My article made it into Sports Illustrated! WAHHOOOOO! CRYING WITH HAPPINESS!

http://www.si.com/tennis/2016/02/16/death-of-one-handed-backhand-tennis :')

Thanks 606v2 for vastly improving my tennis knowledge, still a very long way to go! Cheers x

LuvSports! wrote:http://www.si.com/tennis/2016/02/16/death-of-one-handed-backhand-tennis :')

Thanks 606v2 for vastly improving my tennis knowledge, still a very long way to go! Cheers x

Congrats Luvsports, now I know one member of the paid media that I can sue for plagiarism when they steal my ideas. I am glad some of my genius rubbed off on you. Just kidding great article, great job, very happy for you.

Congratulations on a very astute article conclusively showing that the double handed backhand is the shot of limited talented players unable to master the demands of the greatest shot in tennis - the beautiful single handed backhand.

Only the most gifted - McEnroe & Federer - players could date to choose the hardest road but are rewarded for their integrity with their respect as the supreme talents.

I remain confident that another great talent will emerge, and that he will carry the torch for the shot of genius.

socal1976 wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:http://www.si.com/tennis/2016/02/16/death-of-one-handed-backhand-tennis :')

Thanks 606v2 for vastly improving my tennis knowledge, still a very long way to go! Cheers x

Congrats Luvsports, now I know one member of the paid media that I can sue for plagiarism when they steal my ideas. I am glad some of my genius rubbed off on you. Just kidding great article, great job, very happy for you.

Haha cheers pal! I didn't get paid for this but I am at a little paper in the English countryside, but that is generally covering Mrs Miggins' artichokes. Not much legal action there!

Cheers Bogbrush, i hope so too!

Well done LS - fantastic achievement!

Very well written article LS. Well-deserved place in SI.

My view is very clearly that the two-hander is the superior shot. There are just no advantages to the one handed alternative (other than it looks prettier). I would go as far as to say that Sampras was probably poorly advised to ditch the two-hander. Whilst his phenomenal serve and forehand still made him one of the best of all time, the backhand was a relative weakness throughout his career.

Well done LS, seems you're getting smarter into your retirement age

Keep it up

LuvSports! wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:http://www.si.com/tennis/2016/02/16/death-of-one-handed-backhand-tennis :')

Thanks 606v2 for vastly improving my tennis knowledge, still a very long way to go! Cheers x

Congrats Luvsports, now I know one member of the paid media that I can sue for plagiarism when they steal my ideas. I am glad some of my genius rubbed off on you. Just kidding great article, great job, very happy for you.

Haha cheers pal! I didn't get paid for this but I am at a little paper in the English countryside, but that is generally covering Mrs Miggins' artichokes. Not much legal action there!

Well I am sure its a start of better things.

Born Slippy wrote:Very well written article LS. Well-deserved place in SI.

My view is very clearly that the two-hander is the superior shot. There are just no advantages to the one handed alternative (other than it looks prettier). I would go as far as to say that Sampras was probably poorly advised to ditch the two-hander.  Whilst his phenomenal serve and forehand still made him one of the best of all time, the backhand was a relative weakness throughout his career.

Yep, exactly Agassi mentions it in his book how he was a little surprised Pete made that switch and that he believed that it hurt Pete's career. If Pete had even a decent, we aren't talking a world beating Djoko/Murray/Agassi two hander but just a solid good ATP player double hander he very well could have won a few more slams. My own gut feeling something like 3-5 more slams. The fact that his backhand was up and down often caused Pete to miss more on the FH because he would have to put more and more pressure on his FH and footwork to run around his BH. Same actually could be said of Federer frankly. But Roger was a natural one hander and had a better BH in general. Pete's switch was really mindboggling.

I won't go as far as you as saying there is no advantage to the one hander but I do agree that the two hander is a much better shot. The SH BH is better on the low ball especially one where you have to move up into the court. But that doesn't outweigh how the double hander is better for going up the line, is more compact, less prone to error, and handles the high ball particularly the kick serve much better. The biggest drawback of a single hander is that it is more difficult to return aggressively with it and you see most single handers chip an inordinately high percentage of returns. A top pro who moves well, and has a good FH will eat that slow chip back unless it is near perfect every time. Its the opposite of the chip and charge play, I like to call it the cheap and chase return. How many times did we see Fed get victimized by Nadal just kicking his second serve at Roger's BH, then using his feet so well to turn any of those soft returns into a short FH where he would open up the for a short heavy FH in the box with fed running from his BH corner scrambling the other way. Or how many times would fed just fluff that kick serve of Nadal's in the net. You lose so much on the return, which is one of the two most important shots in tennis that it being prettier or as some like to claim manlier doesn't make up for it just being away worse shot.

Well done mate, that's quite an achievement.

I thought it was going to be the swimsuit edition but, no, it's a bona fide sports article!

It's a shame the SHBH is dying out but I can see why. Although its aesthetic appeal is greater than the DHBH, it's not as reliable a 'tool', especially in the modern game.

And when the aspiring player has the option of a more reliable shot that is technically easier to execute, one can see why they choose the double hander.

Cheers guys

Well done LS. I remember being over the moon when the BBC website published my comment in an article about Nadal/Murray match at Wimbledon.

Was this the same article you did on your blog? It's a compelling argument the SHBH vs DHBH. Almost like the belly putter argument in golf, but least something is being done about the perceived advantage.

Cheers LK. Still buzzing.

Ye so my blog, obviously a lot more flowery got dialled down but then did extra research and managed to speak to some great peeps!
They toned down my kookyness and fawning over the shot bits such as:

"Hopefully in years to come, there won’t be an exhibit on wonderful past innovations of tennis, comprising the all but forgotten serve and volley.
And hopefully next to that display, there won’t be a museum curator enthusiastically explaining to a group of eager onlookers, how the once magnificent but fragile single-handed backhand died with it.
I hope!"

So happy

legendkillarV2 wrote:Well done LS. I remember being over the moon when the BBC website published my comment in an article about Nadal/Murray match at Wimbledon.

Was this the same article you did on your blog? It's a compelling argument the SHBH vs DHBH. Almost like the belly putter argument in golf, but least something is being done about the perceived advantage.

I got quoted on a BBC report too! A nice moment isn't it (I doubt Wise_Analyst ever made it).

PS The DHBH is not a "better" shot", it's an easier one, the choice of the mid-talented.

Its a better shot, especially on the return. If it wasn't better, then players would learn to play single handed - its not tricky once you have sufficient strength in your arm.

I've never really got Socal's argument that its easier to deal with low balls with a SBH. If you've got good footwork, you should easily be able to move forwards with a DBH and then use the second hand to create sufficient whip and pace on a short low ball. For really low balls, the best shot regardless will be a single-handed slice approach. Any advantage in having a OBH topspin would be negligible. If anything, OBH are more likely to play the shot away from their body and off-balance.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Well done LS. I remember being over the moon when the BBC website published my comment in an article about Nadal/Murray match at Wimbledon.

Was this the same article you did on your blog? It's a compelling argument the SHBH vs DHBH. Almost like the belly putter argument in golf, but least something is being done about the perceived advantage.

I got quoted on a BBC report too! A nice moment isn't it (I doubt Wise_Analyst ever made it).

PS The DHBH is not a "better" shot", it's an easier one, the choice of the mid-talented.

I have to say I was filled with the "I made it" kind of feeling as getting a 606 comment in an article/report was like the Holy Grail for me

PS I agree.

Born Slippy wrote:Its a better shot, especially on the return. If it wasn't better, then players would learn to play single handed - its not tricky once you have sufficient strength in your arm.  

I've never really got Socal's argument that its easier to deal with low balls with a SBH. If you've got good footwork, you should easily be able to move forwards with a DBH and then use the second hand to create sufficient whip and pace on a short low ball. For really low balls, the best shot regardless will be a single-handed slice approach. Any advantage in having a OBH topspin would be negligible. If anything, OBH are more likely to play the shot away from their body and off-balance.

Players would indeed learn it, except it's too hard. The demands on timing are far greater.

I switched from DHBH to SHBH as a young guy simply because I decided it was a girls shot.

bogbrush wrote:I got quoted on a BBC report too! A nice moment isn't it (I doubt Wise_Analyst ever made it).

Here it is in all its glory, back in the pre-bogbrush days:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/7188600.stm

(Note: I'd referred to the article in a v2 conversation years ago. I'm not stalking you!)

However, via the joys of google, I see you are also here (at 1405):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/7364459.stm

and here (at start of third set):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/7186877.stm

and here (as BB):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/8379873.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/8716398.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/8751820.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/8964916.stm

You're on the BBC more than Clare Balding!

Guy love between Bogbrush and Murdock! :P

^I was hoping to find some outrageous belligerence or a terrible prediction but was sadly disappointed.

So we are amongst journalistic legends here on the forum?

Nice to be around here

HM Murdock wrote:^I was hoping to find some outrageous belligerence or a terrible prediction but was sadly disappointed.

There were some hideously wrong statements though. I well remember saying how wonderful Fed looked after marmalising Hartfield in Rd 1 of the 2008 AO, only to be brought up terribly short when that awful match with Tisarovic showed all was not well, followed by the laboured win over traditional bunny James Blake.

Otherwise I appear to have avoided trouble by finding refuge in banality.

Born Slippy wrote:Its a better shot, especially on the return. If it wasn't better, then players would learn to play single handed - its not tricky once you have sufficient strength in your arm.  

I've never really got Socal's argument that its easier to deal with low balls with a SBH. If you've got good footwork, you should easily be able to move forwards with a DBH and then use the second hand to create sufficient whip and pace on a short low ball. For really low balls, the best shot regardless will be a single-handed slice approach. Any advantage in having a OBH topspin would be negligible. If anything, OBH are more likely to play the shot away from their body and off-balance.

Well BS I have a double hander and I agree with your point in about 90 percent of what you say that the double hander is just a better shot. The problem in your argument is the very first part I put in bold. Yes with superior footwork and or time you can do a lot with any ball that if you catch a split second later becomes much more difficult to handle. In an ideal world if you move up to balls like Djokovic,  or even if you are Djokovic and you are scrambling and don't have as much time the one hander becomes and easier option. Now you are right most players will chose to chip that shot especially if late. But the one hander can hit top spin and drive the low ball better in that situation. And getting down to low balls to hit up with them I find to be more work and bit harder with the two hander than the one. Not that it is impossible or impractical, but that this is a minor advantage of the one hander the low ball and the low ball moving into the court. It is the added and tiny amount more time it takes to get both right side and left side, and both hands down for the ball. Again, maybe this is just observational of the players I have played with and against.

In general though a two hander lets you have a later contact point and more time than the one hander that is why you see players with two handers being able to pass. I just find with hitting the low ball and low short in particular the one hander is less demanding of your footwork and time. Like to get your thoughts on this.

bogbrush wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Its a better shot, especially on the return. If it wasn't better, then players would learn to play single handed - its not tricky once you have sufficient strength in your arm.  

I've never really got Socal's argument that its easier to deal with low balls with a SBH. If you've got good footwork, you should easily be able to move forwards with a DBH and then use the second hand to create sufficient whip and pace on a short low ball. For really low balls, the best shot regardless will be a single-handed slice approach. Any advantage in having a OBH topspin would be negligible. If anything, OBH are more likely to play the shot away from their body and off-balance.

Players would indeed learn it, except it's too hard. The demands on timing are far greater.

I switched from DHBH to SHBH as a young guy simply because I decided it was a girls shot.

What I think is girlish is not being able to come over the ball like a man on backhand return with any consistency. You learned a single hander, most guys who are halfway decent players who have double handers all mess around for fun and hit some one hand top spin backhands. I can hit that shot, its fun and pretty just as you say. I mean it took a player as talented as Federer a racquet change and till the age of 30 to basically be able to consistently be able to come over and actually drive a backhand return. And that's Federer, if Federer has to chip every return on his backhand for like the first ten years of his career why in god's name would you want to teach it to a talented junior? Against top players if you are chipping 80-90 percent of your returns that server knows what is coming he is going to eat you up most of the time. That is why Fed is so god awful at converting break points. The guy is in trouble he knows hit a decent serve to fed's backhand and anticipate the chip. Hell Nadal made a living of relying on fed's girlish 50 mile an hour chipped returns.

The challenge of mastering the greatest shot in tennis is big for anyone; few dare make of it a career but to the rare few who master it, the respect of legends awaits.

For the double handed tradesmen, well, it's always respectable to make the best of what you have.

bogbrush wrote:The challenge of mastering the greatest shot in tennis is big for anyone; few dare make of it a career but to the rare few who master it, the respect of legends awaits.

For the double handed tradesmen, well, it's always respectable to make the best of what you have.

Hoping Thiem will

bogbrush wrote:The challenge of mastering the greatest shot in tennis is big for anyone; few dare make of it a career but to the rare few who master it, the respect of legends awaits.

For the double handed tradesmen, well, it's always respectable to make the best of what you have.

Yes and you can eat with utensils by training your feet, it's a lot easier if you use your hands, don't get me wrong I am glad it is around. It is nice to watch, but I would never trade my two handed in for it even if paid a large sum of money. Well because when I play tennis I like to win.

Of course - perhaps better to make best use of what you have than reach for something beyond your grasp.