Backhands: one-handers versus two-handers [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Backhands: one-handers versus two-handers

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 11:49 PM
I think it's a shame that the one-handed backhand is getting more and more rare on the tour. It's much harder to learn properly than a two-hander, obviously, but the upside is definitely worth it. The one-hander offers longer lever, which not only results in longer reach, but also in more potential power (simply physics here - I hope this is obvious). Also, the muscles responsible for accelerating a one-hander are stronger than those responsible for accelerating a two-hander resulting in more potential power yet again. Also, the one-hander allows for greater freedom of movement, allowing for greater variation in spins. The downside, obviously, is that the one-hander is less stable than the two-hander, but this goes for one-handed and two-handed forehands too, yet two-handed forehands are virtually non-existent, because giving up some stability for a stroke with greater potential definitely is worth it. I don't know what I'm trying to say, really. Just hoping to clear a few things up to people who think that the two-hander is the stroke with the higher potential as well as moan about the present state of the tour a little. ;)

Ernham
10-31-2006, 11:56 PM
almost everything you said is completely wrong. The only thing that's better with a one-handed backhand is spinning the ball in various ways. You gain power, accuracy, stability, and consistency with the two-hand. If you have excellent reflexes(connors, federer) your opponents serve actually becomes your weapon.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 11:59 PM
almost everything you said is completely wrong. The only thing that's better with a one-handed backhand is spinning the ball in various ways. You gain power, accuracy, stability, and consistency with the two-hand. If you have excellent reflexes(connors, federer) your opponents serve actually becomes your weapon.

Hmmm.... Of course! And what you say is supported by physics and body mechanics, I take it? No? Then why exactly am I listening to you? :)

leng jai
11-01-2006, 12:33 AM
I've been playing tennis for 7 years now, and been using a single handed backhand all the time. To hit a good single handed backhand you need a very strong wrist. I find that for me it is much easier to generate power on single hander than it is with a double. With a single hander you can swing much more freely. The single hander has better reach, and it is harder to cramp a player with a single handed backhand. Also, you'll find that most players with a single handed backhand have a fairly good slice, whereas players with double handed backhans only ever use it defensively where it lacks any bite on the court. My friend who has double handed backhand says it is very hard to hit off backhands too. With a single hander its quite easy to change directions. To be honest, the inital reason I chose a one hander was for the vanity factor. I loved watching Kuerten's and Haas' backhand.

The downside is that consistency suffers compared to the double hander. Frames occur much more often. Even after all these years my backhand is not as consistent as I like it to be. I've played so many club players who have rather average double handed backhands but they never seem to miss. High bouncing balls on the single hander are also very tough. You really have to make a big effort to get over the ball and get your racquet head through quickly, and this makes it a very risky shot.

I think the main reason that more people use the double hander is because it is easier to learn. It took me a long time before I could even fathom the thought of hitting a single handed topspin backhand. I started off slicing exclusively in the first few months. Most people play with the forehand as their strength so they settle with a solid backhand to backup their forehand. This is also because the forehand is a more natural shot at the very beginning, so it is often seen as a strength.

KaxMisha
11-01-2006, 12:43 AM
I've been playing tennis for 7 years now, and been using a single handed backhand all the time. To hit a good single handed backhand you need a very strong wrist. I find that for me it is much easier to generate power on single hander than it is with a double. With a single hander you can swing much more freely. The single hander has better reach, and it is harder to cramp a player with a single handed backhand. Also, you'll find that most players with a single handed backhand have a fairly good slice, whereas players with double handed backhans only ever use it defensively where it lacks any bite on the court. My friend who has double handed backhand says it is very hard to hit off backhands too. With a single hander its quite easy to change directions. To be honest, the inital reason I chose a one hander was for the vanity factor. I loved watching Kuerten's and Haas' backhand.

The downside is that consistency suffers compared to the double hander. Frames occur much more often. Even after all these years my backhand is not as consistent as I like it to be. I've played so many club players who have rather average double handed backhands but they never seem to miss. High bouncing balls on the single hander are also very tough. You really have to make a big effort to get over the ball and get your racquet head through quickly, and this makes it a very risky shot.

I think the main reason that more people use the double hander is because it is easier to learn. It took more a long time before I could even fathom the though of hitting a single handed topspin backhand. I started off slicing exclusively in the first few months. Most people play with the forehand as their strength so they settle with a solid backhand to backup their forehand. This is also because the forehand is a more natural shot at the very beginning, so it is often seen as a strength.

:worship: Amen to everything. That's absolutely correct. Great post.

ezekiel
11-01-2006, 12:53 AM
I always thought that one hander was a defensive shot thus it requires no positioning while a two hander is obviously offensive and requires good movement to position

KaxMisha
11-01-2006, 12:56 AM
I always thought that one hander was a defensive shot thus it requires no positioning while a two hander is obviously offensive and requires good movement to position

Hahahahaha! Are you serious? Why on earth would you think that?

Ernham
11-01-2006, 01:04 AM
I always thought that one hander was a defensive shot thus it requires no positioning while a two hander is obviously offensive and requires good movement to position

I don't think the one handed is good for anything unless you want to be like Santoro, where you whole game revolves around slices and spins. When i wa splaying competitively at college I loved to see people using a one handed backhand because it was so easy to exploit by making most of the shots high bouncing and on their backhand side. They will shank shots all day.

leng jai
11-01-2006, 01:05 AM
Footwork and position is very important or a single handed backhand. It is extremely difficult to hit offensive topspin backhands with a single hander when you're out of position. Thats why more often than not single handers will go to the slice, whereas double handers will still continue with topspin. I remember ferrero (in his prime) doing those topspin backhands when he was out of position. You would NEVER be able to do those on a single hander.

KaxMisha
11-01-2006, 01:11 AM
I don't think the one handed is good for anything unless you want to be like Santoro, where you whole game revolves around slices and spins. When i wa splaying competitively at college I loved to see people using a one handed backhand because it was so easy to exploit by making most of the shots high bouncing and on their backhand side. They will shank shots all day.

Yeah, I'm sure you beat Kuerten and Gaudio every day by having a superios backhand. Who with a two-hander ever did, by the way? And who had a backhand comparable to Lendl in his era? Huh? Why so quiet when these points come up? Physics, body mechanics and empirical evidence are all against you. :wavey:

KaxMisha
11-01-2006, 01:12 AM
Footwork and position is very important or a single handed backhand. It is extremely difficult to hit offensive topspin backhands with a single hander when you're out of position. Thats why more often than not single handers will go to the slice, whereas double handers will still continue with topspin. I remember ferrero (in his prime) doing those topspin backhands when he was out of position. You would NEVER be able to do those on a single hander.

That's true. It's harder to master and demands more of the player, but it has higher potential. Kuerten hardly ever sliced, while using a one-hander.

Ernham
11-01-2006, 01:23 AM
Yeah, I'm sure you beat Kuerten and Gaudio every day by having a superios backhand. Who with a two-hander ever did, by the way? And who had a backhand comparable to Lendl in his era? Huh? Why so quiet when these points come up? Physics, body mechanics and empirical evidence are all against you. :wavey:

Lendl did not have a powerful backhand. He was just very smart in his usage of it. Lendl was a genius with limited tennis talent and incredible determination. you really want to compare with Borg, Agassi, and Connors?

ezekiel
11-01-2006, 01:23 AM
Hahahahaha! Are you serious? Why on earth would you think that?

let's see, one hander has a bigger reach and it can be hit on the run , usually in a defensive position, plus the slice and spins are usually one handers and defensive in nature

Two handers give more power obviously and precision but it's harder to slice and spin with it. The problem with two handers is positioning, it has to be perfect and a player has to be a great mover to position himself and put enough control and power on it, only athletic movers can pull it off effectivelly

Ernham
11-01-2006, 01:26 AM
l

The problem with two handers is positioning, it has to be perfect and a player has to be a great mover to position himself and put enough control and power on it, only athletic movers can pull it off effectivelly

Wrong. Two handers have a huge "strike zone" for hitting the ball cleanly across without a shank. One handers have a very small "strike zone" and have to constantly slice in todays game where the ball moves so fast you cannot put the footwork in completely.

GlennMirnyi
11-01-2006, 01:33 AM
Yeah, I'm sure you beat Kuerten and Gaudio every day by having a superios backhand. Who with a two-hander ever did, by the way? And who had a backhand comparable to Lendl in his era? Huh? Why so quiet when these points come up? Physics, body mechanics and empirical evidence are all against you. :wavey:

Don't argue with that guy. He's showing total ignorance on the subject. He probably never watched Kuerten playing, or Gaudio, for that matter.

Ernham
11-01-2006, 01:41 AM
The best bet in todays game is to make the two-hander your bread and butter, but also master the one handed slice. The slice on one hand very easy to master, and you will probably want it istead of a semi-volley or "bunt" when you are completely overextended.

*Viva Chile*
11-01-2006, 01:49 AM
The reason of why there are more two-handers for the backhand side is because the evolution of the game... is more easy to return a 200 km/hr serve with 2 hands for the backhand side than a one handed, at least this is the reason of why many tennis teachers teach to his pupils to play two-handed. I remember that Jose Luis Clerc once said that (and he played with one-handed when he was pro)

SwissMister1
11-01-2006, 01:53 AM
I use a one hander as my bread and butter backhand, can hit some good shots with it, but I do block back fast serves with a two hander, although I suppose that isn't the textbook way to do things.

Murray_no1
11-01-2006, 01:57 AM
FORGET PHYSICS FOR A MINUTE AND THINK PLAYERS AND WINNERS: UNFORCED ERROR RATIOS.

I think murrays backhand is a great example of the 2 hander being better than any single hander in the game. Murray demonstrated this against federer and lubicic, the benifit of having control rather than a powerful single hander. The 2 hander is better to return off BIG ADVANTAGE (best returner in the game agassi) look at the power he had in his backhand!

The biggest factor probably why two handers are used more than one handers -unforced errors! With the one hander it is extremely difficult to hit winners that will outweigh the unforced errors, if you consistently attack off it. The two hander you may not hit as many winners but you can cut the unforced errors right down and if you have a good backhand your going to be in the plus column of winners to unforced errors! TEAM ONE Nadal Murray Agassi in a backhand battle vs TEAM TWO Federer Lubicic and Gasquet. I can only see 1 team winning. VAMOSSSSS *PUMPS FIST*

GlennMirnyi
11-01-2006, 02:11 AM
FORGET PHYSICS FOR A MINUTE AND THINK PLAYERS AND WINNERS: UNFORCED ERROR RATIOS.

I think murrays backhand is a great example of the 2 hander being better than any single hander in the game. Murray demonstrated this against federer and lubicic, the benifit of having control rather than a powerful single hander. The 2 hander is better to return off BIG ADVANTAGE (best returner in the game agassi) look at the power he had in his backhand!

The biggest factor probably why two handers are used more than one handers -unforced errors! With the one hander it is extremely difficult to hit winners that will outweigh the unforced errors, if you consistently attack off it. The two hander you may not hit as many winners but you can cut the unforced errors right down and if you have a good backhand your going to be in the plus column of winners to unforced errors! TEAM ONE Nadal Murray Agassi in a backhand battle vs TEAM TWO Federer Lubicic and Gasquet. I can only see 1 team winning. VAMOSSSSS *PUMPS FIST*

Never read a biggest bullshit in my entire life. And I've read posts by R=FK.
You took one match, that Ljubicic was totally unable to play properly, to make your incredible analysis of the game. In a good day Ljubicic would win easily against Murray.

Ernham
11-01-2006, 02:38 AM
Never read a biggest bullshit in my entire life. And I've read posts by R=FK.
You took one match, that Ljubicic was totally unable to play properly, to make your incredible analysis of the game. In a good day Ljubicic would win easily against Murray.

and on a "good day" on fast courts Sampras/Agassi will blow away Kuerten. Funny how quickly you change your logic when it suits you. Pathetic.

General Suburbia
11-01-2006, 03:45 AM
Physics? I always thought people who actually knew their human physiology were people who dabbled on the theoretical, when it came to sports. In other words, if you really do think you know what you're talking about when it comes to the science of the sport you probably don't play it very well if at all.

I had to adopt to both one handed and two handed backhands, since when I started coaching, I would hold balls with one hand; only one hand would be free to swing my racket. This is probably a biased opinion since I started with the two hander, but the one handed is definately a lot more unstable. Whoever compared the one handed backhand with the one handed forhand (why players use one handed forehands and not one handed backhands) is an idiot; you're using two different muscles to generate power. With the two hander, you're also pushing through the ball with your other hand, generating better pop.

ServeAlready81
11-01-2006, 05:07 AM
I think one handed backhands benefit fast players the most (ie Blake, Federer, Guga {back in the day}, Haas, etc;) because they can slice if they get pulled out wide and get themselves back into position.


I don't think one handed is a dying breed like people would like you to think. Especially now that Fed is at the top of the game with a one-hander, you'd better believe that coaches are teaching youngsters this shot. I honestly wish I would've kept hitting with a one hander, just so much more that you can do with the shot...just seemed like so much more could go wrong with it on the flipside. Although seems like there are more wrist injuries to two handed players than there are to one handers, and I think it just has to do with the right wrist being the more dominant side (so naturally stronger) on the majority of people.

acharlesmobile
11-01-2006, 05:28 AM
One hander has more potential maybe. But even Federer is not more consistent with it than players with decent two handers are with theirs. There are natural limits to both. Yes, you can generate a lot of torque with a one hander but you also gain power in a two hander with if you use your nondominant hand ya know? It seems you think everyone else who doesn't agree with you must be a dumbass.

simpletennis
11-01-2006, 05:58 AM
i've went to from 2-hander to 1-hander, and back to 2-hander. w/the one hander, i had more power, and spin, but it was a lot more difficult for me to get the ball in the right hitting zone to properly hit it, so i produced many errors on my backhand. but when i did actually get my feet in the right position, it was a really nice shot. my 2 handed is more consistent than if i had a one handed. they're really diff. though, since the contact points are diff, it's really to the player's preference though.

~*BGT*~
11-01-2006, 05:59 AM
Funny, the first thing I noticed when I started training myself to use a one-handed backhand was just how much more explosive power it gave me. :shrug: It's definitely less stable, but I always attributed that to the fact that it's harder to master.

Definitely. I can hit my one handed BH a lot harder than my forehand, but my FH is more consistent than my BH so I avoid my BH. I tried a two hander this summer, and when I was playing my brother (who's not as powerful as the tennis team), I was hitting major winners off it. But when I went to school, my tow hander got eaten up by the quicker and more powerful players. There were times when I would completely miss the ball with my 2 hander. I'll stick with my 1 hander.

martinatreue
11-01-2006, 06:12 AM
my one hander is way more powerful, precise and variable with heavy topspin, flat or slice. My two hander is good for blocking back hard serves at me or for generating angles when close to me or hitting lobs off deep hard shots. overall my one hander is my better shot by quite a margin but I am glad i can pull out the 2-hander in certain situations.

How anyone can think the one-hander is in trouble though??? HMMMM. Fed won Wimbly and US Open and zillions of more tourneys. Blake just won 2 tourneys, Ljubicic in Vienna, Gonzalez has been in 3 finals in a row, Gasquet just won Lyon. Srichaphan, Haas, Robredo, Youzhny, Mirnyi, etc, etc all have good results too.

World Beater
11-01-2006, 06:13 AM
the reason two handers appear to generate more power in the shots of most players in comparison to one handers is because of control and stability.

having the biggest swing doesnt necessarily translate into more power. its mostly about timing, and this stems from technique and control. safin has a great bh because of his control and superb timing. but theoretically, a single hander should be able to produce more power if a player were able to master it with the same control and stability as double handers can. thus producing greater timing.

yomike
11-01-2006, 08:51 AM
two handed backhands are forgettable, all the great backhands are one-handed

deliveryman
11-01-2006, 09:50 AM
I think it's a shame that the one-handed backhand is getting more and more rare on the tour. It's much harder to learn properly than a two-hander, obviously, but the upside is definitely worth it. The one-hander offers longer lever, which not only results in longer reach, but also in more potential power (simply physics here - I hope this is obvious). Also, the muscles responsible for accelerating a one-hander are stronger than those responsible for accelerating a two-hander resulting in more potential power yet again. Also, the one-hander allows for greater freedom of movement, allowing for greater variation in spins. The downside, obviously, is that the one-hander is less stable than the two-hander, but this goes for one-handed and two-handed forehands too, yet two-handed forehands are virtually non-existent, because giving up some stability for a stroke with greater potential definitely is worth it. I don't know what I'm trying to say, really. Just hoping to clear a few things up to people who think that the two-hander is the stroke with the higher potential as well as moan about the present state of the tour a little. ;)

LOL.

I really hate to turn this into physics class, but if you're going to spew out random BS, I just have to. Weight usually is a much bigger factor in determining power than is speed.

If you took any sort of basics physics class you would know that Power is measured by Force x Acceleration.

For argument sake, let's just say that the weight of each hand on the racket weighs 1 kg.

and also for argument sake, let's assume that both swings accelerate at roughly the same speed (10ms^2)

So let's find the Force:

F=MA

1 Handed:

F= 1kg x 10ms^2
F = 10 Newtons

2 Handed:

F = 2kg x 10ms^2
F = 20 Newtons.

Though Power = Force x Velocity

Now since the one-handed swing has a further distance travelled than the two-handed swing, it's going to be faster (because it has more time to accelerate) while the two-hander is shorter and more compact.

Let's assume that with a 1-handed swing the racket travels 1 meter, and the 2-handed swing travels two thirds of that distance.

1 Handed:

P = 10 Newtons x 10 ms
Power = 100 Watts

2 Handed

P = 20 x 6.6
Power = 132 Watts.

Thank you.

Class dismissed.

Ernham
11-01-2006, 01:40 PM
two handed backhands are forgettable, all the great backhands are one-handed

Ya. Agassi and Connors had really forgettable backhands...

leng jai
11-01-2006, 02:16 PM
People don't remember Agassi for his backhand...

Ernham
11-01-2006, 02:20 PM
People don't remember Agassi for his backhand...

Were you asleep when Agassi was revolutionizing the baseline game?

Ernham
11-01-2006, 05:04 PM
Nice work, except you're assuming that both backhands accelerate at the same speed, that two-handed automatically means twice the weight, that the force the right hand has in a two-hander is equal to the force it has in a one-hander, that the force of each hand in a two-hander is equal to each other, and that only the weight of the hands matter. Too many assumptions for class to be dismissed so quickly, I think.

I think that for anyone to think that a one handed backhand is more powerful than a two handed one, class was dismissed way back in primary school.

Lee
11-01-2006, 05:07 PM
Nice work, except you're assuming that both backhands accelerate at the same speed, that two-handed automatically means twice the weight, that the force the right hand has in a two-hander is equal to the force it has in a one-hander, that the force of each hand in a two-hander is equal to each other, and that only the weight of the hands matter. Too many assumptions for class to be dismissed so quickly, I think.


:yeah: :lol:

Plus, the way the body move between one-hand and two-hand is different and the body weight is way higher.

sampaio
11-01-2006, 06:04 PM
FORGET PHYSICS FOR A MINUTE AND THINK PLAYERS AND WINNERS: UNFORCED ERROR RATIOS.

I think murrays backhand is a great example of the 2 hander being better than any single hander in the game. Murray demonstrated this


Murray_no1 is right ,lets face it:
Murray humilated Gasquet 6-2 7-5 in Toronto (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Murray%2C+Andy&player2=gasquet), outguned Blake 6-3 6-3 in Hamburg (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Murray%2C+Andy&player2=Blake%2C+James&playernum2=B676) ,easily defeated Volandri 6-4 6-4 in Rome (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Murray%2C+Andy&player2=volandri) ,destroyed Robredo 6-2 6-2 in Las Vegas (http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Murray%2C+Andy&player2=robredo) .And all of these happened this year.
We have to admit Murray's Backhand>>>>any one hander
:rolleyes:

tangerine_dream
11-01-2006, 06:18 PM
I think it's a shame that the one-handed backhand is getting more and more rare on the tour.
Baloney. Half of the current top ten players use one-handed backhands. The one-hander is going through a bit of a resurgence: Blake, Gaudio, Federer, Gasquet, Mirnyi, Haas, Ljubicic, Kuerten, Youzhny, Srichaphan, Robredo among others all use it.

Ernham
11-01-2006, 06:25 PM
Baloney. Half of the current top ten players use one-handed backhands. The one-hander is going through a bit of a resurgence: Blake, Gaudio, Federer, Gasquet, Mirnyi, Haas, Ljubicic, Kuerten, Youzhny, Srichaphan, Robredo among others all use it.

Resurgence? it's been dieing off for over a decade. About 80% of pro men use 2 hand now and over 90% of the women. In ten years it will be 90% men and 99% of women.

That tennis kid
11-01-2006, 09:00 PM
almost everything you said is completely wrong. The only thing that's better with a one-handed backhand is spinning the ball in various ways. You gain power, accuracy, stability, and consistency with the two-hand. If you have excellent reflexes(connors, federer) your opponents serve actually becomes your weapon.

Is there not a contradiction here?
Premise of argument is that two-handed backhands are better for everything apart from variety and that two-handed backhands are more stable hence better for returning. Yet Federer is cited, quite rightly, as an example of an effective returner of serve. Federer has a one-handed backhand. Unless you are suggesting Federer's return is effective solely because his "excellent reflexes" allow him to impart various spins on return - not that it is powerful, accurate, stable or consistent - it doesn't support your argument.

I don't think the one handed is good for anything unless you want to be like Santoro, where you whole game revolves around slices and spins. When i wa splaying competitively at college I loved to see people using a one handed backhand because it was so easy to exploit by making most of the shots high bouncing and on their backhand side. They will shank shots all day.

Have you seen Santoro play?

High balls are certainly a problem for the one-hander, but again the one-hander has advantages over two-handed backhand.

Resurgence? it's been dieing off for over a decade. About 80% of pro men use 2 hand now and over 90% of the women. In ten years it will be 90% men and 99% of women.

Nonsense. Plenty of professionals have a one-handed backhand: Federer, Ljubicic, Robredo, Gonzalez, Blake, Haas, Gasquet, Gaudio, Youzhny, Calleri etc. There seems to be a pretty even split.

There are many players with a very high quality two-handed backhand - Safin, Nalbandian, Murray for example - just as there are many players with a very high quality one-handed backhand - such as Gasquet, Gaudio, Ljubicic -it is difficult to determine which is better as it depends entirely on the player.

Ernham
11-01-2006, 09:09 PM
Is there not a contradiction here?
Premise of argument is that two-handed backhands are better for everything apart from variety and that two-handed backhands are more stable hence better for returning. Yet Federer is cited, quite rightly, as an example of an effective returner of serve. Federer has a one-handed backhand. Unless you are suggesting Federer's return is effective solely because his "excellent reflexes" allow him to impart various spins on return - not that it is powerful, accurate, stable or consistent - it doesn't support your argument.

No it's a case of really poor reading comprehension. Federer was cited as an example of a player with very fast reflexes. As I said, if he used a two-handed backhand, people wouldn't even bother showing up for tournaments with him in them. And "no I'm not serious". That's god damn hyperbole.



Have you seen Santoro play?

I happen to be the person that brought him up, so what do you think Sherlock?

but again the one-hander has advantages over two-handed backhand.

Nope. all advantages can easily be made up by become good with a two hand technique. In 905 of situations, the two handed backhand is the superior choice. For a long time it was thought that one handed was better, but slowly more people are realizing that was complete nonsense and in fact it's the weaker of the two.



Nonsense. Plenty of professionals have a one-handed backhand: Federer, Ljubicic, Robredo, Gonzalez, Blake, Haas, Gasquet, Gaudio, Youzhny, Calleri etc. There seems to be a pretty even split.

Ya, and that's about what % of the current pro players? You don't know what you are talking about. About 80% of current pros have a two handed backhand. Period. Ask someone that actually god damn knows anything about pro tennis.

martinatreue
11-01-2006, 09:14 PM
No it's a case of really poor reading comprehension. Federer was cited as an example of a player with very fast reflexes. As I said, if he used a two-handed backhand, people wouldn't even bother showing up for tournaments with him in them. And "no I'm not serious". That's god damn hyperbole.




I happen to be the person that brought him up, so what do you think Sherlock?



Nope. all advantages can easily be made up by become good with a two hand technique. In 905 of situations, the two handed backhand is the superior choice. For a long time it was thought that one handed was better, but slowly more people are realizing that was complete nonsense and in fact it's the weaker of the two.




Ya, and that's about what % of the current pro players? You don't know what you are talking about. About 80% of current pros have a two handed backhand. Period. Ask someone that actually god damn knows anything about pro tennis.


Well if 80% have 2-handers then it just shows how good the 1-hander is given that quite a bit more than 20% of the top players have 1-handers. Guess the average ranking of the 1-handed player must be way higher then. :wavey:

Ernham
11-01-2006, 09:22 PM
Well if 80% have 2-handers then it just shows how good the 1-hander is given that quite a bit more than 20% of the top players have 1-handers. Guess the average ranking of the 1-handed player must be way higher then. :wavey:

Mostly older players. Give it another decade or two and the one-hander will go the way of the dodo, save for a slice or quick approach shot. Two hand is almost always better, though a one hander will still be useful rarely.

That tennis kid
11-01-2006, 09:37 PM
No it's a case of really poor reading comprehension. Federer was cited as an example of a player with very fast reflexes.

Guess I credited you with being more relevant than you really were. As wonderful as the insight is in "Players X & Y have excellent reflexes; this helps them return serve" is, no-one is arguing better reflexes help to make you a better returner - it's obvious and it's irrelevant to this debate.


I happen to be the person that brought him up, so what do you think Sherlock?

That you stated "I don't think the one handed is good for anything unless you want to be like Santoro" and given Santoro's predilection to hitting the ball two handed it's questionable.


Nope. all advantages can easily be made up by become good with a two hand technique.

Much like a one-handed backhand's difficultly with high balls "can easily be made up by become good" with a one hand technique?

In 905 of situations, the two handed backhand is the superior choice. For a long time it was thought that one handed was better, but slowly more people are realizing that was complete nonsense and in fact it's the weaker of the two.

Sweeping generalisation with no attempt at justification.


Ya, and that's about what % of the current pro players? You don't know what you are talking about. About 80% of current pros have a two handed backhand. Period. Ask someone that actually god damn knows anything about pro tennis.

Unless you wish to go through every professional player and determine which backhand they opt for looking at a smaller group and extrapolating the percentages seems an easier option.

Ernham
11-01-2006, 09:47 PM
Read these and shut up.

Elliott, B. C., Marsh, A. P. & Overheu, P. R. (1989). The topspin backhand drive in tennis: a biomechanical analysis. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 16, 1-16.

Groppel, J. L. (1978). Kinematic analysis of the tennis one-handed and two-handed backhand drives of highly-skilled female competitors. Thesis (Ph.D.), Florida State University.
Groppel, J. L. (1992). High Tech Tennis. Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.

Reid, M. M. & Elliott, B. C. (2001). The One-and Two-Handed Backhands in Tennis. Journal of Sport Biomechanics, In press.

Schonborn, R. (1998). Advanced training techniques for competitive players. Meyer & Meyer Verlag, Aachen, Germany.

Wang, L-H., Wu, H. W., Su, F. C. & Lo, K. C. (1998). Kinematics of the upper limb and truck in tennis players using single-handed backhand strokes. In H. Riehle, & M. Vieten (eds.), ISBS XVI (pp.273-275). Taiwan: University of Konstanz.

That tennis kid
11-01-2006, 10:22 PM
Read these and shut up.

Elliott, B. C., Marsh, A. P. & Overheu, P. R. (1989). The topspin backhand drive in tennis: a biomechanical analysis. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 16, 1-16.

Groppel, J. L. (1978). Kinematic analysis of the tennis one-handed and two-handed backhand drives of highly-skilled female competitors. Thesis (Ph.D.), Florida State University.
Groppel, J. L. (1992). High Tech Tennis. Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.

Reid, M. M. & Elliott, B. C. (2001). The One-and Two-Handed Backhands in Tennis. Journal of Sport Biomechanics, In press.

Schonborn, R. (1998). Advanced training techniques for competitive players. Meyer & Meyer Verlag, Aachen, Germany.

Wang, L-H., Wu, H. W., Su, F. C. & Lo, K. C. (1998). Kinematics of the upper limb and truck in tennis players using single-handed backhand strokes. In H. Riehle, & M. Vieten (eds.), ISBS XVI (pp.273-275). Taiwan: University of Konstanz.

Unfortunately I do not have subscriptions to the plethora of sports medicine journals these appeared in. If you would care to summise the material in each of these papers I would be appreciative as I find this sort of stuff interesting, but don't subscribe, as you must, to the journals which publish this research.

World Beater
11-01-2006, 10:26 PM
LOL.

I really hate to turn this into physics class, but if you're going to spew out random BS, I just have to. Weight usually is a much bigger factor in determining power than is speed.

If you took any sort of basics physics class you would know that Power is measured by Force x Acceleration.

For argument sake, let's just say that the weight of each hand on the racket weighs 1 kg.

and also for argument sake, let's assume that both swings accelerate at roughly the same speed (10ms^2)

So let's find the Force:

F=MA

1 Handed:

F= 1kg x 10ms^2
F = 10 Newtons

2 Handed:

F = 2kg x 10ms^2
F = 20 Newtons.

Though Power = Force x Velocity

Now since the one-handed swing has a further distance travelled than the two-handed swing, it's going to be faster (because it has more time to accelerate) while the two-hander is shorter and more compact.

Let's assume that with a 1-handed swing the racket travels 1 meter, and the 2-handed swing travels two thirds of that distance.

1 Handed:

P = 10 Newtons x 10 ms
Power = 100 Watts

2 Handed

P = 20 x 6.6
Power = 132 Watts.

Thank you.

Class dismissed.


you cannot use f = ma here...you need to use the change in velocity of the ball which is related to the impulse imparted onto the ball.

hence f*delta t = delta p
where t=time and p=momentum

J. Corwin
11-01-2006, 11:04 PM
My two-hander would be just like Agassi's if the court were twice as wide! :rocker2:

LOL.

I really hate to turn this into physics class, but if you're going to spew out random BS, I just have to. Weight usually is a much bigger factor in determining power than is speed.

If you took any sort of basics physics class you would know that Power is measured by Force x Acceleration.

For argument sake, let's just say that the weight of each hand on the racket weighs 1 kg.

and also for argument sake, let's assume that both swings accelerate at roughly the same speed (10ms^2)

So let's find the Force:

F=MA

1 Handed:

F= 1kg x 10ms^2
F = 10 Newtons

2 Handed:

F = 2kg x 10ms^2
F = 20 Newtons.

Though Power = Force x Velocity

Now since the one-handed swing has a further distance travelled than the two-handed swing, it's going to be faster (because it has more time to accelerate) while the two-hander is shorter and more compact.

Let's assume that with a 1-handed swing the racket travels 1 meter, and the 2-handed swing travels two thirds of that distance.

1 Handed:

P = 10 Newtons x 10 ms
Power = 100 Watts

2 Handed

P = 20 x 6.6
Power = 132 Watts.

Thank you.

Class dismissed.

I just got out of school. :bigcry:

zicofirol
11-01-2006, 11:13 PM
almost everything you said is completely wrong. The only thing that's better with a one-handed backhand is spinning the ball in various ways. You gain power, accuracy, stability, and consistency with the two-hand. If you have excellent reflexes(connors, federer) your opponents serve actually becomes your weapon.

haha, have you ever played tennis? If hit right you can get alot of power with a backhand, accuracy is better with the 1 hander you can create much better and precise angles. Consistency really depends on the player.

zicofirol
11-01-2006, 11:15 PM
I always thought that one hander was a defensive shot thus it requires no positioning while a two hander is obviously offensive and requires good movement to position

yeah you can really see that when you compare gasquet's on handed backhand and roddicks 2 handed backhand...

Ernham
11-01-2006, 11:20 PM
Thank you for disagreeing. "zico". That's the best damn evidence i'm right, Forget about all those scientific journals.

General Suburbia
11-01-2006, 11:21 PM
two handed backhands are forgettable, all the great backhands are one-handed
One handers are flashier, not necesarily better.

Ernham
11-01-2006, 11:22 PM
Unfortunately I do not have subscriptions to the plethora of sports medicine journals these appeared in. If you would care to summise the material in each of these papers I would be appreciative as I find this sort of stuff interesting, but don't subscribe, as you must, to the journals which publish this research.

You could read my first post on this thread for a summary.

thrust
11-02-2006, 12:16 AM
One handed backhands: Federer, Sampras, Laver. Gonzales, Rosewall, Hoad, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Emerson-End of discussion! Agassi, Connors and Borg were also great players but: Sampras was better than Agassi, McEnroe was better than Connors and Borg-off clay

Ernham
11-02-2006, 01:08 AM
One handed backhands: Federer, Sampras, Laver. Gonzales, Rosewall, Hoad, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Emerson-End of discussion! Agassi, Connors and Borg were also great players but: Sampras was better than Agassi, McEnroe was better than Connors and Borg-off clay

Went from knee-deep to neck-deep rather quick in here. That tends to happen, though, when people talk about things they have no god damn clue about.

acharlesmobile
11-02-2006, 03:12 AM
The F=ma doesn't work for one hander because you are not hitting the ball with the weight of your hand. you are using the torque generated by the swing of your racket.

Ernham
11-02-2006, 03:27 AM
The F=ma doesn't work for one hander because you are not hitting the ball with the weight of your hand. you are using the torque generated by the swing of your racket.

F=MA always works and is always applicable(as long as you don't start talking about atomic level physics), you just have to derive the "circular" version with calculus. And they are both like that. The entire body moves through the two handed backhand, though, and the point of rotation is more or less the the center of gravity on a tennis player. On top of the extra movement, extra muscles are incorporated into the swing, both those responsible for all the body motion and those responsible swinging of both arms. You might "logically" think you get a tiny little bit longer "lever" with the one handed-- you don't. Because the rotational axis is the shoulder on someone doing a one-handed backhand, it's actually short torque/power-wise.

Ernham
11-06-2006, 04:47 AM
Hi. Straight A student, studying at the two most prestigeous colleges in Sweden simultaneously here. :wavey: I also have great hair. ;) On a more serious note:

The reason all you say is crap (and it is) is because how much weight you put behind the shot depends very little on the weight of the hands. See, you actually need to APPLY your physics knowledge for it to mean something.

You are not a physics student. No way in hell. Almost everything you've said regarding physics has been grossly incorrect.

KaxMisha
11-06-2006, 04:52 AM
You are not a physics student. No way in hell. Almost everything you've said regarding physics has been grossly incorrect.

I'm not a physics student, nor did I ever say I was one. However, I obviously knoe much more physics than the ninth-grade stuff that he offered. I just deleted that post because I saw other people had already replied to his BS though.

Everything I've said has been incorrect? Why's that? I should just take your word for it. Great argument. I will. Or not. Summing up:

On my side:
1. Physics
2. Body mechanics
3. Empirical evidence
4. General consensus among the posters in this thread (not as relevant, but still)

On your side:
1. You saying I'm wrong (=nothing)

KaxMisha
11-06-2006, 04:53 AM
Because the rotational axis is the shoulder on someone doing a one-handed backhand, it's actually short torque/power-wise.

Really? Then why did you agree it was longer some posts back?

Ernham
11-06-2006, 04:57 AM
Really? Then why did you agree it was longer some posts back?

It is "long" it will give you greater REACH, but torque/power wise it is less, as I explained two posts ago. There is greater force applied from muscles in the two handed backhand, and the rotational axis is significantly further away from ball contact: shoulder joint versus "belly button". In short, on the grounds of power there is not the slightest of merits to your argument using physics.

LCeh
11-06-2006, 05:02 AM
I have played with both one handed backhand and two handed backhand and no doubt one hander gives you much more POTENTIAL power. The effort you have to put in to generate the pace is much less than 2 handers because of the torque you can get with your shoulder turn as well as the reach. Like many others have said, however, if you were to try to maximize that potential, your swing becomes a lot more error prone since you don't get as much stability for your swing as a two hander does. THAT's why 2 handers usually hit harder backhands, cause they have more stability with it and can hit harder, and NOT because 2 hander gives you more potential power.

If you let a kid that didn't know any tennis and tell him to hit that backhand as hard as he could, no way would he stick to a 2 hander if someone feeds him the ball.

Ernham
11-06-2006, 05:06 AM
I have played with both one handed backhand and two handed backhand and no doubt one hander gives you much more POTENTIAL power.

Repeating an incorrect statement does not make it any more right, no matter how many times you do so.

Elliott, B. C., Marsh, A. P. & Overheu, P. R. (1989). The topspin backhand drive in tennis: a biomechanical analysis. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 16, 1-16.

Groppel, J. L. (1978). Kinematic analysis of the tennis one-handed and two-handed backhand drives of highly-skilled female competitors. Thesis (Ph.D.), Florida State University.
Groppel, J. L. (1992). High Tech Tennis. Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.

Reid, M. M. & Elliott, B. C. (2001). The One-and Two-Handed Backhands in Tennis. Journal of Sport Biomechanics, In press.

Schonborn, R. (1998). Advanced training techniques for competitive players. Meyer & Meyer Verlag, Aachen, Germany.

Wang, L-H., Wu, H. W., Su, F. C. & Lo, K. C. (1998). Kinematics of the upper limb and truck in tennis players using single-handed backhand strokes. In H. Riehle, & M. Vieten (eds.), ISBS XVI (pp.273-275). Taiwan: University of Konstanz.

General Suburbia
11-06-2006, 05:58 AM
Hooray for science. It's amazing how people who back up their arguments with "science" and "logic" can't even agree with each other. Looking back at how ridiculous this thread has gotten, I still feel like what I said still applies.

lordmanji
11-06-2006, 06:57 AM
i used to have a one hander now have a two hander. hmm...i had a western grip on the one hander so i'd have to say my two hander, being that i can hit it harder by hitting it flatter, has more pace. its also more stable than my onehander was.

Loremaster
11-06-2006, 09:53 AM
I played both and duble handed is works much better for me than one handed , because
- I can gain more power ( i know that one hander has more power potenetnial, but to hit it hard you must have awesome technique, positioning it is easier ot hit powerfull with doulbe handed that one handed ) even Federer do not use more power on backhand than Safin, Berdych, Agassi, Nalbandian, he plays great angles not power, only Gasqeut hits it really hard for me he has the best backhand today- Great power, great angles, and playes it inside - out which is shocking for 1hander
- more control
- less UE
- more stablity
- you can attack high balls easily , one handed beckhands could be easily turned into wekaness but player with great topspins shots, and with2handed backhand I can easily hit such balls with power and accuracy by using jumping and hitting 2handed backhand in air(like Safin, Rios, Ferrero etc)
- 2hander is great to hit agrgresive out of position which is great when you are in defense and I found it easier to create decent passing shots
- slice is only matter of training , I can hit it good but I rarely use it beacuse 2handed backhand gives much more possibilities in defense and 2handed backhand mixed with very good slice is for me future of tennis (look at Murray ) you can gain huge tactical benefits form such combination
- it helps to return serves much better than 1hander (only Federer and Blake has great return using onehander , but it is usually a block and offensive return(Federer)
Nalbandian, Agassi, Hewitt could hit winners from returns on backhand forcing opponent out of position even Nadal who does not have great return hit is able to hit awesome 2handed return winners (I remember two against Federer in 3rd set Wimbledon tiebreak )
- I even like to play with my backhand more than forehand , it gives me more stability control

Myrre
11-06-2006, 10:29 AM
If you want to have a consistent backhand and prefer to wait for your opponent to make an error (until the cows come home) then go for a two-hander.

If you're the type that like to dictate play, have variety, charge the net etc then the one-hander is the best. It's also a much more beautiful shot.

Loremaster
11-06-2006, 01:07 PM
If you want to have a consistent backhand and prefer to wait for your opponent to make an error (until the cows come home) then go for a two-hander.

If you're the type that like to dictate play, have variety, charge the net etc then the one-hander is the best. It's also a much more beautiful shot.


I don't understand, you could use 2 handed backhand to play agressive, and for me 2handed is better to dictate play than 1handed, but I agree than 1handed is better to play serve%volley, becuse at the net it's more usefuall and "quicker" and also you can chip and charge easier with one handed backhand. But is is much easier to dicatet play with two handed backhand look at Agassi, Nalbandian and Hewitt dicatate play was/is theirs style of play which lead to great sucess and they all have great backhands, Nalbandian down the line backhand is the best way to open and set up the rally in tennis.

That tennis kid
11-06-2006, 03:10 PM
Hooray for science. It's amazing how people who back up their arguments with "science" and "logic" can't even agree with each other. Looking back at how ridiculous this thread has gotten, I still feel like what I said still applies.

Quite true. I am sure Roddick's service action isn't the best technically, but it still gets results. One could use scientific studies to suggest that Roddick's serve would be better if he hit it in a more conventional way - truth is Roddick has one of the, if not the, best serves out there.

TennisOz
11-06-2006, 03:21 PM
I don't know what others have said, haven't got time to plough through all the replies but I think Federer #1 and Mauresmo #1 (or thereabouts) with the likes of Ljubicic up there in the Men and Henin-Hardenne in the Ladies says that there can't be a lot wrong with a single hander.

It's well known that a lot of players start with a double hander because they start so young and it is the only way they can play the stroke without changing the grip from semi-western/western towards the back of the grip. There is also a lot of copying of role models so if a lot of youngsters admire Federer there should be no problem with the single hander disappearing. It's quite easy to teach a young person the single hander from the off.

Incidentally, it's a bit of a misnomer. The non-hitting hand is used a lot - to support the racquet in the ready position, to change the grip, to help lift it and rotate the shoulders, to balance the body and make room for the rotation etc, it's just that there is only one hand on the racquet at the point of impact.

TennisOz

TennisOz
11-06-2006, 03:27 PM
Quite true. I am sure Roddick's service action isn't the best technically, but it still gets results. One could use scientific studies to suggest that Roddick's serve would be better if he hit it in a more conventional way - truth is Roddick has one of the, if not the, best serves out there.

Roddick has the fastest serve mainly because of the racquet head speed he generates from his action. You could change it to a more aesthetically pleasing stroke but he would definitely lose KPH/MPH so it is difficult to say that it 'isn't the best technically'. In my view (bit biased admittedly because he's a fellow Williamstowner/Melburnian) Phillippoussis has one of the best service actions technically and of course he once held the fastest serve record until Roddick came along. Ditto Ljubicic, nice action which builds up from a languid sway.

TennisOz:)

That tennis kid
11-06-2006, 04:46 PM
Roddick has the fastest serve mainly because of the racquet head speed he generates from his action. You could change it to a more aesthetically pleasing stroke but he would definitely lose KPH/MPH so it is difficult to say that it 'isn't the best technically'. In my view (bit biased admittedly because he's a fellow Williamstowner/Melburnian) Phillippoussis has one of the best service actions technically and of course he once held the fastest serve record until Roddick came along. Ditto Ljubicic, nice action which builds up from a languid sway.

TennisOz:)

Perfomance wise the abbreviated service motion carries no disadvantage - yet as convention now suggests the use of a two-handed backhand, a more drawn-out service motion remains widespread. Of course there are dangers associated in serving which are not present in hitting backhands, but the point that differences in technique often don't result in change of performance remains true for serving - Roddick vs. Phillippoussis - forehands - Segura vs Federer - and backhands - the point of this discussion.

Nice post and welcome to the forums :)

BlackSilver
11-06-2006, 06:58 PM
even Federer do not use more power on backhand than Safin, Berdych, Agassi, Nalbandian, he plays great angles not power,
Bad comparison.


only Gasqeut hits it really hard
Wrong. God, what I did to deserve that?


for me he has the best backhand today- Great power, great angles, and playes it inside -
Exactly, for you.


out which is shocking for 1hander
You get impressed by anything.


- more control
- more stablity
Good point.


- less UE
Not necessarily.


one handed beckhands could be easily turned into wekaness but player with great topspins shots,
Wrong.


and with2handed backhand I can easily hit such balls with power and accuracy by using jumping and hitting 2handed backhand in air(like Safin, Rios, Ferrero etc)
Easily? Only for you, Rios and Safin. Shame to put Ferrero in this list.


2hander is great to hit agrgresive out of position which is great when you are in defense

Good point again


and I found it easier to create decent passing shots
Not important.


slice is only matter of training
And hitting another shots is not?


I can hit it good but I rarely use it beacuse 2handed backhand gives much more possibilities in defense
Hahahah. Say how


and 2handed backhand mixed with very good slice is for me future of tennis
And WHAT makes you think this way my son?


you can gain huge tactical benefits form such combination
And you cant with one-hander?


it helps to return serves much better than 1hander
Exaggerated


only Federer and Blake has great return using onehander , but it is usually a block and offensive return(Federer)
Blake?


Nalbandian, Agassi, Hewitt could hit winners from returns on backhand
Hewitt? He blocks way more than go for winners or attacking devolutions.
Agree with Agassi and Nalbandian though.


forcing opponent out of position even Nadal who does not have great return hit is able to hit awesome 2handed return winners (I remember two against Federer in 3rd set Wimbledon tiebreak )
Doesn't say much.


I even like to play with my backhand more than forehand , it gives me more stability control
Not important

BlackSilver
11-06-2006, 07:09 PM
I don't understand, you could use 2 handed backhand to play agressive,
Of course


and for me 2handed is better to dictate play than 1handed
Not important


but I agree than 1handed is better to play serve%volley becuse at the net it's more usefuall and "quicker" [/QUOTE
I also agree.


[QUOTE]and also you can chip and charge easier with one handed backhand.
Not necessarily.


But is is much easier to dicatet play with two handed backhand
Ridiculous exaggerated comment

look at Agassi, Nalbandian and Hewitt dicatate play was/is theirs style of play which lead to great sucess and they all have great backhands

Ditacte point is Hewitt style? You need to watch more tennis.
Wow, Agassi and Nalbandian are the only players that dictate points with their backhands.


Nalbandian down the line backhand is the best way to open and set up the rally in tennis.
You think it's the best way. Is not necessarily true though

BlackSilver
11-06-2006, 07:11 PM
if not the, best serves out there.

Blah

BlackSilver
11-06-2006, 07:17 PM
and of course he once held the fastest serve record until Roddick came along.
TennisOz:)

Actually the record was with Rusedski. Good first post

jcempire
11-06-2006, 08:48 PM
How about Roger

no, I don't think any two hand backhanders can beat him

That tennis kid
11-06-2006, 09:38 PM
Blah

Roddick's serve is undoubtedly one of the best in the world. To date he is in the top three for all of the service categories apart from 1st serve percentage where he is eight. Source: Official ATP Matchfacts (http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/matchfacts/). No other player is as consistently well placed as Roddick.

Edit: Back on topic the point stands that neither backhand has been shown to be intrinsically better than the other.

General Suburbia
11-06-2006, 11:32 PM
How about Roger

no, I don't think any two hand backhanders can beat him
If I've been following correctly, we're talking about which backhand style supports better pace and power. And with Roger, neither pace nor power matters with the backhand; he loves players who try to overpower him. The strongest backhand will only be as powerful as the player's forehand, and if most powerful forehands can't produce winners off Fed, why should a backhand be able to?

BTW, Nadal has a two handed backhand. Murray has a two handed backhand. Those two are the only two that have beaten Roger this year.

GlennMirnyi
11-07-2006, 01:30 AM
This topic contains the biggest amount of bullshit I've ever seen in just one place.

TennisOz
11-07-2006, 09:44 AM
Actually the record was with Rusedski. Good first post

Actually Philippoussis before Rusedski, I didn't say he held the record before Roddick.

OzTennis :)

Loremaster
11-07-2006, 12:27 PM
BlackSilver of course it is easier to dictate play with 2handed backhand beacuse of more control more stability and less UE, I don't found it anjd it is the way Hewitt plays I have seen enough amout of tennis, he could use his backhand down the line to open court, he frequently made his opponents run he runs a lot that's true but it also shows that 2handed backhand is better to play defense , all great defense players use 2handed backhand - Hewitt, Agassi, Nadal, Nalbandian and they all have great passing shots, lobs etc.

Sorry but maybe you do not watch to much tennis, jumping backhand is not so rare, many pros(in Challanger , Futures level also) use it and it can be easily trained , and for me it's fact that high bouncing balls are very uncomfortable for 1handed backhand players, Ljubic Federer have problems with them, need example - Monte Carol 2006 final Roger had something about 80UE form backhad and vast majority of them very forced my Nadal's topsin forehand. Even in Tennis magazine it was said that 1handed backhand players have huge problems with high bouncing balls

TennisOz
11-07-2006, 12:53 PM
BlackSilver of course it is easier to dictate play with 2handed backhand beacuse of more control more stability and less UE, I don't found it anjd it is the way Hewitt plays I have seen enough amout of tennis, he could use his backhand down the line to open court, he frequently made his opponents run he runs a lot that's true but it also shows that 2handed backhand is better to play defense , all great defense players use 2handed backhand - Hewitt, Agassi, Nadal, Nalbandian and they all have great passing shots, lobs etc.

Sorry but maybe you do not watch to much tennis, jumping backhand is not so rare, many pros(in Challanger , Futures level also) use it and it can be easily trained , and for me it's fact that high bouncing balls are very uncomfortable for 1handed backhand players, Ljubic Federer have problems with them, need example - Monte Carol 2006 final Roger had something about 80UE form backhad and vast majority of them very forced my Nadal's topsin forehand. Even in Tennis magazine it was said that 1handed backhand players have huge problems with high bouncing balls

Single handed backhand is weak on high balls, so? You don't use/coach this? Double handers don't have weaknesses (eg limited reach, on volleys etc)? Single handers beat double handers and vice-versa, it doesn't prove the worth of either.

Make a list of the greatest players of all time and see how many are single handers (in most people's lists). How many double handers have won on fast surfaces eg Wimbledon? 'At the end of the day' it is about personal preferences largely (you can see I'm a single hander!!) but it's also about role models. Most people would agree the last 2 greatest ever players were Federer and Sampras, you can argue until the cows come home how much better/worse they would be if they were double fisted.

(Sadly) Hewitt is not dictating too much play these days and it seems to me that Federer, Ljubicic, Haas etc can dictate play pretty well on the non-hitting hand side of the body. Single handers can as a rule of thumb slice better if you are talking about defending.

TennisOz:)

Loremaster
11-07-2006, 01:49 PM
Single handed backhand is weak on high balls, so? You don't use/coach this? Double handers don't have weaknesses (eg limited reach, on volleys etc)? Single handers beat double handers and vice-versa, it doesn't prove the worth of either.

Make a list of the greatest players of all time and see how many are single handers (in most people's lists). How many double handers have won on fast surfaces eg Wimbledon? 'At the end of the day' it is about personal preferences largely (you can see I'm a single hander!!) but it's also about role models. Most people would agree the last 2 greatest ever players were Federer and Sampras, you can argue until the cows come home how much better/worse they would be if they were double fisted.

(Sadly) Hewitt is not dictating too much play these days and it seems to me that Federer, Ljubicic, Haas etc can dictate play pretty well on the non-hitting hand side of the body. Single handers can as a rule of thumb slice better if you are talking about defending.

TennisOz:)

Your point is logical, but both for Sampras and Federer backhand is/was the weakest side of their game still on very high level but in comparison to other shots the weakest.

Wimbledon champions since 1975 - two players( of 12) won with 2H Backhand, but 7(of 12) of the runners ups where using 2H backhand.
2006 - R.Federer
2005 - R.Federer
2004 - R.Federer
2003 - R.Federer
2002 - L.Hewitt - 2H BH
2001 - G. Ivanisevic - 2H BH
2000 - P.Sampras
1999 - P.Sampras
1998 - P.Sampras
1997 - P.Sampras
1996 - R.Krajicek
1995 - P.Sampras

US Open champions since 1995 - 5 out of 12 used 2H BH and 7 out of 12 runners ups used 2H BH.
2006 - R.Federer
2005 - R.Federer
2004 - R.Federer
2003 - A.Roddick - 2H BH
2002 - P.Sampras
2001 - L.Hewitt - 2H BH
2000 - M.Safin - 2H BH
1999 - A.Agassi - 2H BH
1998 - P.Rafter
1997 - P.Rafter
1996 - P.Sampras
1995 - P.Sampras

AO champions since 1995 - 7 out of 12 winners used 2H BH, and 11 out of 12 runner ups
2006 - R.Federer
2005 - M.Safin - 2H BH
2004 - R. Federer
2003 - A.Agassi - 2H BH
2002 - T.Johansson - 2H BH
2001 - A.Agassi - 2H BH
2000 - A.Agassi - 2H BH
1999 - I.Kafelnikov - 2H BH
1998 - P.Korda
1997 - P.Sampras
1996 - B.Becker
1995 - A.Agssi - 2H BH

Roland Garros champions - 6 out of 12 Champions used 2H BH and 7 out of 12 runners ups
2006 - R.Nadal - 2H BH
2005 - R.Nadal - 2H BH
2004 - G.Gaudio
2003 - J.C Ferrero - 2H BH
2002 - Albert Costa
2001 - G.Kuerten
2000 - G.Kuerten
1999 - A.Agassi - 2H BH
1998 - C.Moya - 2H BH
1997 - G.Kuerten
1996 - I.Kafelnikov - 2H BH
1995 - T.Muster

od course such list is a little imcomplete should all open era beacuse such players as Borg or Connors , Lendl are missing but I am too lazy :devil: to check one slam wonders which backhand they use

but in the last 12 year when we take champions and runners ups into consideration it will be minor advantage to 1 handers especially on fast surface on slow high bouncing surfaces 1handers are not so common.

TennisOz
11-07-2006, 02:32 PM
Nice research! As I said, how many double handers have won Wimbledon on a fast surface? Answer 2 in the last 12 years. I was one of the amazed pundits when Agassi and Hewitt won from the baseline and it took a long time for me to get over Pat losing to Goran!

I suspect if we could crystal ball gaze and look at the Grand Slams for 2003 onwards for 12 years the single hander (i.e. Federer) is going to predominate. It will not surprise me if Federer wins the French in the near future either.

These things can just keep going around in circles, I take your point that Federer's and Sampras' weakest strokes are arguably their single handed backhand but:

We'll never know how they would have done with two hands (weren't both originally double handed? What does it tell us if they 'converted'?)

Federer's backhand is now considerably much better than it was and it is only a relative weakness. I can remember when he had little of a grip change in his early years on the tour and he sliced most of his backhands - he now goes more towards the back of the grip and comes over the ball a lot of the time. In fact, I'd say Federer now 'tops' more than most single and double handers.

OzTennis :)

Your point is logical, but both for Sampras and Federer backhand is/was the weakest side of their game still on very high level but in comparison to other shots the weakest.

Wimbledon champions since 1975 - two players( of 12) won with 2H Backhand, but 7(of 12) of the runners ups where using 2H backhand.
2006 - R.Federer
2005 - R.Federer
2004 - R.Federer
2003 - R.Federer
2002 - L.Hewitt - 2H BH
2001 - G. Ivanisevic - 2H BH
2000 - P.Sampras
1999 - P.Sampras
1998 - P.Sampras
1997 - P.Sampras
1996 - R.Krajicek
1995 - P.Sampras

US Open champions since 1995 - 5 out of 12 used 2H BH and 7 out of 12 runners ups used 2H BH.
2006 - R.Federer
2005 - R.Federer
2004 - R.Federer
2003 - A.Roddick - 2H BH
2002 - P.Sampras
2001 - L.Hewitt - 2H BH
2000 - M.Safin - 2H BH
1999 - A.Agassi - 2H BH
1998 - P.Rafter
1997 - P.Rafter
1996 - P.Sampras
1995 - P.Sampras

AO champions since 1995 - 7 out of 12 winners used 2H BH, and 11 out of 12 runner ups
2006 - R.Federer
2005 - M.Safin - 2H BH
2004 - R. Federer
2003 - A.Agassi - 2H BH
2002 - T.Johansson - 2H BH
2001 - A.Agassi - 2H BH
2000 - A.Agassi - 2H BH
1999 - I.Kafelnikov - 2H BH
1998 - P.Korda
1997 - P.Sampras
1996 - B.Becker
1995 - A.Agssi - 2H BH

Roland Garros champions - 6 out of 12 Champions used 2H BH and 7 out of 12 runners ups
2006 - R.Nadal - 2H BH
2005 - R.Nadal - 2H BH
2004 - G.Gaudio
2003 - J.C Ferrero - 2H BH
2002 - Albert Costa
2001 - G.Kuerten
2000 - G.Kuerten
1999 - A.Agassi - 2H BH
1998 - C.Moya - 2H BH
1997 - G.Kuerten
1996 - I.Kafelnikov - 2H BH
1995 - T.Muster

od course such list is a little imcomplete should all open era beacuse such players as Borg or Connors , Lendl are missing but I am too lazy :devil: to check one slam wonders which backhand they use

but in the last 12 year when we take champions and runners ups into consideration it will be minor advantage to 1 handers especially on fast surface on slow high bouncing surfaces 1handers are not so common.

Solat
11-07-2006, 03:06 PM
there is another thread about this in the amateur tennis pages too :)

why do people get so fired up about such a trivial aspect of the game?

let me put it quite frankly to succeed in tennis you need to do the following:
1. hit the ball in the court 1 more time then your opponent

thats all.
now there are factors which can help achieve this more regularly : speed, spin, direction, depth, height. it doesnt matter which you use its when and how you use them. the great thing about tennis is that you can have a personal style that works, Navratilova has the most grandslams, she was a woman serve /volleyer but who does that now? Graf was one of the greatest ever, hit about 12 topspin backhands in her career :P Seles may well have taken every singles record around (until the unfortunate incident) and she was double handed both sides (who does that now : Santoro ? well yes but seles was brut power with 2H and Santoro is all finesse with 2H) What about JM Gambill with his two hand FH (LH underneath RH)

You gotta use what you have to do the best you can do

i leave with this simple notion, i know B. Elliot (from all those science journals quoted earlier) he is maybe the leading biomechanical racquet sports expert in the world. He gets flown around everywhere to present his findings. Now i used to play at the same club as him and play with him every week (and studied Sports Science at the Uni he works at) and despite his great great knowledge he is by no means got the "ideal" biomechanical technique when he plays. So knowledge of the facts doesn't equal greater success.

So back to my original point, it doesnt matter how you get the ball in one more time just do it :D

Loremaster
11-07-2006, 03:19 PM
Nice research! As I said, how many double handers have won Wimbledon on a fast surface? Answer 2 in the last 12 years. I was one of the amazed pundits when Agassi and Hewitt won from the baseline and it took a long time for me to get over Pat losing to Goran!

I suspect if we could crystal ball gaze and look at the Grand Slams for 2003 onwards for 12 years the single hander (i.e. Federer) is going to predominate. It will not surprise me if Federer wins the French in the near future either.

These things can just keep going around in circles, I take your point that Federer's and Sampras' weakest strokes are arguably their single handed backhand but:

We'll never know how they would have done with two hands (weren't both originally double handed? What does it tell us if they 'converted'?)

Federer's backhand is now considerably much better than it was and it is only a relative weakness. I can remember when he had little of a grip change in his early years on the tour and he sliced most of his backhands - he now goes more towards the back of the grip and comes over the ball a lot of the time. In fact, I'd say Federer now 'tops' more than most single and double handers.

OzTennis :)


yeah but in Open era it is something like draw, beacuse Borg and Connors won 19 GS titles combined , but I have thought about this and I think it doesn't matter if one is playing double handed backhand or one handed because if shot is mastered the effects is similiar I think that it depends on idnvidual feel which shot choose

Yeah Federer improved backhand , but with Nadal around he won't won FO and his backhand is biggest obstacle , beacuse Rafi is killing him with his forehand cross court and it won't change beacuse Nadal is improving much faster yhan Roger right now, his backhand will be much better, his is serving much better right now, he could even move better. 2H BH is much better to play against high balls because gives more control and stability and this is what Roger's lacks on backhand when playing Rafa

name_change
11-07-2006, 06:26 PM
I've been playing tennis for 7 years now, and been using a single handed backhand all the time. To hit a good single handed backhand you need a very strong wrist. I find that for me it is much easier to generate power on single hander than it is with a double. With a single hander you can swing much more freely. The single hander has better reach, and it is harder to cramp a player with a single handed backhand. Also, you'll find that most players with a single handed backhand have a fairly good slice, whereas players with double handed backhans only ever use it defensively where it lacks any bite on the court. My friend who has double handed backhand says it is very hard to hit off backhands too. With a single hander its quite easy to change directions. To be honest, the inital reason I chose a one hander was for the vanity factor. I loved watching Kuerten's and Haas' backhand.

The downside is that consistency suffers compared to the double hander. Frames occur much more often. Even after all these years my backhand is not as consistent as I like it to be. I've played so many club players who have rather average double handed backhands but they never seem to miss. High bouncing balls on the single hander are also very tough. You really have to make a big effort to get over the ball and get your racquet head through quickly, and this makes it a very risky shot.

I think the main reason that more people use the double hander is because it is easier to learn. It took me a long time before I could even fathom the thought of hitting a single handed topspin backhand. I started off slicing exclusively in the first few months. Most people play with the forehand as their strength so they settle with a solid backhand to backup their forehand. This is also because the forehand is a more natural shot at the very beginning, so it is often seen as a strength.
i use a one hander as well, and personally i have a tough time hitting an off backhand. my two-handed bh friends hit them pretty easily though!

TennisOz
11-08-2006, 09:14 AM
Nadal is much younger and has achieved much less than Federer so obviously there is more room for improvement with him. Federer is so good now that how much room for improvement has he got? I personally think Nadal peaked when he had that run against Federer of 6 in a row or whatever, my memory tells me Federer has won the last couple of matches (?) Nadal does not have the same air of invincibility about him now as players other than Federer beat him regularly. I personally think the Nadal bubble has burst a bit and we'll just have to see whether he prevents Federer from winning Roland Garros. He seems pretty injury prone to me anyway so he mightn't be there every year. Federer's game is more suited to a wider variety of court surfaces as well, Nadal comes into his own in between the Australian Open and Wimbledon.

TennisOz :)

yeah but in Open era it is something like draw, beacuse Borg and Connors won 19 GS titles combined , but I have thought about this and I think it doesn't matter if one is playing double handed backhand or one handed because if shot is mastered the effects is similiar I think that it depends on idnvidual feel which shot choose

Yeah Federer improved backhand , but with Nadal around he won't won FO and his backhand is biggest obstacle , beacuse Rafi is killing him with his forehand cross court and it won't change beacuse Nadal is improving much faster yhan Roger right now, his backhand will be much better, his is serving much better right now, he could even move better. 2H BH is much better to play against high balls because gives more control and stability and this is what Roger's lacks on backhand when playing Rafa