,and it does have it's advantages,but it's also a more difficult shot with a higher risk and one big diadvantage:the return of serve.I think the main reason for teaching players the 2H shot is exactly that,when serves nowadays are so huge..
Click to expand...

My playing partner has a 1hb. I serve hard to his backhand all day and force error after error after error. You are absolutely correct. He gets very frustrated.
 
quest01 said:
Everyone that uses a 1 handed backhand is going to say a 1 handed backhand is the best, while people that use a 2 handed backhand is going to say a 2 handed backhand is the best.
Click to expand...

Bingo. 100% objective responses can only be given by 3rd parties. It's the human nature. Oh and by the way, a 1hbh is better than a 2hbh. I swear I mean that. However, guess what I use?
 
156MPHserve said:
I feel you brother... many people say I'm "talented" for having a very nice looking one hander that is effective. (By effective, I mean that I can do drives with decent power and directional control. I can hit very short crosscourts and open up the court)

However, inside I wish they knew, that my ability to hit a 1HBH has nothing to do with talent. Took many long hard hours against a wall. At first just pushing it back with consistency, and then slowly learning to drive the ball harder.

Learning the proper footwork, rotation of the body, co-ordination of the hands, generation of racquet head speed, and expansion of the chest was BRUTAL. Once you remember one thing, you tend to forget another.
Click to expand...

There are some new things I learnt from a recent thread in the tip section. Everyone has a dominant eye and a non-dominant eye. My left eye is non-dominant plus I have astigmatism. Had a taste of that many years ago when I was almost run over by a taxi coming from the left - my peripheral vision did not catch it.

This makes it difficult for a right hander to see backhand balls cleanly. The 1 H BH probably make it more difficult than the 2 H under these conditions. Just my non-scientific theory.
 
??? said:
In history, it seems all of the best players used 1 handed backhands.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the one-handler is better on the run and definitely a more aesthetically pleasing to watch, as well as satisfying to hit, I think the 2 hander is not getting enough credit. If the 1 hander had any significant (overall) advantage to a 2 hander, we would see it in the rankings and we don't. I made a list of the current top 20 ATP Pro's and while I'm not sure if I got all of them correct, 2 handed (topspin) backhands outnumber 1 handers by 14 to 6....


Ranking_______________1HBH_____2HBH
1. Federer,Roger________X__________
2. Nadal,Rafael___________________X
3. Nalbandian,David_______________X
4. Roddick,Andy___________________X
5. Davydenko,Nicholas_____________X
6. Ljubicic,Ivan_________X_________
7. Coria,Guillermao_______________X
8. Gaudio,Gaston________X__________
9. Blake,James__________X__________
10. Agassi,Andre__________________X
11. Ferrer,David__________________X
12. Gasquet,Richard______X_________
13. Johansson,Thomas______________X
14. Hewitt,Lleyton________________X
15. Ferrero,Juan Carlos___________X
16. Stepanek,Radek________________X
17. Kiefer, Nicolas_______________X
18. Hrbaty, Dominik_______________X
19. Gonzalez, Fernando__X__________
20. Grosjean, Sebastien___________X

Totals__________________6________14
 
I play both and IMO overall the 1hander is better. And to answer at the topic, player with 1hb are better because they develop a more complete game (slicer, volleys etc.)
 
King, Maria Bueno, Casals, Mandlikova, and many other women used the 1hbh. The only male 2hbh to win wimbledon in the modern era were Borg (5) (lot slower game back then, and as soon as Mac showed up, Borg quit), connors (3), Hewitt (1),and of course, Agassi (1) and Ivo(1). Mac tore it up, then Sampras took over, and now Fed, and inbetween, Becker, Edberg, STich, Cash, krajicek. Since Mac won in 1981, there have been 22 1hbh winners of wimbledon, and 4 2hbh. I'll take 22-4 any day. On a faster surface, the 1hbh is more effective, due to its greater reach, volleying ability, and slice ability. The game is different on clay, but even so, 2hbs have only won 13 and 1hb have won 11 times on the slow clay since borg won in 82. (Borg was a freak so we don't include his stats.) That's a total of 33-17 for 1hb. Us open it's 16-8 in favor of 1hbh, and Australian it's 13-12 in favor of 1hb. It's a total of 62-37 in favor of 1hbh since 81-82. No competition at Australian in '87. That's a winning percentage of 62%.

It will be interesting to see if this domination continues over time.
 
winks said:
While I agree that the one-handler is better on the run and definitely a more aesthetically pleasing to watch, as well as satisfying to hit, I think the 2 hander is not getting enough credit. If the 1 hander had any significant (overall) advantage to a 2 hander, we would see it in the rankings and we don't. I made a list of the current top 20 ATP Pro's and while I'm not sure if I got all of them correct, 2 handed (topspin) backhands outnumber 1 handers by 14 to 6....
Click to expand...

This is an error in logic and very misleading. It's well known that the majority of young players picking up the game are taught the 2hbh because they aren't yet strong enough to wield a 1hbh with any consistency or authority. Later on, when they grow and gain the necessary strength, very few of them make the effort to switch. As a result, you have more players playing with 2hbh's.

In fact, I'm pretty surprised that there are that many 1-handers in the top 20, because I'm sure if you took a random sample of tennis players, you'd find the ratio of 1hbh to 2hbh to be much lower than 6:14.
 
I think of them as equals in performance... I don't like saying one is better than the other without anything to back it up. They certaintly have their different uses and the alpha player would have both IMO.

Pros - 1HBH

Longer reach, More pace, More variety, Builds wrist power for better volleys, Seems easier to hit crosscourt angles

Pros - 2HBH

Two hands provide more stability, Less time require to set up, Ball can be taken much later, Seems easier to hit DTL, Easier to handle high balls


I would love to say 1HBH is better because I use it, but I disagree and sometimes there are balls I hit poorly with a 1HBH that I feel I could've hit better with a 2HBH. I think they are both quality shots, and in the ideal world, everyone starting out would be strong enough to hit both and see which one fits their game more. That's the thing, different backhands are suitable for different games.
 
IMO, two handers generate more power and control in an "everyday" shot but that feel simply isnt there compared to a one hander. the one hander is also pretty handy when going for a winner because the two handed stroke is swept upwards whereas the one-handed stroke is flatter. i prefer one-hander.
 
A one handed back hand requires perfect timing and technique and is probably not the best option for most recreational players in my opinion. How many people put in enough practice time to master the one hander?

I think a lot of people commit to it out of ego, they like to think they are better than they really are. Kind of like some of those who insist they play their best with a 85 sq in racket. When I'm on I can hit a very effective one handed backhand, but when a match is on the line I know the two hander is the way to go. I love playing against people with one handed back hands because holding serve is pretty much automatic.

One poster said that he runs around his forehand to hit inside out one handed backhand winners. Seriously, is that against 3.0 women in mixed doubles? I played four years of D1 college tennis and never saw anyone run around their forehand to hit one handed backhand winners. I've yet to see this on ATP tour either.

Even Nadal exposes Feder's backhand by hitting heavy topspin to it and he is as good as it gets.
 
After reading this thread I think one important point has been missed.
That is that a 2hbh can really be hit as an opposite side forehand.
Dementieva's 2hbh comes to mind. She is really hitting a forehand and it is a very fearsome shot; perhaps the most fearsome 2hbh in the game with the possible exception of Lyndsey's 2hbh.
Serena and Venus hit their 2hbh's as forehands to some extent but not as effectively as Elena IMO.

Hitting this way means you can hit much later and with more power but you have to develop strength in the opposite, non dominant arm.
 
akj27 said:
but thats because they use the slice 80% of the time, and dont practice their topspin backhand
Click to expand...
Very true, the 1handed BH players who rely primarily on slice endup with very consistent BHs that are often attacked but usually not defeated. Steffi Graf was the best example of this mindset. Many of these players just never get the confidence to unlease the flat or topspin winners since the slice is soo consistent and neutralizing.
 
habib said:
This is an error in logic and very misleading. .
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update, Habib.

I still think there are enough one handed pro's out there that if the one hander had any significant overall advantage over a 2 hander (like I said before) you would see it in the rankings.
 
I don't really agree. There are 6 guys with one handers in the top 20 right now and out of them I would say 3 have backhands that are stronger than their forehands -- Ljubicic, Gaudio, and Gasquet. As for the other three, most people would probably say attacking Federer, Blake, and Gonzalez's backhands is the way to go. These three all have top 10 forehands, but I would put Blake's backhand in top 75, Federer's in the top 20.
 
35ft6 said:
I don't really agree. There are 6 guys with one handers in the top 20 right now and out of them I would say 3 have backhands that are stronger than their forehands -- Ljubicic, Gaudio, and Gasquet. As for the other three, most people would probably say attacking Federer, Blake, and Gonzalez's backhands is the way to go. These three all have top 10 forehands, but I would put Blake's backhand in top 75, Federer's in the top 20.
Click to expand...
Blakes BH is always agressive topspin and proved its lethality in his Pac Life SF defeat of Nadal who was pretty much playing Blakes BH but was still losing many of the exchanges.
Feds BH can be lethal but he chooses to slice much too often, especially on service return. Who can blame him when he wins his matches anyway, I think he will need to use his BH more like Blake, if Fed wants to beat Nadal. I agree with you on Gonzo BH, not a weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gadz
Who currently on tour has the nicest looking two handed backhand
2
Replies
69
Views
5K
jg153040
J
P
Do any two handed backhands have problems with Nadal's forehand bounce?
Replies
5
Views
837
Magnetite
M
E
Current pro's with 'unconventional' two-handed backhands?
Replies
14
Views
4K
PhrygianDominant
PhrygianDominant
King No1e
Greatest returner with a one-handed BH?
Replies
27
Views
1K
NonP
NonP
T
Has admiration for Federer killed extreme grips in one handed backhands?
Replies
47
Views
3K
Rafa4LifeEver
Rafa4LifeEver
Back
Top