One Handed Backhand making a comeback?

[mca10spro]

Have you noticed how many one handed backhands there are. If you look at the Wimbledon finals for then men and the women, 3out of 4 players had a onehanded BH. There was Justine H-H, Mauresmo, and Federer. Nadal was the only one with a two hander. I was watching Blake get smoked today by Gasquet and they both have one handers. It seemed like the two hander was the wave of the future and here for good, while the onehanders were a dying breed.



What do you guys think?

 

[bluescreen]

im definately loving the one-handers, but i still thinking they r a dying breed. just look to the past. 15 to 20 years ago, how many players, men or women, played w/ a one-handed backhand? a lot of 'em, making it the majority backhand. now it has shrunk to a small minority and i think as tennis evolves more into a power-oriented sport the one-handed backhand will just be a thing of the past.

 

[alan-n]

I really think its just coincidence. I think when the heavy top spin game came into play, not as many 1 handers developed the ability to drive it in their youth since it wasn't a shot they had to deal with as often. Credit the new players for developing the ability to drive the high top spin backhands back during their junior years.

 

[VictorS.]

They're definitely making a comeback. There's a lot of great one-handers out there in the men's game....Ljubicic, Gasquet, Haas, Federer, even Blake's has improved tremendously although I still wouldn't put his in their class. I think the one-hander offers a bit more flexibility, reach, and fluidity. All of those players named above are superior all-court players. I think the two-handed backhand does in a sense limit you.

 

[bluescreen]

thats a good point about topsin, alan-n. i can see many more nadal-like players in the future who will use monster topspin, making the 1hbh obsolete.

 

[TennsDog]

I was also amazed at the number of one-handers I have seen play in the past week (Federer, Gasquet, Blake, Henman, Ljubicic, Bester?). I don't think it's making a come-back, though that would be nice.
I'm not convinced that the two-hander is inherently better for today's game than the one-hander. I just think that most people who learned the one-hander learned it before the modern incarnation of tennis, so they never learned to hit it in this fashion. I think that as people learn the one-hander amidst this flury of spin and power, it will evolve too as to be able to stay competative. A good one-handed backhand has no lack of pace or spin, so I don't think that should be a problem. And if you can develop a strong enough wrist and technique to handle heavy shots, you're fine.

 

[Chang]

I wouldn't say one handed backhand will become obselete. I can hit both and I prefer 1hbh simply because it's easier to set up than having to have both your hands on the grip and turning it which takes more time than just turning the racket.

 

[stormholloway]

Borg hit with as much topspin as Nadal. It's not like Nadal's topspin is something new. Borg had huge topspin and didn't start a topspin revolution.

Bottom line, even in modern times, last 20 years, most grand slam winners had one handers. Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Kuerten, Federer just to name the big ones. In terms of success, the one hander didn't go anywhere.

I just think coaches started teaching kids the two hander because it's easier for a weak child to muscle a one hander. It's also easier to teach the two hander because the principle is the same as the forehand. Same teaching principle off both sides -- hip and body turn.

One hander is still the most successful stroke in terms of grand slams as far as I know, even in modern days.

 

[counterfeit25]

What's so modern about the past *20* years? Anyway, in the more-modern days, like the last 5 years, the 2 hander was more prominent among the top pros.
Federer is special

 

[quest01]

No I don’t think so. The one handed backhand is still inferior to the 2 hander in terms of popularity and usage. The two handed backhand is the better backhand.

 

[OrangeOne]

thats a good point about topsin, alan-n. i can see many more nadal-like players in the future who will use monster topspin, making the 1hbh obsolete.

I agree with others who effectively said topspin comes in waves. Berasategui had some monster spin, so did (in the day) muster. Nadal is the latest of this wave, and people will copy him, imitate, no doubt. Interesting to see which way this wave goes...

 

[stormholloway]

Uh, did you totally not pay attention to the Borg comment? Borg played with equal topspin, yet no 70s topspin revolution.

What's so modern about the past *20* years? Anyway, in the more-modern days, like the last 5 years, the 2 hander was more prominent among the top pros.
Federer is special

Umm, what's modern about the last 20 years... maybe... racquets that aren't made of tree trunks for one? Duh. Graphite came along and players thought more about power and figured two hands would give them more power.

What about Lendl? He had a one hander and dominated tennis. The funny thing is that there are many more 2 handers out there yet the bulk of one handed players lie in the upper echelon of the game.

"The one handed backhand is still inferior to the 2 hander in terms of popularity and usage. The two handed backhand is the better backhand."

Inferior in terms of popularity? Do you know how dumb that sounds? That's like saying the round Earth theory was inferior because it was unpopular.
The two hander is the better backhand? Maybe it's better for YOU. Again, in the past 10 years, more grand slammers had a one hander. END OF DISCUSSION.

 

[arosen]

No I don’t think so. The one handed backhand is still inferior to the 2 hander in terms of popularity and usage. The two handed backhand is the better backhand.

I used to think so myself, till I busted my shoulder and had to relearn the game playing with another hand. I chose 1hander, just for trying sake, and it's not as clear cut as you paint it to be. You get a lot more reach with 1 hbh. You get to a lot more serves that would otherwise fly past you. That may be a reason Fed gets into so many points on return. You get to slice and mix pace a lot more, it feels right. Trade offs - hard to generate pace consistently. I used to crush my bh down the line all the time. It's a lot harder to do with 1hbh. Bottom line: it's not that clear cut a choice.

 

[OrangeOne]

"The one handed backhand is still inferior to the 2 hander in terms of popularity and usage. The two handed backhand is the better backhand."

Inferior in terms of popularity? Do you know how dumb that sounds? That's like saying the round Earth theory was inferior because it was unpopular.

funny point

The two hander is the better backhand? Maybe it's better for YOU.

Hmm, I think the two hander is the better backhand - possibly because it's made tennis so much more accessible to so many people, juniors included. I myself play 1hbh and like it, but I think tennis's popularity may have waned much more if not for the two-hander! Kids thesedays want something they can tackle at an early age (did I say kids - I meant parents want something kids can tackle at an early age , and the 2hbh makes it so much easier for so many.

Again, in the past 10 years, more grand slammers had a one hander.

Actually - 20. Edberg, Lendl, Sampras, McEnroe, Muster, Keurten, Federer, so many more. Agassi, Courier and Nadal are the only significant slam winners on the male side that come to mind (edit: add "in the last 20 years" here) when I think of 2hbh's at the highest level.

Now, that said - females are a separate matter, and in some ways women's tennis carried men's tennis for a while there, so let's not discount things completely.

END OF DISCUSSION.

You made some good points, backed them up well, and yet you end in such a silly way. Maybe you could have said that's all you had to contribute, but such an arrogant comment doesn't make you unequivocably right! I agree with the greater half of what you said, but don't see you have right to just slam it there....

 

[Chang]

Both backhands have strengths and weaknesses. It's all player's preferences. There are slow courters who use 1hbh and there are fast courters using 2hbh. It's hard to say which one is better because it really depends on the player. Yes, 1hbh might make a comeback but it still seems to be dominated by 2hbh so far.

 

[BreakPoint]

No I don’t think so. The one handed backhand is still inferior to the 2 hander in terms of popularity and usage. The two handed backhand is the better backhand.

Hmmmm....out of the several hundred people I've played tennis against over the past few years, I'd say less than 10% had two-handed backhands. That means more than 90% had one-handed backhands. It seems like only kids and women use two-handed backhands.

 

[monologuist]

I don't think the 1hhbh is making a comeback necessarily, but it is true that often, players with 1hhbh's take longer to mature. Federer is an example of this. His ATP career began in 1998, but it wasn't until 2004 that he finally reached a year-end ranking of no.1. It is a more difficult shot for most people to master than the 2hhbh, but if a player is able to develop it over time, the rewards are great. Of course for most young and up and coming players, the 2hhbh is the way to go, as it is easier for yougsters to wield, and is easier to develop consistency with. That is why so many of the young "prodigies" of tennis possess 2handers. But perhaps what we are seeing is the arrival of a wave of 1hhbh players that are finally coming into their own this year. Thre players with 1hhbh's have broken into the top 10 this past year for the first time : Blake, Ljubicic, and Robredo. Their ATP careers began in 1999, 1998, and 1999 respectively. Interestingly enough, Gonzo and Acasuso both have reached their peak rankings as of yet this year, and both also began their careers in 1999. Tommy Haas began his career in 1996, and reached a career high ranking of no.2 in 2002. Gaston Gaudio began his career in 1996 as well, and reached a career high ranking of no.5 in 2005. Perhaps, 7-9 years is around how long it takes for players with 1hhbh's to reach maturity on the ATP tour?

In contrast, this past year, we have seen the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and Coria, all with 2-handers, take nosedives in the rankings (in the case of Safin, you could argue that injury was the prevailing factor). Roddick began his career in 2000, and was no.1 in the world by 2003, but has dropped to 11 now. Hewitt turned pro in 1998 and found himself atop the ATP at no.1 in 2001, and is currently 12. Safin turned pro in 1997, and reached no.1 in 2000; currently he is 77. Coria began in 2000, and reached a career-high no.3 by 2004, but has plummeted to 42 this year. Nadal, Baghdatis, Berdych, Djokovic, Murray, and Monfils are all 21 or younger prodigies with 2-handers that skyrocketed in the ATP rankings from day 1, reaching the top 20 or 30 in anywhere between 1-3 years...will be interesting to see where their careers go compared to Gasquet and Almagro for instance.

 

[Mikael]

Hm I'm bored. Let's think of all grand slam winners since 1995 and see whether the 1HBH or the 2HBH dominates. Heck, let's include finalists too. 2 points for winner, 1 for finalist. This is off the top of my head so feel free to correct me.

95:
AO Agassi Sampras
RG Muster Chang
WI Sampras Ivanisevic
UO Sampras Agassi

That's 5 points for doublehanders, 7 for onehanders.

96:
AO Becker Chang
RG Kafelnikov Stich
WI Krajicek Washington
UO Sampras Chang

Another 5 points for 2HBH, and again 7 for 1HBH.

97
AO Sampras Moya
RG Kuerten Bruguera
WI Sampras Pioline
UO Rafter Rusedski

Only 2 points for 2HBH, 10 for 1H.

98:
AO Korda Rios
RG Moya Corretja
WI Sampras Ivanisevic
UO Rafter Philipoussis

4 points for 2H, 8 for 1H.

99
AO Kafelnikov Enqvist
RG Agassi Medvedev
WI Sampras Agassi
UO Agassi Martin

10 points for 2H, only 2 for 1H.

00
AO Agassi Kafelnikov
RG Kuerten Norman
WI Sampras Rafter
UO Safin Sampras

6 and 6 here.

01
AO Agassi Clement
RG Kuerten Corretja
WI Ivanisevic Rafter
UO Hewitt Sampras

7 for 2HBH, 5 for 1HBH.

02
AO Johansson Safin
RG Costa Ferrero
WI Hewitt Nalbandian
UO Sampras Agassi

8-4 for 2HBH.

03
AO Agassi Schuettler
RG Ferrero Verkerk
WI Federer Philipoussis
UO Roddick Ferrero

8 for 2H, 4 for 1H.

04
AO Federer Safin
RG Gaudio Coria
WI Federer Roddick
UO Federer Hewitt

8-4 for 1H.

05
AO Safin Hewitt
RG Nadal Puerta
WI Federer Roddick
UO Federer Agassi

7-5 for 2HBH.

06 so far
AO Federer Baghdatis
RG Nadal Federer
WI Federer Nadal

5-4 to 1HBH.

So, summing up:
95-06 so far = 70 points for 2HBH, and 71 for 1HBH.
Very close!! I don't see either technique dominating.

My humble opinion: the "greats" mostly seem to have a 1HBH - Fed, Sampras, Becker. Edberg if I'd started way back. Just Fed and Sampras alone make up for 38 points, that's massive. It's like a quarter of all points.
However most slam winners and finalists out there have a 2HBH: there are 16 different guys with 1HBH on this list, 22 with a 2HBH.

As far as evolution goes: since 2000, with the exception of Fed, I don't see any 1 handers regularly contending for slams. Verkerk, Puerta and Gaudio look like flukes to me. Costa, Flip and Guga were already getting old when they reached their slam finals. On the other side, you have Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Nadal, Roddick.

This is reflected in my little chart by the fact that up to 98, one handers got more points every year. However starting in 99, doublehanders got more points every year with the exception of 00 (a tie) and 04 (Fed magic).

Looking ahead, the future doesn't look great for 1handers: it's Gasquet and Fed vs Nadal, Monfils, Berdych, Djokovic, Murray, Korolev, possibly Baghdatis,etc.

Final point: I'm amazed at how successful one handers are at the French, I didn't expect to find this.

Two points where I'm not sure: I included both Puerta and Verkerk as one handers, I'm in doubt but I think I'm right.

 

[Warriorroger]

Borg hit with as much topspin as Nadal. It's not like Nadal's topspin is something new. Borg had huge topspin and didn't start a topspin revolution.

Bottom line, even in modern times, last 20 years, most grand slam winners had one handers. Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Kuerten, Federer just to name the big ones. In terms of success, the one hander didn't go anywhere.

I just think coaches started teaching kids the two hander because it's easier for a weak child to muscle a one hander. It's also easier to teach the two hander because the principle is the same as the forehand. Same teaching principle off both sides -- hip and body turn.

One hander is still the most successful stroke in terms of grand slams as far as I know, even in modern days.

Agree with you except on the Borg thing. Borg has never hit with the same amount of topspin as Nadal. That's impossible to do with the wooden rackets.

 

[BiGGieStuFF]

GO ONE HANDERS!! but only because I can't hit a 2 hander to save my life.

 

[Moves]

Looking ahead, the future doesn't look great for 1handers: it's Gasquet and Fed vs Nadal, Monfils, Berdych, Djokovic, Murray, Korolev, possibly Baghdatis,etc.

I'd say it more like Fed, Ljubicic, Robredo and Gonzo are a pretty nice team.

- Moves

 

[Ripper]

I believe, in the future, we'll start seeing players using 1h backhands as their primary, but going to 2h backhands on certain shots...

 

[TennsDog]

I believe, in the future, we'll start seeing players using 1h backhands as their primary, but going to 2h backhands on certain shots...

Haha, as it should be. That's how the good players do it.

 

[SFrazeur]

I believe, in the future, we'll start seeing players using 1h backhands as their primary, but going to 2h backhands on certain shots...

I agree, the right tool for the right job.

 

[sureshs]

Hmmmm....out of the several hundred people I've played tennis against over the past few years, I'd say less than 10% had two-handed backhands. That means more than 90% had one-handed backhands. It seems like only kids and women use two-handed backhands.

You and I are old - and the only people who will play with us are other old males, who use 1 H BH. Kids and women probably represent 10% of whom we play. And the better kids ignore us altogether. Or maybe all the above only applies to you hehehehee

2 weeks ago, I started playing two-hander all of a sudden without realizing it. It was towards the end of a casual rallying session on a weekend. I was hitting it with proper technique - stepping into it with the racquet from a hanging below position moving upwards. I could not believe it and neither could my partner. I was hitting the crosscourts particularly well. Must be subconscious learning that had happened by watching others.

Anyways, I was exhilirated and tried the same a few days later, this time after getting back from a full-day's worth of work. No fresh feeling of a weekend this time. The 2 Hander just crumbled. Then I realized why it was not for me:
1. The 2 H BH is MORE difficult in terms of energy usage and fitness. I can adopt a lazy approach with a 1 H. When I am just playing casually, I can get the ball back into play with little effort. The 2 H seems to require a whole lot more effort all the time.
2. The serves, specially in doubles, which are wide to the BH, caused me great trouble with the 2 H. I felt like I had to get completely behind the ball and that was difficult when the ball was angling away fast. With the 1 H, I could get the racquet on to it, and even get some directional control.

Since I am probably not going to hit hard with either BH, the 1 H is what I am sticking with. The only balls which give me trouble now are the ones coming straight to me and jamming me. I am even managing the high bouncing ones to my left pretty OK (though I haven't played Nadal for sure).

 

[SiccSense]

I can hit a 2hander alot easier than a one hander, that the primary reason i use it, but you lose alot of reach with the 2hander.

 

[stormholloway]

That points system of grand slams for the different backhands doesn't make too much sense. It's arbitrary. Giving 1 point for a finalist? How about 0 points?

As for players switching between 1 and 2 handed backhands during play. No way. Then players will have to think about which one to use and the technique for these two strokes are very different. By the time they decide, the point is over. As long as there are guys like Gasquet and Federer ripping one handers then it will never die. It's a great stroke with advantages over the 2 hander.

 

[Mikael]

That points system of grand slams for the different backhands doesn't make too much sense. It's arbitrary. Giving 1 point for a finalist? How about 0 points?

Of course it's arbitrary, I chose this system. Now as to why I decided to include finalists in my chart as well as slam winners: the objective of my little project here was to see whether the one hander or the two hander was more or less dominant on the ATP, and if so, at what time and in what circumstances. Counting only slam winners would've given a good idea of the situation, but including finalists provides an even more accurate reading of the ATP, because reaching a slam final by itself is a huge accomplishment. Now I agree that the specifics could be done differently, you could give 3 points to the winner and only 1 to the finalist. Or you could be even more hardcore than me and include semifinalists. That's up to you. Actually I'd be interested to see whether a different point system would support my conclusions. My guess is that giving 0 points to slam finalists would give an advantage to 1 handers, because of Sampras and Federer winning so many slams against two handers. But that would bypass the fact that the double hander is dominant overall in the top 20 or so.

 

[migjam]

I think that more kids tend to start with a 2hbh because it is easier for them to learn. And, once they have learned the 2hbh, they stick with it. I feel like the 1hbh gives you more options when executing strokes but it is a much more difficult stroke to learn and execute. With a 1hbh, your footwork needs to be better than with a 2hbh.

 

[mctennis]

About time the players/coaches/ trainers realize the one handed backhand is the choice of champions. That two handed stuff is for small children not big or strong enough to have enough power to use a one handed backhand. Sampras coach knew that and switched him over to the one handed back when he was a teen. He lost a lot of matches before he mastered it. I know there are expections to every rule. Take it for the MAJORITY of players.

 

[newnuse]

The myth of 1handers having more reach. I don't think 1 handers have more reach. I hit with both 1 hand and 2 hands. I have never seen a person hit a 1 hand backhand with a straight elbow, arm completely extended. While the 1 hander does have more total reach, the effective reach (your actual stroke) is the same.

I've seen guys slice with fairly straight elbows and arm extended. However, most 2 handers slice with 1 hand.

I think with the trend towards the power baseline game, 2 handers will continue to gain in popularity among the pro's. The 1 hander might go the way of the Serve & Volley

 

[newnuse]

About time the players/coaches/ trainers realize the one handed backhand is the choice of champions. That two handed stuff is for small children not big or strong enough to have enough power to use a one handed backhand. Sampras coach knew that and switched him over to the one handed back when he was a teen. He lost a lot of matches before he mastered it. I know there are expections to every rule. Take it for the MAJORITY of players.

He switched over to coincide with his switch to a S&V style. He wanted to win the big W.

 

[mctennis]

I agree BUT he also wanted to win a lot more than Wimbledon. At his age, when he switched, you needed to have more of a game plan than just a two-handed backhand. It took him almost three years to get the one handed down.

 

[mctennis]

The myth of 1handers having more reach. I don't think 1 handers have more reach. I hit with both 1 hand and 2 hands. I have never seen a person hit a 1 hand backhand with a straight elbow, arm completely extended. While the 1 hander does have more total reach, the effective reach (your actual stroke) is the same.

I've seen guys slice with fairly straight elbows and arm extended. However, most 2 handers slice with 1 hand.

I think with the trend towards the power baseline game, 2 handers will continue to gain in popularity among the pro's. The 1 hander might go the way of the Serve & Volley

Most two-handers cannot use one handed backhand at anything effective. They may try to use a defensive shot but normally it is just a way of trying to stay in the point. No power, no control....just stabbing at the ball that is out of reach. No comfort zone at the net either or anything close to the net that they have to scoop or pick up. If you jam a two-hander he is powerless. A one hander may muscle the ball back more effectively though. If power is all they are looking for perhaps the two-hander will be a favorite. I'm not impressed with the banging away from the baseline every shot...boring. IMHO.

 

[Arafel]

Most two-handers cannot use one handed backhand at anything effective. They may try to use a defensive shot but normally it is just a way of trying to stay in the point. No power, no control....just stabbing at the ball that is out of reach. No comfort zone at the net either or anything close to the net that they have to scoop or pick up. If you jam a two-hander he is powerless. A one hander may muscle the ball back more effectively though. If power is all they are looking for perhaps the two-hander will be a favorite. I'm not impressed with the banging away from the baseline every shot...boring. IMHO.

I don't feel that jamming a two-handed backhand is more effective than doing it to a one-hander.

I hit with both shots, and can do it pretty well. I use the one hander for slice shots in a rally as a change of pace, or on wide shots where I need a little more reach. I also use it for the half-volley and most of my volleys, though I sometimes use 2 hands on the volley if I want more power and stability.

Generally, the two-hander is what I use for topspin and flat shots. The only shot I hit one handed with topsin is the half-volley.

 

[Rickson]

Have you noticed how many one handed backhands there are. If you look at the Wimbledon finals for then men and the women, 3out of 4 players had a onehanded BH. There was Justine H-H, Mauresmo, and Federer. Nadal was the only one with a two hander. I was watching Blake get smoked today by Gasquet and they both have one handers. It seemed like the two hander was the wave of the future and here for good, while the onehanders were a dying breed.



What do you guys think?

The one hander will always be king among the men, but the women will always prefer the two hander. I hope more female players use the two hander in the future.

 

[newnuse]

Most two-handers cannot use one handed backhand at anything effective. They may try to use a defensive shot but normally it is just a way of trying to stay in the point. No power, no control....just stabbing at the ball that is out of reach. No comfort zone at the net either or anything close to the net that they have to scoop or pick up. If you jam a two-hander he is powerless. A one hander may muscle the ball back more effectively though. If power is all they are looking for perhaps the two-hander will be a favorite. I'm not impressed with the banging away from the baseline every shot...boring. IMHO.

I couldn't disagree more mate. I found you can muscle the ball way more with 2 hands when you get jammed. It's simple case of having more strength with 2 arms than with 1. With 2 hands you can be late and make up for it by flicking your racket. With 1 hand, you have to be in good hitting position or suffer. I think the 1 hander is a little less prone to jamming because they don't have the other arm getting in the way.

As for who which style is better... when you ask the question about who has the greatest backhand ever... most of the candidates are 2handers. It's natural since baseliners use 2handers more and they rely on their groundstroke more than S&V'ers.

 

[TennsDog]

That points system of grand slams for the different backhands doesn't make too much sense. It's arbitrary. Giving 1 point for a finalist? How about 0 points?

As for players switching between 1 and 2 handed backhands during play. No way. Then players will have to think about which one to use and the technique for these two strokes are very different. By the time they decide, the point is over. As long as there are guys like Gasquet and Federer ripping one handers then it will never die. It's a great stroke with advantages over the 2 hander.

I use both right now. It's not a problem and there's little to no thinking involved. Two-hander is used for half volleys at the baseline and some high balls. Everything else is one-handed.

As for more or less reach, I don't think two-handers lose any reach on normal shots. The only time reach could come into play is when they get a wide shot and they are more inclined to stick with the two-handed topspin shot than let go and hit a slice (which every player should be able to do well regardless of number of hands for a backhand). Any two-hander who is willing to let go and slice wide shots has just as much reach as a one-hander.

 

[alan-n]

Greatest backhand ever at doing what?

Every myth and weakness of two hander vs one hander is covered up by the players abilities.

One handers are supposedly weak handling high topspin shots.. Sure to most people they are, at the Pro level this means absolutely nothing as their abilities are dispose of such non-sense. Federer handles the high one hander and body jams just fine. Gasquet makes a living from high bouncing top spin shots and jam shots to his one hander.

Go figure. Its the player not any inherent weaknesses in either.

 

[BreakPoint]

With a 1hbh, your footwork needs to be better than with a 2hbh.

Actually, I find the opposite to be true. Since you have more reach with a 1HBH, you can stretch more and still hit the ball. You don't have to get to the ball as quickly and set-up as much. With a 2HBH, you have to be quicker, get to the ball faster, and be better with your footwork since you don't have as much reach. This is probably one of the reasons why older people who aren't as fast tend to hit 1HBH's.

 

[monologuist]

Actually, I find the opposite to be true. Since you have more reach with a 1HBH, you can stretch more and still hit the ball. You don't have to get to the ball as quickly and set-up as much. With a 2HBH, you have to be quicker, get to the ball faster, and be better with your footwork since you don't have as much reach. This is probably one of the reasons why older people who aren't as fast tend to hit 1HBH's.[/QUOTE

yeah, but 2hhbh's can be hit from a more open stance and they can be hit later ....that is why many feel that the footwork is easier for them, especially when changing directions

 

[skittles]

anyone who watches tennis for the first time and sees a 1hbh as opposed to a 2hbh will automatically want to see more 1 handers than two handers. With that said, the one hand backhand is more popular with the viewers.But with actual players nowadays... a two hander is more effective because it doesnt take as much technique as it would with a 1 hander. personally i tried the one hander at first because it looked like an awesome shot. But my coach forced me to switch to a 2 hander, generally because i could reach the lower balls with a one hand but not the higher balls. I still use a one hander to this day but only to slice or for the hell of it an actual one hander. But to end this post. i dont know and i dont care if one handers will ever come again, quite frankly who gives!?

 

[netman]

I'm late to this thread, but wasn't the 2HBH encouraged for use as compensation for lack of upper body and trunk stength typically found in children and small stature players? The fact that folks carry it on into adulthood is more about habit and comfort levels, than strategic advantage.

A true 1HBH is an unconstricted shot since it hits out and away from the body, not across the body like a forehand or 2HBH. Gives a player much more variety in angles and spins. Right?

-k-

 

[BreakPoint]

A true 1HBH is an unconstricted shot since it hits out and away from the body, not across the body like a forehand or 2HBH. Gives a player much more variety in angles and spins. Right?

This is absolutely TRUE!! To this day I have a better 1HBH than forehand. I have much more variety, spins, angles, and yes, PACE with my 1HBH than my forehand. To me, it's a much more natural stroke than the forehand for the reason you stated above - i.e., you hit out and away from the body with a 1HBH versus across the body with a forehand or 2HBH.

 

[OrangeOne]

This is absolutely TRUE!! To this day I have a better 1HBH than forehand. I have much more variety, spins, angles, and yes, PACE with my 1HBH than my forehand. To me, it's a much more natural stroke than the forehand for the reason you stated above - i.e., you hit out and away from the body with a 1HBH versus across the body with a forehand or 2HBH.

I know this is just another way of saying what you are - but maybe it's another way of explaining it too. It was always described to me that it should be an easier / more natural shot because you are indeed uncoiling to hit the ball, you create a coil in the backswing and then uncoil. I guess it's like hitting a baseball....

 

[stormholloway]

Exactly, the one handed backhand truly is the most physically natural shot in tennis. Using the non dominant hand to balance the power in the body is most effective as well. You see Federer open both arms when hitting this shot.

I'm not trying to say one is better than the other. But I loved the beauty of the one hander and switched from the two. There are times when I've thought of returning because I have trouble with a very low or very high ball. But the shot is a work in progress that I feel is worth the trouble.

 

[migjam]

Actually, I find the opposite to be true. Since you have more reach with a 1HBH, you can stretch more and still hit the ball. You don't have to get to the ball as quickly and set-up as much. With a 2HBH, you have to be quicker, get to the ball faster, and be better with your footwork since you don't have as much reach. This is probably one of the reasons why older people who aren't as fast tend to hit 1HBH's.

Well, I guess thats where we differ. I hit with a 1HBH and have since I learned the game. The reason you see older people hitting with 1HBHs is probably that is they were taught. 2HBHs weren't as common back in the 70s and early 80s. I think the footwork has to be better with a 1HBH, which is one of the reasons people have a harder time with the stroke. The 2HBH you can get away with an open stance easier.

 

[BreakPoint]

I know this is just another way of saying what you are - but maybe it's another way of explaining it too. It was always described to me that it should be an easier / more natural shot because you are indeed uncoiling to hit the ball, you create a coil in the backswing and then uncoil. I guess it's like hitting a baseball....

Actually, it's not like hitting a baseball. I think hitting a baseball is more like hitting a 2HBH as both hands are on the handle and you swing across your chest, just like a baseball bat. If you've ever seen Jim Courier hit his 2HBH, he swings almost exactly like he's swinging a baseball bat.

I'd say hitting a 1HBH is more like slapping someone with the back of your hand or a back handed punch or block in karate. You're right in that there is this sense of "uncoliling" when you hit the 1HBH.

 

[127mph]

one hander is a more beautiful stroke for sure.

 

[BreakPoint]

Well, I guess thats where we differ. I hit with a 1HBH and have since I learned the game. The reason you see older people hitting with 1HBHs is probably that is they were taught. 2HBHs weren't as common back in the 70s and early 80s. I think the footwork has to be better with a 1HBH, which is one of the reasons people have a harder time with the stroke. The 2HBH you can get away with an open stance easier.

Yes, we do differ in opinion on this. Borg, Connors, Wilander, Evert, etc, were also very popular in the '70's and 80's so you can't really say that 1HBH's were what older people learned/used when they started playing. Even older people who started playing more recently will most likely use a 1HBH. I don't think it can be disputed that you have to be faster on your feet to use a 2HBH. Almost everyone will agree with that. Just listen to the tennis commentators on TV. To hit a 2HBH, you have to be behind the ball so you have to run faster to get there to be behind the ball. With a 1HBH, you can reach out and just flick or slice the ball without your body being fully behind the ball, just your arm needs to be extended. Watch Federer, he does this beautifually and is one of the reasons why he's able to cover so much court even though most opponents try to pound him and run him wide on the backhand side.