Poll: Do you have a one handed or two handed backhand?

[10isMaestro]

Weird I always swing UP on the high balls to get top spin to bring them down into the court. With an extreme grip its possible. Sure there is a maximum height but assuming I have 8ft ceilings I top out at 7-8 1/2 ft.

FWIW one of my coaches said he took lessons as a junior with one of the "Panchos" where he was encouraged to hit high balls like Borg"s backhand with a two handed take back and 1 handed follow through. He demonstrated and it was really effective.

If you watch even high level players, although all of them are not as destructive on higher balls, one handed backhand players tend to struggle more than two handed backhand players. However, you are right about one thing: using a more extreme grip makes it easier to bring those high balls back into the court.

 

[crux]

Just learn to play tennis for 2 months. In 1st month I use 2HBH but I don't know It's not working for me so I swithced to 1HBH this months. It's better when the ball come slow (but I only can hit BHCC, still figure out to play BHDTL in nature way), but I have much problem with high/fast ball on BH. I just only can push it with a high ball/lob back.

But I don't think I will switch to 2HBH again (my left hand is so weak)

 

[Moveforwardalways]

It's easier for a two handed backhand player, even with a more conservative grip setting, to attack higher balls. Your off hand in that case really helps a lot. On a one handed backhand, you're caught with only one arm, one shoulder, to slap down that high ball -- it is more demanding physically, which means you have to give it a bit more of a solid swing. Don't get me wrong, all high backhands are tough shots, but it's easier to use two hands.

Agree, this is a challenge with the 1HBH. But it may be it's only big limitation.

...my 2 hander was on par with my forehand.

It's already a shot I play just as well as my forehand.

Regardless of 1 or 2 hands, if your backhand is as good as your forehand, then by definition your forehand is underdeveloped.

 

[hawk eye]

Regardless of 1 or 2 hands, if your backhand is as good as your forehand, then by definition your forehand is underdeveloped.

Well in the WTA there's great lack of fh developement then. Vast majority even has a better BH than FH.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Well in the WTA there's great lack of fh developement then.

I don't disagree with that.

 

[10isMaestro]

Regardless of 1 or 2 hands, if your backhand is as good as your forehand, then by definition your forehand is underdeveloped.

My forehand is more versatile and powerful, but it is much easier to take balls on the rise with my backhand and that backhand is also more consistent. One does more damage, but is a bit riskier; the other can withold more pressure, but can't hurt the opponent as much... I'd say it's a close call.

As for the development of my forehand, the main issue is that I sometimes revert to this bad habit of a bigger back swing and it hinders me against better players. With two hands on my backhand, it's virtually impossible to take too big a swing -- in the sense of sending my hitting hand behind myself...

I recently started hitting two handed forehands a bit and it seems to help with that by forcing a shorter préparation. With enough time, it will be gone.


So, underdevelopped? If the reference point is my level of play, my game overall, not at all.

 

[10isMaestro]

Note: there is also an issue of confidence involved. Having two hands on the handle seems to make controlling that string bed all the more easy and I'd much rather be attacked on my backhand for that reason. I just feel like I won't miss.

 

[Faker]

Maybe people who post on this board are generally just 30+, but a good 95% of the people I know around ages 16-25 from rec level to D1 level use 2hbh. Maybe 1-2% of tennis players will find the 1hbh easier to use, but I find it hard to believe that all of these 1hbh users really did "switch to a 1 hbh because it was more natural and they just hit it better".

Note: there is also an issue of confidence involved. Having two hands on the handle seems to make controlling that string bed all the more easy and I'd much rather be attacked on my backhand for that reason. I just feel like I won't miss.

Exactly how I feel about the 2hbh. Defensively my 2hbh is slightly better than my forehand even though it lacks compared to my forehand in neutral or attacking situations.

 

[The Unknown]

Weird. If that is right, wouldnt the top 10 show nothing but 2 handers? Yet its 60-40 in favor of the 2 hander? And if you look at the top 20 you could conclude that there are more 1 handers at the highest levels than the lowest levels.

And at the local 4.5 level I know 2...one with a 2 hander and one with a one hander.

At 4.0 its like 80/ 20 in favor of the 1 hander.

Anyhow I think there is more of a comment on coaching and parenting than there is on which shot is more effective. You an win majors with both.

16 of the top 20 are two handers.

 

[The Unknown]

Exactly how I feel about the 2hbh. Defensively my 2hbh is slightly better than my forehand even though it lacks compared to my forehand in neutral or attacking situations.

I feel the same.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Regardless of 1 or 2 hands, if your backhand is as good as your forehand, then by definition your forehand is underdeveloped.

I don't really agree with such sweeping generalisations. Now I usually advocate not trying to hit a backhand from the forehand side of the court. But in this RG I noticed even Djokovic doing that at times. Maybe in the tough conditions he found more control with the backhand (what 10is maestro has sort of alluded to). In an interview Djokovic gave back before his 2011 season he described his backhand as maybe even better than his forehand. It's nobody's case that Djokovic's forehand is underdeveloped. So it's entirely possible that somebody may have an equally strong backhand and forehand. How about Monica Seles? And don't say WTA, she was STRONG from both sides, not weak on the forehand side like a Svitolina.

 

[The Unknown]

Caught some backhands on the phone this arvo while do some practice against some flatter incoming balls. Horrified to see how little my racket brushes up from low to high, and my lack of unit turn.

 

[BuildStrikeCosmos]

Regardless of 1 or 2 hands, if your backhand is as good as your forehand, then by definition your forehand is underdeveloped.

this was when I was 14 and didn't really have a weapon. both forehand and backhand were just ok with similar level of consistency.

I get the sense that switching to the one handed backhand really made my forehand a weapon after that because I kept running around it and it improved tremendously.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

My forehand is more versatile and powerful, but it is much easier to take balls on the rise with my backhand and that backhand is also more consistent. One does more damage, but is a bit riskier; the other can withold more pressure, but can't hurt the opponent as much... I'd say it's a close call.

As for the development of my forehand, the main issue is that I sometimes revert to this bad habit of a bigger back swing and it hinders me against better players. With two hands on my backhand, it's virtually impossible to take too big a swing -- in the sense of sending my hitting hand behind myself...

I recently started hitting two handed forehands a bit and it seems to help with that by forcing a shorter préparation. With enough time, it will be gone.


So, underdevelopped? If the reference point is my level of play, my game overall, not at all.

I don't really agree with such sweeping generalisations. Now I usually advocate not trying to hit a backhand from the forehand side of the court. But in this RG I noticed even Djokovic doing that at times. Maybe in the tough conditions he found more control with the backhand (what 10is maestro has sort of alluded to). In an interview Djokovic gave back before his 2011 season he described his backhand as maybe even better than his forehand. It's nobody's case that Djokovic's forehand is underdeveloped. So it's entirely possible that somebody may have an equally strong backhand and forehand. How about Monica Seles? And don't say WTA, she was STRONG from both sides, not weak on the forehand side like a Svitolina.

Then why not put two hands on your forehand? It would become more consistent, etc, like you say for your backhand.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Then why not put two hands on your forehand? It would become more consistent, etc, like you say for your backhand.

It's potentially a good idea except that I would have to sacrifice reach on the forehand side (and in any case I hit a one handed backhand as well which I have NOT claimed is better than MY forehand) and I am not prepared to do that.

 

[Shroud]

16 of the top 20 are two handers.

Exactly...the 1 handers rise to the top.

Anyhow as I said its more a comment on coaching/ parenting habits then a comment on the shots themselves...

 

[10isMaestro]

Then why not put two hands on your forehand? It would become more consistent, etc, like you say for your backhand.

1. It wasn't my point. I said both of my shots were of comparable quality even though they useful in different ways.

2. It is harder to hit forehands with two hands than backhands. But if I could hit follow a similar learning curve with a two handed forehand, I'd definitely consider it as an option.