AtomicForehand
Hall of Fame
Wait, really? For some reason I always think we disagree haha
No, you just thought I was attacking you in another thread when I responding to someone else.
Wait, really? For some reason I always think we disagree haha
Nadal doesn't even need to have any backhands at all. He's a natural righty. He could easily have TWO forehands. Can you imagine Nadal with his monster forehand on BOTH sides? How devastating would that be? :shock:imagine Nadal with a OHBH. How wild would that be. A crazy lasoo like swing on both wings. Picture Rafas super loopy forehand, accompanied buy lets say Gasquets super loopy backhand. That would be a sight to behold.
No, you just thought I was attacking you in another thread when I responding to someone else.
Nadal doesn't even need to have any backhands at all. He's a natural righty. He could easily have TWO forehands. Can you imagine Nadal with his monster forehand on BOTH sides? How devastating would that be? :shock:
lol Stan played a great match on a low bouncing hardcourt. Wait until they play on something higher bouncing. Like Indian Wells and the Clay Court season. It's still a weakness on higher bouncing surfaces.
Off topic. Let's stick to the topic on hand.I've got news for you. He's almost tied with Murray for gran slams. ;-)
Yes I enjoyed Stan dispatch those midcourt loopers DTL from Rafael with consummate ease. :lol:
spoken like someone who gets his tennis from the television..
'loopers'
cretin
Off topic. Let's stick to the topic on hand.I don't think you can single handedly convince me otherwise about the the single handed backhand. lol
Hi Timbo! Where've you been all my thread. So where do you stand regarding Stans performance via his 1HBH? This was a huge eye opener for myself an so many others around me.
lol Stan played a great match on a low bouncing hardcourt. Wait until they play on something higher bouncing. Like Indian Wells and the Clay Court season. It's still a weakness on higher bouncing surfaces.
AO is high bouncing. Certainly not a WTF-like court.
No, not the attacking me bit. I legitimately thought we disagreed on, like, everything.
Oh, OK. Perhaps we do. You're probably right.
I mean, we agree on some things, disagree on others.![]()
Loved it!
Not everyone can hit the one hander like Stan, of course, but it was nice to see somebody validate the shot
I saw Tommy Haas play Rafa at the AO in 2012 and he was cranking some wonderful single handers off the high ball too.
Sparks are flying!
I'm so glad to see a couple guys near the top using the stroke. Probably because I use one also ever since I started playing. A great one-hand is better than a good two-hand, but a good two-hand is better than a good one-hand. To play this stroke is to play with fire, because any mistakes made with it are usually followed by something like "your other arm would stabilize you more" or some other crack.
Don't get me wrong, I think a two is the right thing to teach someone starting out, but late comers to tennis and some naturals just have a certain feel.
Wawrinka and Gasquet impress me with it in different ways. Stan hitting as hard one-armed as guys with two is cool. Richard slicing the green off the ball and running opponents ragged is good fun.
I've tried converting a couple times and just can't get it right. I think maybe it was all the baseball I played hitting left-handed. To switch the double stroke to the other side is not easy for me, as much as I'd like to have that good Davydenko slap going. It messed with my serve a lot too as I was used to having my left foot behind. Anyway...
One is good fun.
You meant to say a great 1hbh is better than a great 2hbh, but a good 2hbh is better than a good 2hbh?
By the way, Gasquet is not really a slicer at all, his backhand is the backhand equivalent of Nadal's forehand - a topspin moonball, and he uses it similar to how Nadal employs his forehand. This is unique among backhands because you cannot physically topspin moonball with a 2hbh - the swing path is too flat.
I'm so glad to see a couple guys near the top using the stroke. Probably because I use one also ever since I started playing. A great one-hand is better than a good two-hand, but a good two-hand is better than a good one-hand. To play this stroke is to play with fire, because any mistakes made with it are usually followed by something like "your other arm would stabilize you more" or some other crack.
Don't get me wrong, I think a two is the right thing to teach someone starting out, but late comers to tennis and some naturals just have a certain feel.
Wawrinka and Gasquet impress me with it in different ways. Stan hitting as hard one-armed as guys with two is cool. Richard slicing the green off the ball and running opponents ragged is good fun.
I've tried converting a couple times and just can't get it right. I think maybe it was all the baseball I played hitting left-handed. To switch the double stroke to the other side is not easy for me, as much as I'd like to have that good Davydenko slap going. It messed with my serve a lot too as I was used to having my left foot behind. Anyway...
One is good fun.
You meant to say a great 1hbh is better than a great 2hbh, but a good 2hbh is better than a good 2hbh?
By the way, Gasquet is not really a slicer at all, his backhand is the backhand equivalent of Nadal's forehand - a topspin moonball, and he uses it similar to how Nadal employs his forehand. This is unique among backhands because you cannot physically topspin moonball with a 2hbh - the swing path is too flat.
The public consensus has always been that the 1HBH is the superior stroke but that it's harder to learn so only really good and dedicated players need apply. So nothing has changed because of Wawrinka.Cool. I agree. TH is a beast. He's like middle aged, and playing his best tennis. But yeah he's another ambassador of the OHBH. I am goin to try and play with a 1hbh tnite. I think a one handier will be more fun at the 4.0 level. The two hander feels more constricting. You see now how Stan has changed the public consensus regarding this stroke. I hope he can keep it up.
It hasn't been high bouncing since plexicushion was introduced.AO is high bouncing. Certainly not a WTF-like court.
lol Stan played a great match on a low bouncing hardcourt. Wait until they play on something higher bouncing. Like Indian Wells and the Clay Court season. It's still a weakness on higher bouncing surfaces.
I disagree. Australian Open maybe slower. But also lower bouncing. Not the ideal surface to Nadal. Nadal's game suits the US Open surface better as proven by the results. And indoor season is probably lower bouncing than Australia. But it's close imo.That's like saying Nadal's forehand is not a great shot because "just wait until the indoor season when Del Potro and Djokovic straight set him on low bouncing courts". Stan's backhand should hold up on most HCs. USO is not anymore high bouncing than Australia.
Not only on single backhand but Stan the Man in only 1,83m tall and is consistently pounding 215 km/h serves all day...has any guy this "small" served that fast in the past??
Not only on single backhand but Stan the Man in only 1,83m tall and is consistently pounding 215 km/h serves all day...has any guy this "small" served that fast in the past??
Gasquet has a pretty good backhand himself. Youtube it to see for yourself.
The public consensus has always been that the 1HBH is the superior stroke but that it's harder to learn so only really good and dedicated players need apply. So nothing has changed because of Wawrinka.![]()
Speaking of one-handed backhands, I think you guys may enjoy this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDSRqoRL9fA
I didn't realize a thread from last week was considered "dead" (especially when there are other recent threads on the same topic that are currently being discussed). I thought people would be more attentive.You revive a dead thread to get people to watch your YouTube video? Seriously?
Jeez, I thought people would be more creative. :neutral:
I didn't realize a thread from last week was considered "dead" (especially when there are other recent threads on the same topic that are currently being discussed). I thought people would be more attentive.
Oh, and YOU'RE WELCOME!
:middlefingeremoticon:![]()
Do you also need data to prove that the sky is blue? Things as obvious as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west do not need data. :shock:Public consensus????? any data to prove this?
Do you also need data to prove that the sky is blue? Things as obvious as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west do not need data. :shock:
Do you also need data to prove that the sky is blue? Things as obvious as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west do not need data. :shock:
Do you also need data to prove that the sky is blue? Things as obvious as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west do not need data. :shock: