The dominant players like Sampras, Federer, Lendl, MacEnroe etc all have one thing in common, the onehanded backhand. The twohanders basically come and go but seldom really dominate. Now consider the proliferation of the 2handed backhanders on tour, it is against the odds for onehanders to become the best. Statistically, the twohanders have the edge just because there are more of them. Yet the onehanders beat the odds everytime. 3 of the Fab 4 were 2handers and yet the one hander stood out from the rest. That's 1 against 3. Could it be, God forbids, the onehander is a better stroke? IMHO, I would say yes. Not so much the stroke itself, in fact I think the 2handed BH is a more stable and powerful stroke. It is the intangibles that separate the 1H from the 2H BH. The 1H provides better reach and gives your more freedom on your footwork which is more important than the stroke itself. With better reach and better footwork you have opened a lot more options. You can take the ball earlier because you can reach it earlier. You are more relaxed because you have more freedom on your footwork. When you are more relaxed, your mind thinks a bit better, you see a little better, you move a little better..... All these intangibles give the onehander a small edge. And a small edge is all a really good player needs to dominate. Agree?