How long before the one handed backhand goes the way of the continental forehand?

I had to quit tennis for a couple of years due to living in Iran and back issues. But I have just got back into over the last couple of months. And coming back I started to play matches against lower ranked club players than i am usually used to. Not to toot my own horn but I was an A rated or 5 point amateur at a very strong club. But coming back I started to play the really bottom barrel guys first, and I have never in my life seen anything as attrocious as your average weekend hackers one handed topspin backhand. At every step up the ladder as well you see the same thing, the one handed backhands all get picked on. From the ATP down to the weekend hacker. One gentleman at my club has literally spent years working on his one handed top spin backhand with thousands of dollars of coaching and if you saw him hit one you would think he had never picked up a racquet before.

The one handed topspin backhand is a difficult shot to execute and becomes more so as you increase the height of the ball and the spin on the ball. And the game is evolving towards more elevation on the ball and spin. The new racquets and strings allow you to really put work on the ball and like the continental the one hander really was popular due to serve and volleying. The one handers could easily chip or pick up the low and short ball, hit aggressively on the move, in these respects one hander is superior to the two hander. But two hander is not just a harder shot on average, but it is more compact, and less prone to break down. Also it is a much better stroke for coming over the return. I was even more impressed with the beauty and workmanlikeness of this shot when the first time after a 2 year hiatus I came back to hit for the first time. My forehand is again my best shot and always has been along with my return, but the first time I hit the ball I had trouble keeping a forehand on the court for first couple of sessions. But the two handed backhanded I swear to god the first time I swung at the ball hit the thing clean as whistle deep and with a lot of spin and pace.

The two hander just suits the modern game better, and I wonder how long the one handed top spin backhand will last? I personally don't think you will see it maybe more than one or two guys within the next 10 to 15 years. If I was a coach I would coach pretty much 99.99999 percent of kids not to use it and would go as far as switching kids from one to two. In short while it is a beautiful shot it is being decimated at all levels from the club game to the pros. The inside out forehand with the modern racquet and strings is the spine of the modern game. And in this area the one hander has shown that it just can't hold up well enough except in the rare cases. The one hander is like the last cavalry charges of World War 1, where fool generals charged men and horses at artillery and machine guns well because that had been a successful strategy at one time.

The double handler is technically far less demanding and lowers the skill bar. Hence it's very popular in an era about fitness and retrieving.

Get the bounce a bit lower and the SHBH, the most elegant shot in tennis, will be back popular again.

Another reason to change the courts.

How can it go away? Dimitrov, a younger player, plays SHBH.

We saw Ungur play SHBH against Federer (though 27).

Tsonga switched from a DHBH to a DHBH/SHBH combination.

The 'lob' is much easier to play with an SHBH, so are net volleys, or slices.

laverfan wrote:How can it go away? Dimitrov, a younger player, plays SHBH.

We saw Ungur play SHBH against Federer (though 27).

Tsonga switched from a DHBH to a DHBH/SHBH combination.

The 'lob' is much easier to play with an SHBH, so are net volleys, or slices.

In fact most players with DHBH play the slice as a SHBH. Djokovic being the prime example I can think of.

socal1976 wrote:If I was a coach I would coach pretty much 99.99999 percent of kids not to use it and would go as far as switching kids from one to two.

Sampras went the other way.

As a coach, it is paramount to look at the strengths and weakness of each individual. One-size-fits-all philosophies are great when starting children to get them interested in any sport, but once such an interest has been cultivated sufficiently, I personally would like to evaluate before prescribing.

Watching Gonzales, Wawrinka, Federer, etc... I would not have made them play DHBH as a coach.

The single handed backhand is a proper grown up shot. Seriously how heavy is a tennis raquet? Only a child needs two hands to hold one. Of course there is always poor technique...

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:If I was a coach I would coach pretty much 99.99999 percent of kids not to use it and would go as far as switching kids from one to two.

Sampras went the other way.

As a coach, it is paramount to look at the strengths and weakness of each individual. One-size-fits-all philosophies are great when starting children to get them interested in any sport, but once such an interest has been cultivated sufficiently, I personally would like to evaluate before prescribing.

Watching Gonzales, Wawrinka, Federer, etc... I would not have made them play DHBH as a coach.

Sorry Laverfan I have actually played a bit and the one handers I have seen all stink and I have played some pretty good players, I do cartwheels mentally when I see my opponent has one handed backhand. It just simplifies my gameplan. Stand in the backhand corner and use my big semi western forehand spin and loop it high against him. When he drops it short move in and crush it flat and early and end the point. Today I played a very strong gentleman, big serve, good volleys, nice flat shots. But guess what one handed backhand. I killed it again, first set 6-1, second set my serve left me and I still beat him 7-6. And the only, only reason i beat him was because he had a crappy one hander. My niece plays college tennis, in the few matches I have seen of hers I have yet to see a female collegiate player with a good one hand topspin backhand. The only player I would coach to hit a one hander is a guy like Karlovic who would have no chance at the low ball without the one hander. The two hander is actually tougher to handle the low slice with than with the one hander. I actually sometimes hit the ball one handed on my approach shots and I come over not with slice. It is a great specialty shot and the one real weakness of the two hander is the low ball that you are moving up to, while that is the strength of the one hander.

Still the one hander was NEVER DESIGNED to really come over the ball. In the 50s nobody ever came over the ball with the backhand they chipped everything. The one hander was invented for grass courts, gut strings, a serve and volley game, and lower average strike point. Not to mention a game dominated by slice and flat forehands. The later arriving two hander was specifically invented to drive the ball and come over the ball from the baseline and to handle monster kick servers.

By the way Laverfan the principal two reasons dimitrov hasn't done better and has been a bit of disappointment are his fitness and yes you guessed it his weak one hander. It is just not a top twenty backhand as pretty as it looks.

For my money it is nearly dead now and it will be dead pretty much completely within the decade. I watch the juniors at my club out of hundreds of boys and girls not a single one hander.

I agree with everything Socal says. I'm yet to see a descent SHBH live. Funny is the DHBH at the local clubs here aren't much better, but at least good enough to get the ball over the net.

Maybe that is due to American amateurs not being as talented as European amateurs, Socal, just a thought? Its not the fault of the shot, its the fault of the players timing.

Socal, the 2 hander wasn't designed to come over the ball either...Jimmy Connors, its first real proponent hit it pretty flat. As did Borg actually. Laver was top spinning with SHBH long before Connors.

Let's face it DHBH are all the rage now that courts have slowed and coaches all teach the same way, using standard low risk ways of playing.
I play at a highish level (county level you might call it) and have a SH topspin BH. I can return 100+mph serves no problem with it. That guy at your club spending 1000s dollars on learning SHBH probably would have been a poor player with a DHBH too. Some people just don't 'get' it or just don't 'have' it at tennis period. Sure he might get a few more in court witha DHBH but it won't transform his game. Talent to play is talent to play.

Juniors are nearly all coached with DHBHs now...kids start earlier these days and coaching is much more structured and rigorous than it used to be. In UK kids learning mini-red and orange tennis (5-9 year olds) get taught DHBHs as well as getting a Babolat racquet thrust into their hands too. Young kids don't have the strength to hold a racquet with 1 hand on the BH side. By the time they are grooved at 10 years old, it's very hard to switch. But as LF has said it can be done - Sampras!!! So why did he change?

1. SHBH gives you more feel for the ball....SHBHers nearly always have better slices (Federer gets 5000rpm on his BH slice, as much as the topspin Nadal gets on his FH) and BH volleys.
2. You could block the serve back on fast surfaces better...SHBH allows for more flexibility of shot.
3. It allows a 'chip and charge'...still a very underused tactic in my book in this risk averse era of playing
4. It gives more reach outwide.
5. I believe a SHBH can create more angles.
6. It looks a whole better!!!

I think the preponderance of DHBH is due to court speeds and laziness with coaches all following each other like sheep. There is no technical reason why a SHBH cannot cut it in this era still...and it still does! But until courts speed up you won't see more of them appear. But they won't disappear either...it gives advantages still, and attacking players can use those advantages.

...after all you'll note that those players who attack the most on tour tend to have SHBHs...funny that hey?
SHBH is the shot of the attacking player...we just need attacking tennis to become de rigeur again.

Primarily, as Chdremion says, DHBH is taught as 'safe' return the play due to lack of power perhaps.

SoCal... why would you not teach DHFH using the same logic that you are applying to the BH?

Not due to lack of power...it's just easier to teach.

lydian wrote:Not due to lack of power...it's just easier to teach.

I think both strokes are harder to teach. IMO, the SHBH is the 'instinctive' stroke, while the DHBH is the 'learned' stroke.

Do you know if the injuries related to the back, hips and knees are statistically correlated to a DHBH vs SHBH or not?

Why do you think they are equally hard to teach?

If you give a child a BH to play they instinctively put 2 hands on the racquet.

As DHers tend to be less aggressive players and ralley more so they likely get more injuries.

Back injuries are often related to serving.

lydian wrote:Why do you think they are equally hard to teach?

If you give a child a BH to play they instinctively put 2 hands on the racquet.

As DHers tend to be less aggressive players and ralley more so they likely get more injuries.

Back injuries are often related to serving.

Having studied children from a young age, my distinct impression and personal opinion is that they are born ambidextrous and are equally adept using either hand. Mirror neurons seem to come into play watching the parents.
Anecdotally, my left handed 'friends' have a balance of left- and right-handed children, while 'right-handed' parents have a preponderance of 'right-handed' children.

It is hard for me to generalise from such a small sample size, though.

I don't see where the left- or righthandedness comes into this.

We're talking BHs and children find a DHBH easier to do because of strength issues...I have children who all get tennis coaching from me and club pro and they all levitate to a DHBH...I also have watched many other kids get taught at the 4 clubs I have been a member of for over 20 years...this natural tendency to play a DHBH which makes it an easier stroke to teach for coaches.
I have never seen a young/youngish child learning the game get taught a SHBH.

It's only when they're into their teens they MIGHT decide to change to SHBH but with slower courts that is less likely to happen than when Fischer persuaded Sampras to change.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Maybe that is due to American amateurs not being as talented as European amateurs, Socal, just a thought? Its not the fault of the shot, its the fault of the players timing.

Actually I play in a hotbed of tennis in southern california, where we play all around the year as it is warm has a huge population base, and we play 12 months a year outdoors. The players in my region an affluent part of town are among the best. Taylor Dent played at the rival high school down the street our cross town rivals. Sampras played 35 miles away from me, so no problem in terms of talent. My own niece has full scholorship first at ASU then she transferred to Loyola. My club is big club 27 courts, a full time junior academy, hosts a lot of USTA events, juniors, futures, and challengers. Only clay courts in hundreds of miles are at my club. So I play really good amateurs, but the one handers are appreciably, appreciably poorer at coming over the ball when compared to the two handers. And that isn't something particular to my club it seen at every single level of the sport hackers, juniors, collegiates, and pros.

SoCal do you think the introduction of softer balls at a younger age in the UK (as is planned) will mean an increase in SHBHs?

I hope not that will mean they create a generation of players that will be incapable of winning on the major prostage. But not to be mean britain probably wouldn't produce many great players anyway outside of murray they haven't produced a good male player in a very very long time.

lydian wrote:I don't see where the left- or righthandedness comes into this.

My experience is that ambidextrous children, seem to hit with DH BH as well as FH. It takes a little bit of effort to get them to use either RH or LH as their primary.

lydian wrote:We're talking BHs and children find a DHBH easier to do because of strength issues...

That is what I had also meant when I called it 'power'.

lydian wrote:
I have children who all get tennis coaching from me and club pro and they all levitate to a DHBH...

Primarily because of mirror neurons and copying peers. I am suggesting the following, not sure if you can try it or not. Have a group of children who only 'see' and SHBH played and see how many gravitate to an SHBH.

socal1976 wrote:So I play really good amateurs, but the one handers are appreciably, appreciably poorer at coming over the ball when compared to the two handers. And that isn't something particular to my club it seen at every single level of the sport hackers, juniors, collegiates, and pros.

Again, I think, it is what you are taught or imitate that matters. How many current Americans are SHBH players?

lydian wrote:It's only when they're into their teens they MIGHT decide to change to SHBH but with slower courts that is less likely to happen than when Fischer persuaded Sampras to change.

It also has to do with physical maturity and attributes of the individual.

It Must be Love wrote:SoCal do you think the introduction of softer balls at a younger age in the UK (as is planned) will mean an increase in SHBHs?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409004577156813918109858.html

Lydian's 6 point summary and his entire post sum it up quite nicely for me.

I would be perhaps willing to contemplate that SHBH might almost entirely disappear if playing conditions do not change. If courts speed up and in general conditions are changed to allow for more S&V (as I believe they ultimately will) then SHBH will reemerge.

So, on balance I do not think it will go away.

lydian wrote:Socal, the 2 hander wasn't designed to come over the ball either...Jimmy Connors, its first real proponent hit it pretty flat. As did Borg actually. Laver was top spinning with SHBH long before Connors.

Let's face it DHBH are all the rage now that courts have slowed and coaches all teach the same way, using standard low risk ways of playing.
I play at a highish level (county level you might call it) and have a SH topspin BH. I can return 100+mph serves no problem with it. That guy at your club spending 1000s dollars on learning SHBH probably would have been a poor player with a DHBH too. Some people just don't 'get' it or just don't 'have' it at tennis period. Sure he might get a few more in court witha DHBH but it won't transform his game. Talent to play is talent to play.

Juniors are nearly all coached with DHBHs now...kids start earlier these days and coaching is much more structured and rigorous than it used to be. In UK kids learning mini-red and orange tennis (5-9 year olds) get taught DHBHs as well as getting a Babolat racquet thrust into their hands too. Young kids don't have the strength to hold a racquet with 1 hand on the BH side. By the time they are grooved at 10 years old, it's very hard to switch. But as LF has said it can be done - Sampras!!! So why did he change?

1. SHBH gives you more feel for the ball....SHBHers nearly always have better slices (Federer gets 5000rpm on his BH slice, as much as the topspin Nadal gets on his FH) and BH volleys.
2. You could block the serve back on fast surfaces better...SHBH allows for more flexibility of shot.
3. It allows a 'chip and charge'...still a very underused tactic in my book in this risk averse era of playing
4. It gives more reach outwide.
5. I believe a SHBH can create more angles.
6. It looks a whole better!!!

I think the preponderance of DHBH is due to court speeds and laziness with coaches all following each other like sheep. There is no technical reason why a SHBH cannot cut it in this era still...and it still does! But until courts speed up you won't see more of them appear. But they won't disappear either...it gives advantages still, and attacking players can use those advantages.

...after all you'll note that those players who attack the most on tour tend to have SHBHs...funny that hey?
SHBH is the shot of the attacking player...we just need attacking tennis to become de rigeur again.

Double-handed backhands were all the rage before the courts slowed down. They've been the predominant shot since the early 90s, other than in outdated countries like GB.

In relation to the 6 points which you make:

1. SHBH players may have better slices but that is more due to the fact that the inherent weakness in the top-spin single-hander requires them to develop that shot. There is no reason why a DB backhand player cannot be equally as adept at the slice - see Murray as a prime example.

2. You can block the ball back on any surface far better with a two-hander. It is simply a more secure shot.

3. See point 1. I agree if you try slicing two-handed you are in difficulty but there is no reason not to have a two-handed standard shot and a one handed slice.

4. Correct - and the only real advantage of a one-handed backhand. Of course, it's very tough to hit a one-handed topspin on the stretch so most players will hit a slice when forced that wide anyway.

5. Not much to say to this other than it doesn't and there is no reason why it would.

6. Agreed.

I think someone above also said it is easier to lob one-handed. It isn't. It is no coincidence that the best lobbers in recent times - Agassi; Hewitt and Murray - have all used two-hands.

lydian wrote:Socal, the 2 hander wasn't designed to come over the ball either...Jimmy Connors, its first real proponent hit it pretty flat. As did Borg actually. Laver was top spinning with SHBH long before Connors.

Let's face it DHBH are all the rage now that courts have slowed and coaches all teach the same way, using standard low risk ways of playing.
I play at a highish level (county level you might call it) and have a SH topspin BH. I can return 100+mph serves no problem with it. That guy at your club spending 1000s dollars on learning SHBH probably would have been a poor player with a DHBH too. Some people just don't 'get' it or just don't 'have' it at tennis period. Sure he might get a few more in court witha DHBH but it won't transform his game. Talent to play is talent to play.

Juniors are nearly all coached with DHBHs now...kids start earlier these days and coaching is much more structured and rigorous than it used to be. In UK kids learning mini-red and orange tennis (5-9 year olds) get taught DHBHs as well as getting a Babolat racquet thrust into their hands too. Young kids don't have the strength to hold a racquet with 1 hand on the BH side. By the time they are grooved at 10 years old, it's very hard to switch. But as LF has said it can be done - Sampras!!! So why did he change?

1. SHBH gives you more feel for the ball....SHBHers nearly always have better slices (Federer gets 5000rpm on his BH slice, as much as the topspin Nadal gets on his FH) and BH volleys.
2. You could block the serve back on fast surfaces better...SHBH allows for more flexibility of shot.
3. It allows a 'chip and charge'...still a very underused tactic in my book in this risk averse era of playing
4. It gives more reach outwide.
5. I believe a SHBH can create more angles.
6. It looks a whole better!!!

I think the preponderance of DHBH is due to court speeds and laziness with coaches all following each other like sheep. There is no technical reason why a SHBH cannot cut it in this era still...and it still does! But until courts speed up you won't see more of them appear. But they won't disappear either...it gives advantages still, and attacking players can use those advantages.

...after all you'll note that those players who attack the most on tour tend to have SHBHs...funny that hey?
SHBH is the shot of the attacking player...we just need attacking tennis to become de rigeur again.

THis, completely.

I played SHBH and it was such a reliable shot, coached from early on so I didn't build a load of rubbish into it, and it would crunch the ball. If I were playing a moonballer as socal describes himself I'd play closer in and take the ball earlier, either driving over or more likely using the spin to help make a nasty slice - using that topspin for a slice makes a really wickedly revving ball.

It's not a shot you want to play high - obviously - but at normal humans level there's enough time to avoid that becoming an inescapable trap.

As I said lydian the double hander is not replacing the single hander because of lazy coaching. The single hander is a relic a dinosaur and will become more so as time goes on. The fact is it is much harder and much more compact. There is a reason that all the greatest returners on tour dating from Connors, Agassi, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Murray, Djoko, or Nadal all have had two handed backhands. So it is not easier to block a return back with one hand as opposed to two. The one hander is simply not effective a high spin shot, and that with propensity to run around the forehand and go inside with the semi western grip that weakness gets brutally exposed at all levels.


Sorry Lydian I think your argument that lazy coaching is the reason the double hander has gotten popular is completely not based in fact. As for the slow conditions come on, for the love of god is the conspiracy to slow down courts really going around and slowing down the courts at everyone's club and at the local rec center? The courts were slowed on the ATP tour 99.9999 percent of players never even see those courts why would slow conditions cause juniors and high school players to develop a two hander. Two hander is better for returning serve without question, that is the reason that virtually every great returner in history has had a two handed backhand.

And the dominant play of the modern game the run around inside out heavy spin forehand inside out to the backhand has clearly exposed the weakness of the one hander to the high heavy ball. Try hitting 100 balls above your shoulder with your one hander and then tell me it is as reliable as a good two hander.

PS double hander buries the single hander for the topspin up the line as well. All the best up the line backhands with the exception of a couple of divine one handers on tour are all two handed as well. I will concede that you can get better angle on the cross court backhand but much easier to go up the line with the two hander. Again with how much players run around and leave room on that side the up the line is such an important shot in the modern game and the two hander is much better for that important point changing shot.

Bottom line, double handers are for girls.

Words like "easier" appear with regularity on this thread, which says it all.

Real men do it single handed.

bogbrush wrote:Bottom line, double handers are for girls.

Words like "easier" appear with regularity on this thread, which says it all.

Real men do it single handed.

Okay bogbrush lets get back to the tennis.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Bottom line, double handers are for girls.

Words like "easier" appear with regularity on this thread, which says it all.

Real men do it single handed.

Okay bogbrush lets get back to the tennis.

Just checking who was awake.

If you want to participate on my threads please keep the sophmoric insults to yourself and bring in points about the efficacy of the one handed backhand vis a vis the two hander.

Back to my original post in synopsis:

The three most important aspects of the modern game that the two hander is superior to is as follows:

1. Much better on the return all the greatest returners in history are two handers that isn't a coincidence

2. Superior in driving in the ball up the line and again in the modern game with players looking to run around they leave a lot of room to be exploited on that line

3. Superior in handling the high and heavy ball, which in the modern game with the prevalence of the semi western and western inside out forehand as the dominant play in the game is of the utmost importance.

In short there is a reason 90 percent of the top 100 players have two handers. And long before the slowing conditions the two handers started to turn the tide. Each passing year sees this shot get more and more antiquated.

2 hands just gives more control and power. I even played with a 2-handed forehand until I had it coached out of me as a young kid, and my backhand is still my best shot.

When you say one handed backhand you mean 2 hands but releasing one on the strike, like Warwinka?

Someone trying to look all serious?

Obviously we've heard the end of Fognini threads then. :bigphew:

Yes, DHBH is for girls and weak man. It's ugly, it's not flexible, should be banned for men, as should squealing like a kitten.

If DHBH is so great why did so many great claycourters use SHBH?
Lendl, Costa, Kuerten, Muster, Corretja and many others.
Clay court tennis needs rock solid ground strokes...today's claycourters like Almagro can still cut it with the shot. And the above clay guys with SHBHs we're attacking players too.

Socal, I was talking about pros using the DHBH more (or rather sticking with it) due to slowing conditions, not club players. The facts are that attacking players use SHBH shot, counterpunches use DHBH. Federer and Sampras didnt do too badly with a SHBH...30 slams between them! Infact in Open Era how many slams were won with SHBH players...Laver, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Kuerten, Federer...even Borg's BH ended as a SHBH shot. So dozens of slams for attacking SHBH players.

You talk about the 'modern' game as though Pete and Roger are bygone relics. They arent relics, the evolutionary peak of tennis has been turned into a relic in favour of 5-6 hour ralley marathons. These guys were infact pinnacles of attacking tennis using a SHBH. Attacking tennis was the zenith of the game IMO. Since 2001-2002 the game has gone backwards in terms of playing conditions and a preponderance of long, low risk ralleys...with it a ruthless brand of tennis has been lost. The DHBH is a shot of the defensive oriented game related to slower conditions. If DHBH was so great why did most of the multislammers in faster conditions have SHBH? Why were they taught that stroke...surely in very quick conditions such a weak shot as the SHBH couldn't stand up to the test? And yet all those guys above used it.

DHBH is a stable but agricultural looking shot at best, resulting in less variety. Coaches teach it as its easy for kids to pick up. But they don't switch them to SHBH anymore as slow courts/baseline play negate the need for the type of attacking tennis SHBH lends itself to. DHBH is low risk, safe, less varied.

So as I said...the slower the courts, the fewer people will switch from the starter DHBH to SHBH - the need to change grips and play styles mid-ralley isnt needed these days, it's all Western grip tennis the whole way now. But many who want variety and an ultra attacking style will still use the SHBH to express themselves. As I said many claycourters of old/new used SHBH, and the game on clay hasnt changed all that much - this surface proves SHBH can cut it against DHBHers even on slower conditions. The problem is that coaches are not switching as many people anymore because DHBHs don't break down as much over 30 shot ralleys. They don't think that players can win matches without going to 30 strokes...they can attack with a SHBH based game...Kuerten didn't rely on 30 stroke ralleys. Attacking tennis is attacking tennis but the ATP have decided they don't want that anymore so we see DHBHs flourishing.

Viva la SHBH and its attacking players. And please ATP restore USO and Wimbledon nearer, not exactly, to how it used to be. We want 'SHBH based variety'...not 'DHBH based stability/monotony'.

I find some of your points really contralogical lydian.

At one point you claim that the two greatest modern players Sampras and Fed both have one handers and that this should be proof of its efficacy. Yes and where did every player who played Sampras and Federer direct every ball possible, to their one hander. Not to mention how many grandslams have we seen Nadal crack that one hander with heavy spin? Oh just about every final they have played with each other.

You claim that slow conditions and lazy coaching are one of the reasons for its growth. I find that really absurd considering that 90 percent of the ATP tour uses that shot. 9 out of 10 top ten players. And I no there are certain losers who jump on your bandwagon with comments about the two hander being a girls shot. But that is funny that 90 percent of the men's tour plays with a girl's shot.

The fact of the matter is that the two handed backhand has been gaining on the one hander since the time of connors and borg. The two handed backhand was an oddity on the tour in the 60s and early 70s. By the 90s long before they slowed the conditions or brought new strings the two hander had already supplanted the one hander as the dominant backhand on tour. The new strings and slower courts only speeded up a trend that has been going on since the mid 70s.

In short lydian you won't find a truely great returner with a one hander on tour today. And players from juniors on up are not learning and it isn't because of slow courts or lazy coaches. Why would you spend your time learning a more complex shot that you can't hit as hard and as consistently even if you master it?

Another truely insane point of yours is that the two hander is the shot of defensive players. It is certainly the favorite shot of defensive players because no one in their right mind who bases their game on consistency would today choose the one hander over the two. But the two handed backhand has been the basis of many great attack games and lends itself even easier in my mind to attacking your opponent then just chipping at him. No question which shot is better for hitting winners up the line with. No question which shot is better for aggressively hitting a return. Are players like Safin, Connors, Agassi, and Becker now considered defensive girly men because they had a two handed backhand.

Another point you made is that the one hander is better for chip and charge. What? Chip and charge isn't used anymore because it doesn't work any more the quality of returns makes that play suicidal. Even Fed tries it like 1 out of 1000 returns. Again more antiquated stuff that you just don't see at pro or amateur game at the higher levels.


In short the proof is in the pudding lydian. It is not lazy coaching that is the reason that 90 percent of players in the top 10 use the two hander. It is results. The one hander since the mid 70s when it was the only show in town has been losing appeal slowly and surely and was the second most popular backhand on tour prior to slowing courts and all that jive.

This opinion suffers from being short term. The game will change again. I think at some point there'll be tighter control on equipment (as F1) and things will change.

It would be a great pity to see a shot that demands so much skill entirely supplanted by the hackers go-to.

bogbrush wrote:This opinion suffers from being short term. The game will change again. I think at some point there'll be tighter control on equipment (as F1) and things will change.

It would be a great pity to see a shot that demands so much skill entirely supplanted by the hackers go-to.

Thank you for at least making a post without childish taunts and silly wummery. Of course it is aburd logic none the same but Ill commend the best post you have had well in weeks.

socal1976 wrote:Of course it is aburd logic

Aburd is the hand is worth two in the bush

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:This opinion suffers from being short term. The game will change again. I think at some point there'll be tighter control on equipment (as F1) and things will change.

It would be a great pity to see a shot that demands so much skill entirely supplanted by the hackers go-to.

Thank you for at least making a post without childish taunts and silly wummery. Of course it is aburd logic none the same but Ill commend the best post you have had well in weeks.

Nah, the best recent efforts were the ones that had you frothing at the mouth after the French.

socal1976 wrote:Another truely insane point of yours

Another? Truly insane point?
You need to get a grip on how you debate with people.
If you dont agree fine, but dont label my points insane or we're done debating
Funny how it took slowing conditions, a more physical game and better racquet & string technology before the DHBH took off isnt it.
Its almost like it needed a (double) hand...

I agree with SoCal on this one.

socal1976 wrote:
In short lydian you won't find a truely great returner with a one hander on tour today.
It is certainly the favorite shot of defensive players because no one in their right mind who bases their game on consistency would today choose the one hander over the two. But the two handed backhand has been the basis of many great attack games and lends itself even easier in my mind to attacking your opponent then just chipping at him. No question which shot is better for hitting winners up the line with. No question which shot is better for aggressively hitting a return. Are players like Safin, Connors, Agassi, and Becker now considered defensive girly men because they had a two handed backhand.

Spot on.

Also I think there are more DHBHs because of more powerful rackets and technology, rather than court speed.

Lydian, I just do find it a bit of a strange point that you think the two hander is the hallmark of the defensive player. For hitting aggressively from the back court or returning aggressively the two hander buries the one hander. It is true though if I was basing my game on consistency I would never base it around a one handed top spin backhand. So in that respects defensive players who play that way would prefer the shot. But there are great attackers who play with two handers and have no problem using it as a lethal part of their attack.

Fine your point isn't insane. But I do find some of your logic to be very subjective and not based on the actual results we are seeing in the real world.

Yes SoCal.
For example Djokovic's DHBH serve return is much more aggressive, pentrating and deeper (on the line) compared to Federer's return (especially his slice chip return).

The defensive point relates to the preponderance of baseline play...counterpunching baseline play, which accounts for most players these days. It is defensive relative to the styles of those who get forward to the net. We have mainly baseliners and mainly DHBHers...are the two related or not?

Yes IMBL...racquet technology has a lot to answer for..but so do slowing courts. In the space of 5 years we have 2-3 guys completing career slams that eluded all the best guys of the 70s, 80s, 90s and early 2000s.

Socal when you say my points arent based on results thats not true. Yes DHBHers return well...but its the lack of aggressive play due to racquets and courts that is the death-knell for SHBHs.

I agree with BB.....they should limit racquet size to 95-98 sqin and stop the use of poly strings....they're terrible for injuries anyway.

Racquet weight should be within 50g too. In a sea of dustbin lids I'm amazed Federer makes as many returns as he does with 90sqin.

It Must Be Love wrote:Yes SoCal.
For example Djokovic's DHBH serve return is much more aggressive, pentrating and deeper (on the line) compared to Federer's return (especially his slice chip return).

The only reason Novak beats Rafa and troubles Rafa so much more than Roger on the whole is not because Novak is a superior talent or player. The reason is that Novak has a two handed backhand that can attack the second serve kick serve. Have you noticed how religiously Rafa directs especially second serves to Roger's backhand. Well the reason is that serve with its high spin and contact point is murder on the one hander. Rafa knows if he gets that serve up in Roger's backhand he will have to softly chip the ball back to him. And then Rafa runs around his forehand picks up the soft chip and hits and angled forehand that forces fed to play chip and chase off the first ball.

He hits the same ball to Novak and Novak crunches a cross court return flat and hard with angle forcing Nadal off the court. Same serve, two talented players, one is completely hamstrung not because he lacks ability or talent. Because his backhand was never, ever designed to hit many balls like that and is completely deficient technically for a stable shot that under great pressure most hold up. The proof is in the pudding how many great returners have one handed backhands, not many. The only truely great one I can think of was probably lendl.

Yes but socal that doesnt prove your point. The issue is Federer's BH, not SHBHs per se. Had Nadal tried to do that versus Kuerten I can tell you he wouldnt have had the same success at all.

lydian wrote:The defensive point relates to the preponderance of baseline play...counterpunching baseline play, which accounts for most players these days. It is defensive relative to the styles of those who get forward to the net. We have mainly baseliners and mainly DHBHers...are the two related or not?

Yes IMBL...racquet technology has a lot to answer for..but so do slowing courts. In the space of 5 years we have 2-3 guys completing career slams that eluded all the best guys of the 70s, 80s, 90s and early 2000s.

Socal when you say my points arent based on results thats not true. Yes DHBHers return well...but its the lack of aggressive play due to racquets and courts that is the death-knell for SHBHs.

I agree with BB.....they should limit racquet size to 95-98 sqin and stop the use of poly strings....they're terrible for injuries anyway.

See I don't prefer serve and volley to the point that I want to ban technology and tweak balls and courts so certain styles will be favored. Do you not agree that more top pros favored the two hander even before the advent of the slow courts in early 2000s and luxilon strings?
Because it seems quite clear that the two hander which was virtually nonexistent in the early open era had already supplanted the one hander as the favored backhand on tour prior to the slower conditions. The two hander became dominant with the oversize graphite and composite racquets.

And i still disagree the baseline play does not itself denote defensive or counterpunching. There are great baseliners who attack and great baseliners who defend. Just like a two hander doesn't lead one to believe by that fact alone that the player is defensive. However the kernel of truth in this is that if you did want to base your game around consistency you would certainly never base it around a one handed backhand for the most part. If anything this shows the deficiency of the single hander.

I have played with the luxilon strings and they do not and have not caused me any discomfort and I am old and too fat to play as much tennis as I do and hardly ever stretch. The wrist snap that FFS stuff you talk about will tear your arm and wrist out much faster than luxi strings will. I have played for 30 years have good technique and never had serious wrist, shoulder, or elbow issues and have played exclusively with luxi and gut string and pretty actively at times.

This is because not all SHBHs are the same. This is where we get into grips and technique.

Fed plays an almost Eastern BH. That grip/technique simply cant cope with high bounces. But a western BH is a different proposition. Why do you think so many SHBH claycourters could cope with huge spin?

Kuerten beat 90s clay king Bruguera many times on clay.
But did you know Sergi had the 2nd highest topspin of all time on the FH, >3500rom.
Well Kuerten had no problem dealing with it on the BH even though Sergi tried to rear it up there.

So is it your point Lydian that a one handed backhand is just as efficient on the whole as a two handed backhand in handling the high top spin shot? I'd just like to be clear to not misrepresent your position.