The backhands: Double-HBH and Single-HBH

Away from the Murray debates, I thought now would be a good time to discuss what is probably the most important shot in tennis: The backhand.

We say a player's serve is as good as his/her second serve cause this is where he/she is going to be tested in a match. This is even truer regarding the BH. Very few players have a BH better than their FH. In fact, I am not sure there is any player in the top 100 who has a better BH than their FH. (no this is not a thread about Murray). Nalbandian possibly may be the exception as he can generate as much pace and better angles from his BH than FH but it's really difficult to say as we are so used to seeing the BH as being the weaker side that we tend to exaggerate the strength of a BH when comparing with the FH. When talking about a great BH we talk in comparison with the other players BH. I don't know any player who turns around his FH to hit a BH....not even Nalbandian or Gasquet for that matter. At best, it seems BH can be as good as a FH.

So being the weaker side in absolute value, we can say, in our baseline tennis era, a player is as good as his/her BH. Finding the opponent’s BH is the first strategy once the ball is in play and whom can find his opponents BH first or more often usually wins!

Nadal v Federer, Djokovic v Nadal and Federer v Djoko are great examples showing just that.

So based on the importance of the BH, it’s quite easy to understand why everybody taking up the game is now playing with a DBH. We have some rare youngsters (Golubev, Dimitrov), probably inspired to stick to their SBH by Federer’s success, being overtaken in the ranking by younger players using their 2 hands on the BH (Harrisson, Young, Raonic, Tomic, etc…) despite their huge (superior?) talent. I am convinced that all SBH in the top 100 are extremely talented and I would say, on average, significantly more talented than their DBH peers. However being talented nowadays is simply a small factor in the success of a player.

The reason is simple, a DBH has a bigger sweet spot and can generate more power with increased safety, making the DBH almost as solid and powerful as the FH . The downside of the DBH is the loss of versatility and need for better coverage of the court but in today’s slow conditions and advanced fitness programs, those downsides are simply negligeable in comparison with its upside. We just need to look at the top 10 to see that only Federer can still hold a place there in this week’s ranking. Like last year, he will be the only one again with a SBH in the WTF in London. The fact that rallies are 5 or more rally long on average simply gives the DBH an incredible advantage in today's game.

In short the SBH is doomed, and its life was only extended by Federer. It is an obsolete shot and we did not realise how archaic it was earlier because it is used by an exceptional player whose talent could, at least at the beginning, overcome its handicap. Since Wimbledon 2004, all slams were won by DBH when not won by Federer. Only once in the last 10 years 2 SBHers were in the final of a slam! That was at the AO07 before the physical tennis settled in for good at the very top.

Should the ITF do something about it to keep the variety of the game? Tennis can quickly turn boring if we only allow one type of players to thrive.

How heavy is a tennis raquet. Why does it need two hands to support it. Only children or the very weak should need to resort to a DHB. The SHB is a thing of beauty and only the skillful and talented have the ability to hit with just one hand. I speak as someone with that ability...

It is quite hypocritical when Federer is labelled as a Shanky, when the other big 2 themselves are never confident in playing that shot.

I find that single handers have much better slices, as good as Novak is I would say he has the worst slice out of the top 4. This goes to show how little an effect the slice has anymore

I remember when Wilander brought out his slice backhand, having been a die hard DHBH player.

He stated that were be to coach a player from their "early days," that he would teach them both BHs, so depending on the shot selection, they would have both options.

They both have their benefits, but the glaring positive on each side is:

1) DHBH - short cross court angled passes and lobs
2) Reach on the BH

I don't think it's necessarily the death of the SBH at all, just a cyclical thing that we are seeing.

The slice is useful as it can take more pace without a higher risk, and with the relatively slower pace, compared to the drive backhand, flat or top spinned, it allows a little extra time for the striker, to get back into position for the next shot from his/her opponent.

I am not that concerned about the death of " a beautiful shot (the SBH)". After all it's only beautiful if it's economically efficient. But it's the death of variety simply it will incur because the conditions have slowed down or more precisely, technology and new fitness have made the conditions look slow. The death of a variety of BH is not only about the death of the slice, the SBH allows for a more varied and creative game. A half volley BH pushed into the corner to get to the net is typically a SBH shot and not seen with DBH. But even more importantly the possibilty to change the grip very easily in the last fraction of a second to come up with an improvised shot, giving the player freedom of creation. We have seen enough ofthe DJoko/Nadal/Murray matches to realise that the creative side of their game is only expressed at homeophathic doses, essentially when the opponent is on his knees for having run senselessly the most part of the match.

ylopo, as said the loss of reach of teh DHBH is well compensated by those new fitter players, so it's not an handicap anymore. And yes the SBH is dead as it is simply not taught anymore. It's been dead in teh women tennis for a while and it's even more so in teh mens if you take Federer out of the equation. Look at the youngsters. The only one with a chance of doing something is Dimitrov but the fact is that in slams he will shank more often than his opponents from that side cause they will hit it until it cracks, again, smaller sweet spot in 5+ rallies is simply a no brainer.

Tomic has lots of variety, even though he does look like he's playing at walking pace most the time. Dimitrov is just badly overrated imo.

I am not so sure that SBH is necessarily a weaker shot. You have a lot more variety with it, the problem is lack of control on it.
I'm two different people when i hit forehand and when I hit bakchand (SBH).
Bakchand, naturally puts you on the defensive and I only wish I could hit it better.
Just like forehand and backhand (single) are worlds apart in their purpose, variety, potential and execution so are DBH and SBH.

To me, DBH feels like a hybrid forehand and in its nature is closer to forehand than backhand (single): you've got the control and power your lack with it being a SBH, but you lose the variety and creativity.
SBH frees you up on the court and it's far, far more enjoyable to play tennis like that.
With DBH, you do need to be fitter as you always need one or two extra steps.

Having a DBH almost puts you in a different frame of mind and instantly imposes a different game: it's a baseliner haven.

With SBH, you feel freer and more natural on the court.

Obviously the way tennis and technology have evolved have encouraged DBH which is now the exclusive way, nobody teaches SBH any more.
Federer is actually quite impressive with how well he holds his own with SBH, testament to his abundant talent.

Having said that, it's him and Youzhny that have attractive backhands only for me. I don't find a SBH an instant visual winner over DBH, in fact, they are usually quite elaborate and in your face to me.

Death of a beautiful shot. Death of variety and creativity. Don't they amount to the same thing? Death of a more interesting game to watch.

I wouldn't worry though as the SHB is not dead. It does have distinctive benefits as Federer and other players have proved including women players. There will always be players that are able or choose to play in this way. Or maybe more relevant have coaches who see the benefits of learning such a shot at a young age.

Tenez. Have you noticed that even your favourite player Rafa has realised the benefits of this shot. Sometimes when I watch it appears that he uses a single handed slice backhand more often than his regular DHB.

noleisthebest wrote:I am not so sure that SBH is necessarily a weaker shot. You have a lot more variety with it, the problem is lack of control on it.
I'm two different people when i hit forehand and when I hit bakchand (SBH).
Bakchand, naturally puts you on the defensive and I only wish I could hit it better.
Just like forehand and backhand (single) are worlds apart in their purpose, variety, potential and execution so are DBH and SBH.

The SBH is a weaker shot in today's environment. No doubt about that. On faster conditions, especially lower bounce, it can be equal if not better than the DBH but only if the player is talented. You can't play SBH in todays game if you are not particularly talented.

hawkeye wrote:I wouldn't worry though as the SHB is not dead. It does have distinctive benefits as Federer and other players have proved including women players. There will always be players that are able or choose to play in this way. Or maybe more relevant have coaches who see the benefits of learning such a shot at a young age.

That's wrong unfortunately. Just look who in the youngsters coming. When their bodies were young and frail, Dimitrov was clearly the best, like Gasquet was better than Nadal in their Juniors' H2H but as they get stronger bigger, they make a full use of the added advantages of the DBH.

Tenez. Have you noticed that even your favourite player Rafa has realised the benefits of this shot. Sometimes when I watch it appears that he uses a single handed slice backhand more often than his regular DHB.

Yes, because he has no choice really if he doesn;t want to expose his FH side too much. I don;t value the slice much as a shot, especially since new string technology makes them easier to produce and for the opponent, easier to dig out. It's like a normal topspin ....but in reverse. In other words it's a secure shot that doesn't require as much timing skills as a flatter shot, though once again, Federer's are pretty crafty. If you look at Nadal's DHBH, it's pretty weak actually. When going cross court, he can whack them cause has more margins and often plays them as a break or make shot cause he is in a bad position. His DTL BH is simply terrible and the shot that really makes me wonder about his talent compared to the other players.

Both backhand styles offer their own advantages depending on who employs it but I don't believe it's synonymous with talent as some would have us believe as it's demise may have more to do with the fact the SHBH simply isn't being taught at youth level by coaches looking to instil greater control on that wing in their subjects at the expense of the variety and reach the SHBH offers.

Players like Murray, Nalbandian and Tomic are very technically gifted and inventive but use the DHBH. I've always thought the likes of Gasquet and Dimitrov are highly overrated.

The OP's stat about lack of winners with the SHBH are also misleading as it doesn't take into account the very low number of users making it about as relevant as showing few lefties other than Nadal are hitting the greatest heights in the game.

For the sake of variety, I'd love to see more players employing the SHBH but it certainly isn't synonymous with talent.

There is one player who now uses both SHBH and DHBH very successfully for volleys, net play as well as from the baseline. It is a new acquisition for Tsonga. He has shown great variety and control with it.

SH and DH (BHs) do not have to be mutually exclusive. Having both abilities makes for better player, IMVHO.

Tenez wrote:
That's wrong unfortunately. Just look who in the youngsters coming. When their bodies were young and frail, Dimitrov was clearly the best, like Gasquet was better than Nadal in their Juniors' H2H but as they get stronger bigger, they make a full use of the added advantages of the DBH.

That's another misleading stat, Tenez, which doesn't really buttress your point. Likewise, Nalbandian and Hewitt were superior junior players to Federer. Doesn't that contradict your point a little?

Tenez. But Nadal can play a SHB AND a DHB. Surely that is evidence of variety. Maybe players with SHB's should try using a DHB in certain cicumstances?

Have to disagree on the value of the slice. When it is used well especially on grass it can be a real weapon. Remember Nadal using it effectively against Murrays forehand in this years Wimbledon semi with great success. I think I would agree that Federer on balance can play a better slice than Nadal. However it must be particually tricky when playing Nadal to cope with the variety of spins he can produce. One ball heavy topspin, then flat then slice...

hawkeye wrote:Tenez. But Nadal can play a SHB AND a DHB. Surely that is evidence of variety. Maybe players with SHB's should try using a DHB in certain cicumstances?

Have to disagree on the value of the slice. When it is used well especially on grass it can be a real weapon. Remember Nadal using it effectively against Murrays forehand in this years Wimbledon semi with great success. I think I would agree that Federer on balance can play a better slice than Nadal. However it must be particually tricky when playing Nadal to cope with the variety of spins he can produce. One ball heavy topspin, then flat then slice...

You mean Nadal has a SBH slice, right?Well all players have it. It's essentially another defensive shot unless it's played by Petzchner. Trust me, the slice is nowadays a weak shot. It allows you to stay in the rally but it hasn;t got enough pace to bother most players and as said, string technology really allows to dig them out, on grass or not. Watch Djoko feeding on them whether played by Federer or Nadal.

mthierry wrote:

Tenez wrote:
That's wrong unfortunately. Just look who in the youngsters coming. When their bodies were young and frail, Dimitrov was clearly the best, like Gasquet was better than Nadal in their Juniors' H2H but as they get stronger bigger, they make a full use of the added advantages of the DBH.

That's another misleading stat, Tenez, which doesn't really buttress your point. Likewise, Nalbandian and Hewitt were superior junior players to Federer. Doesn't that contradict your point a little?

No, because, Nalbandian and Hewitt were pretty talented and/or consistent which certainly sent Federer into panick mode when young. Gasquet was very confident when junior. It's only his physique and stamina that made him a poor player on the big stage.

"It allows you to stay in the rally but it hasn;t got enough pace to bother most players and as said, string technology really allows to dig them out, on grass or not"
Dunno. Tenez, dunno...Murray used to use it a lot more in the past when his game was more HIS. It used to drive a lot of players mad. Was boring to watch, but paid dividends for Murray many times in 2008/9

laverfan wrote:There is one player who now uses both SHBH and DHBH very successfully for volleys, net play as well as from the baseline. It is a new acquisition for Tsonga. He has shown great variety and control with it.

I am glad you noticed that. Yes Tsonga seems more inclined to use the SBH than any other DBHers. he played a few of them in that USO match v Federer. But again, he can cause he is really talented. I was surprised at how easy it looked on him. But he is not stupid, he knows that's a liability and rarely uses it: either to play a delicate shot or whip a Bh in a difficult position.

noleisthebest wrote:"It allows you to stay in the rally but it hasn;t got enough pace to bother most players and as said, string technology really allows to dig them out, on grass or not"
Dunno. Tenez, dunno...Murray used to use it a lot more in the past when his game was more HIS. It used to drive a lot of players mad. Was boring to watch, but paid dividends for Murray many times in 2008/9

Very true...but that slace wasn't Murray's strength. It allowed Murray to engage in longer rallies (his strength) and send a weak teasing ball to the opponent who had to provide pace and angles at his own risk. And this is exactly why Murray suffered losses in slams cause an attacking player on form was just to happy to put the ball away...and/or that strategy failed versus the better players (Djoko, Nadal, Federer). As said, Murray made the most of the slice thanks to his excellent retrieving skills. The slice is not good enough nowadays I am afraid.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:"It allows you to stay in the rally but it hasn;t got enough pace to bother most players and as said, string technology really allows to dig them out, on grass or not"
Dunno. Tenez, dunno...Murray used to use it a lot more in the past when his game was more HIS. It used to drive a lot of players mad. Was boring to watch, but paid dividends for Murray many times in 2008/9

Very true...but that slace wasn't Murray's strength. It allowed Murray to engage in longer rallies (his strength) and send a weak teasing ball to the opponent who had to provide pace and angles at his own risk. And this is exactly why Murray suffered losses in slams cause an attacking player on form was just to happy to put the ball away...and/or that strategy failed versus the better players (Djoko, Nadal, Federer). As said, Murray made the most of the slice thanks to his excellent retrieving skills. The slice is not good enough nowadays I am afraid.

I still think it's a very useful shot to have at your disposal, adds to the variety of your game, needless to say to the attractiveness in watching such variety .

Of course it is a very useful shot cause it is sometimes the only shot available if stretched on the BH and it's also a waiting shot...but it's not one that wins points...just saves points.....bar the rare odd ones of course.

Tenez wrote:Of course it is a very useful shot cause it is sometimes the only shot available if stretched on the BH and it's also a waiting shot...but it's not one that wins points...just saves points.....bar the rare odd ones of course.

that's right, just a small dart in your arsenal.

The attacking BH slice is the wave of the future Tomic at your service..

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The attacking BH slice is the wave of the future Tomic at your service..

Couldn't agree more. Great hands, just hope the head catches up with them soon.

Federer (DHBH - )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIOUrckK4pE

Tsonga (SHBH - Queens and Wimbledon)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc1HIssojyw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwAmU7YY8nk

That one at Queen's from Tsonga was a bit weird...why did he choose to play that one handed? He was easily in position to hit a two hander! Good shot though...

Speaking for myself, I could never transfer back to hitting a two hander in the middle of the rally (I normally play SHBH) - it would basically go anywhere!

As for the rest of the thread, I don't think the SHBH is dead quite yet; I'd like to think there are still players growing up who appreciate the likes of Federer and the beauty of the shot and will keep it going for a few years to come! Also, I'm dubious as to there being any difference in power between the types of shot; I know that when I time a backhand sweetly I can get some real power into it; even more than my forehand actually, although that's probably because my forehand is Nadal-esque with exaggerated topspin.

Chazfazzer wrote:

As for the rest of the thread, I don't think the SHBH is dead quite yet; I'd like to think there are still players growing up who appreciate the likes of Federer and the beauty of the shot and will keep it going for a few years to come! Also, I'm dubious as to there being any difference in power between the types of shot; I know that when I time a backhand sweetly I can get some real power into it; even more than my forehand actually, although that's probably because my forehand is Nadal-esque with exaggerated topspin.

BUt it's one thing liking Federer's BH or game and it's another thing being able to be successful with it. For now it's impossible. Even a one-in-a century genius cannot overtake guys like Nadal and Djokovic and they are not oustandlingly talented...especially Nadal.

To me it's clear that Federer with a DHBH would have been unbeatable as he has a better FH, serve and volleys than the others. Of course his DHBH may not have been as good but I actually cannot see why he woudl not have been as good as the others. He may have lost in volley skills and creativity but it doesn't pay much nowadays.

Dimitrov, Haas, Wawrinka, Gasquet, Lopez, Ljubicic, Llodra, Youzhny, Robredo, Kohlschreiber, Blake. Quite a few SHBHs to choose from.

chazzfazzer wrote:when I time a backhand sweetly I can get some real power into it.

That is the key and as one gets older, the timing gets harder.

laverfan wrote:Dimitrov, Haas, Wawrinka, Gasquet, Lopez, Ljubicic, Llodra, Youzhny, Robredo, Kohlschreiber, Blake. Quite a few SHBHs to choose from.

chazzfazzer wrote:when I time a backhand sweetly I can get some real power into it.

That is the key and as one gets older, the timing gets harder.

The word to highligh LF is "when" meanning it doesn't happen all the time.....unlike a DBH.

Out of the list above, only Dimitrov is considered a "young" player and it's clear he is a product of Federer....and sadly it seems, the only one! SBH is doomed!

OH and timimg improves while getting older, pretty late actually. Aren't musiciens very good till very late in their lives. I can say that my timimg improved easily till 38/40, it's only that the mouvement is certainly dropping after 33/35 and recovery from previous match extends after 24/25. Haas and Ljubicic for instance show no sign of timing loss. Haas has been another example of a player doing extremely well after 30.

Tenez wrote:
To me it's clear that Federer with a DHBH would have been unbeatable as he has a better FH, serve and volleys than the others. Of course his DHBH may not have been as good but I actually cannot see why he woudl not have been as good as the others. He may have lost in volley skills and creativity but it doesn't pay much nowadays.

Federer in an interview said that he did try the DHBH as a young player but it was painful to him at the chest region and hence had to leave it. He also said in those days he was very weak on the BH wing and use to run around on lot of balls to take them on the forehand. I think playing SHBH or DHBH is also something that comes natural. Some players can easily adapt one style while others find it too difficult to continue. Federer trying the DHBH also hints that he too considered his SHBH as weaker and thought of changing it if he can. He couldn't and had to develop the SHBH itself, which he very well did as we have been watching in all these years.

But I'm not sure how he would have been with the DHBH. If he would have developed the DHBH he might have been able to develop the other aspects of his game , volleys for e.g. as you said. But not only that he would have been a complete different player, would that player been so successful starting with the S&V game and moving to the baseline on slow conditions? I'm not certain. It does look like If he would have had the DHBH, Nadal might not have been of much trouble to him. But also I'm not certain, he would have had the supremacy over the rest of the field from 2004 as he had with his current game.

Federer with the DHBH would have been a completely different player. His forehand is so good and has gone better even from his days of 2004-07, but I'm not it would have been as good if he had the DHBH. Both may look totally different, but I think they do intersect somewhere. One helps developing the other. This is my opinion.

Quite frankly I struggle to imagine Federer with a double handed backhand!

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:
To me it's clear that Federer with a DHBH would have been unbeatable as he has a better FH, serve and volleys than the others. Of course his DHBH may not have been as good but I actually cannot see why he woudl not have been as good as the others. He may have lost in volley skills and creativity but it doesn't pay much nowadays.

Federer in an interview said that he did try the DHBH as a young player but it was painful to him at the chest region and hence had to leave it. He also said in those days he was very weak on the BH wing and use to run around on lot of balls to take them on the forehand. I think playing SHBH or DHBH is also something that comes natural. Some players can easily adapt one style while others find it too difficult to continue. Federer trying the DHBH also hints that he too considered his SHBH as weaker and thought of changing it if he can. He couldn't and had to develop the SHBH itself, which he very well did as we have been watching in all these years.

But I'm not sure how he would have been with the DHBH. If he would have developed the DHBH he might have been able to develop the other aspects of his game , volleys for e.g. as you said. But not only that he would have been a complete different player, would that player been so successful starting with the S&V game and moving to the baseline on slow conditions? I'm not certain. It does look like If he would have had the DHBH, Nadal might not have been of much trouble to him. But also I'm not certain, he would have had the supremacy over the rest of the field from 2004 as he had with his current game.

Federer with the DHBH would have been a completely different player. His forehand is so good and has gone better even from his days of 2004-07, but I'm not it would have been as good if he had the DHBH. Both may look totally different, but I think they do intersect somewhere. One helps developing the other. This is my opinion.

Very good points again from Raiders.

Though I agree that using SBH or DBH is essentially something that comes natural, tennis nowadays is too technical to leave it to what one feels "natural". It's fine at our club level but if you want to succeed at the highest level, you have to do things that do not feel natural and that nowadays include working extremely hard in the gym and/or playing with a DBH. I would say, if you look at the history of tennis, the SBH was by far the most common BH with teh professionals cause they were the more talented players out there and felt that a SBH was the most natural and efficient one to use. However, nowadays, it's the opposite. And I am pretty sure, it's not because nowadays players feel it's more natural to play DBH but that they chose "not to risk it" playing with their natural shot. Here the stats are just too big in favour of DBH.

I think Federer could have changed to DBH but let's remember that when he came on the tour the dominant players had a SBH (Pete, Rafter) and the surfaces were still fast, so the downside of the SBH was not, at the time he coudl have made the change, so important. To adapt to a DBH he woudl have needed a strong abdominal belt and that's something you need to develop. you can't simply try to play DBH without putting the hard work it requires. I am pretty sure Federer never tried that hard cause the need wasn't there then and afterwards it was too late.

On the point that we don't know how he would have evolved as a DBH player, I agree, but there is one thing we know for sure is that he is more talented and has a better eye/hand coordination than the rest of the players so he woudl still have probably been a better player than the competition. He probably woudl have had less variety but all his shots should have had a better timing and precision that his opponents.

We'll never know but there is no reason to think otherwise.

tenez wrote:To adapt to a DBH he woudl have needed a strong abdominal belt and that's something you need to develop.

He has had back issues, which potentially have been detrimental to a DHBH.

tenez wrote:
you can't simply try to play DBH without putting the hard work it requires.

Either SH or DH require hard work, neither one is easy.

Back issues are often down to not having a strong enough abdominal and as you know most DBHer have also this problem anyway as it is not a really natural shot.

Either SH or DH require hard work, neither one is easy.

I am not sure what's teh point of saying this? a FH, a serve, a smash, moving is hard work.

Here DBH is hard work cause it is a less "natural" shot than the SBH. For some it might be more natural but only because they know they can;t time the ball well consistently enough so having 2 hands on the grip makes them feel safer but someone with a good natural SBH will use less energy than the DBHer. You need to work seriously on your upper body to be able to retrieve balls a SBH woudl do more easily.

Tenez wrote:Back issues are often down to not having a strong enough abdominal and as you know most DBHer have also this problem anyway as it is not a really natural shot.

Either SH or DH require hard work, neither one is easy.

I am not sure what's teh point of saying this? a FH, a serve, a smash, moving is hard work.

Do you know who is Giorgio De Stefano is? What I meant was, either choice requires work to be perfected.

Tenez wrote:Here DBH is hard work cause it is a less "natural" shot than the SBH. For some it might be more natural but only because they know they can;t time the ball well consistently enough so having 2 hands on the grip makes them feel safer but someone with a good natural SBH will use less energy than the DBHer. You need to work seriously on your upper body to be able to retrieve balls a SBH woudl do more easily.

Not necessarily true. Since you are fond of examples from other sports, here is one for you to consider.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qAE2PrCVhY

LF - Discussing with you is, I am afraid, "hard work". You like to take debates in every direction without bringing yourself any tangible reasoning. I guess that's why you come up with a mafiosi and a hammer thrower's record to justfify ..what? I actually don;t know as I thought we were discussing BHs here.

That was one of your trademark in 606 and thought you had adopted a more rational debatable format but unfortunately it did not last long.

But thanks for trying.

Tenez wrote:LF - Discussing with you is, I am afraid, "hard work". You like to take debates in every direction without bringing yourself any tangible reasoning.

Not it is not, perhaps the perception differs.

Tenez wrote:I guess that's why you come up with a mafiosi and a hammer thrower's record to justfify ..what? I actually don;t know as I thought we were discussing BHs here.

Giorgio De Stefano(i?) is not a mafiosi. He is (was?) the player with two Forehands (no BH - SH or BH). He denied Fred Perry a 'Grand' Slam by beating him in the QF at the 1934 French Championship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_French_Championships_-_Men%27s_Singles

The example of Hammer thrower (Youri Sedykh) was to illustrate the fact that he had tried using his left arm as the primary and was not as successful as using his right arm as the primary, very similar to a SHBH vs. a DHBH. I recall a poignant Biathlon shooting example to look at the accuracy of shooting and running.

Tenez wrote:That was one of your trademark in 606 and thought you had adopted a more rational debatable format but unfortunately it did not last long.
But thanks for trying.

Thanks for responding.

Good! Thanks for clarifying...though in all honesty, I am not sure I understand your final points.

My point I hope is quite clear: Almost anybody playing professional tennis can, through hard work, develop a DBH.

It seems this is not the case when developing a SBH cause it requires more than hard work. It requires a better timing (talent/skill) of the ball as the sweet spot is smaller.

In other words almost all SBHers could have learnt play DBH (They all do now), but not all DBHers could have learnt the SBH...

Tenez wrote:Even a one-in-a century genius cannot overtake guys like Nadal and Djokovic and they are not oustandlingly talented...especially Nadal.

To me it's clear that Federer with a DHBH would have been unbeatable as he has a better FH, serve and volleys than the others. Of course his DHBH may not have been as good but I actually cannot see why he woudl not have been as good as the others. He may have lost in volley skills and creativity but it doesn't pay much nowadays.

Same old cyclical discussions going on in a different vain here I see...to paraphrase the well-trodden path:
"Nadal - talentless, Federer - uber-talented."

You can call Nadal untalented all you like but it flies in the face of what most people think. You dont win 10 slams, etc, with biceps and lungs alone.

You are getting boring, not writing about the topic and as usual talking non-sense.

"Nadal - talentless, Federer - uber-talented."
Are you one one of those who has a black and white vision?

We were talking BHs here and the future of it.

Just saw this link....and couldn't stop myself sighing....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-B_qGYUqGw

Hi Tenez, good thread. So you are only as good as the weakest link - in this case it is the backhand.

So for slow conditions, and given the current racket characteristics, the DHBH is superior to the SHBH, which explains the dominance of the DHBH in elite level tennis. So the game needs to be speeded up (or racket characteristics changed) in order to prevent the complete extinction of the SHBH in elite level tennis?

Nore Staat wrote:Hi Tenez, good thread. So you are only as good as the weakest link - in this case it is the backhand.

So for slow conditions, and given the current racket characteristics, the DHBH is superior to the SHBH, which explains the dominance of the DHBH in elite level tennis. So the game needs to be speeded up (or racket characteristics changed) in order to prevent the complete extinction of the SHBH in elite level tennis?

Very good summary NT. I think it's a fact. Dimitrov is the last of the Mohicans when it comes to SBH.

Golubev won Hamburg on Clay with a SHBH. It is rather premature to predict the extinction of SHBH.

DHBH is for girls.

laverfan wrote:Golubev won Hamburg on Clay with a SHBH. It is rather premature to predict the extinction of SHBH.

A swallow doesn't make a summer. Golubev is 24...like DJoko and Murray. Perfect example of an extremely talented player ranked......listen to that.....134....thanks to his SBH.

The problem with the SBH is that nowadays as it easy to break them down, it makes the player more fragile psychologically and that is also an underrated side effect of the SHBH.

rubbish. Golubev isn't an "extremely talented player", he's a mindless ball-basher. The fact that he has a SHBH doesn't change that, and I'm perfectly happy to see guys like that ranked outside the top 100. Do you honestly believe if he had a DHBH he'd be ranked top 10? Dimitrov has a lot of promise but as yet is failing to deliver for a number of reasons: too much pressure at an early age that he hasn't been able to cope with, not physically strong enough (that's right, tennis is still a sport and that means you have to be an athlete to compete). Gasquet struggled to ever break the very top for the same reasons, don't think it was down to the fact he had a SHBH at all.

Yeah, I think it's a bit simplistic to say that the main reason for every player with a SHBH not making it is the fact that they use a SHBH. Gasquet not making it IMO has more to do with his poor forehand, average serve, and tendency to resort to standing 5 yards behind the baseline playing loopy topspin shots rather than taking control of the point.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:Golubev won Hamburg on Clay with a SHBH. It is rather premature to predict the extinction of SHBH.

A swallow doesn't make a summer. Golubev is 24...like Djoko and Murray. Perfect example of an extremely talented player ranked......listen to that.....134....thanks to his SBH.

The problem with the SBH is that nowadays as it easy to break them down, it makes the player more fragile psychologically and that is also an underrated side effect of the SHBH.

There is no proof of that, but just your assertion. Federer, has, so far, won 16 slams with an SHBH, including beating players with DHBH. He is the one 'swallow' which has made '16' summers.

Tsonga, now uses both, which seems to be a wise decision. Beating Federer from two sets down in W QF does not make him psychologically fragile.

There is a strong inclination to become a creature of habit, hence change is harder to make, but it is possible. Nadal with a 135mph serve, Federer with a drop shot, Djokovic with an extreme fitness regimen are examples of successful changes.

I agree with MfC regarding Golubev and Chazzfazzer (and his Gasquet observation. Murray has a DHBH and is not as successful as Djokovic or Nadal, if you use statistics to define success.).

BTW, Tenez, do you utilize a SHBH or a DHBH?