Response to One Hand Backhand Blog

[stotty]

John, some of these post are really good, can you entice these guys onto the forum? Tell them Stotty, don_budge and Klacr will be serving round the clock aperitifs and a warm welcome to all thought-provoking newcomers.

[GeoffWilliams]

Two handers cannot produce the rpms that one handers can. But they are better at defending high ball serve/returns. They never develop the same confident bh volleys at net or attacking slices/although can develop change up slices. Nowadays, the change up gets clobbered, ie, look at Nadal attacking any bh slice! Kills it, and makes it a weakness, not a strength. Why are so many kids taught two handers out of the gate? Is it really due to lack of upper body ability to strike a one hander well? Or a lack of confidence in doing so/left /right brain thing.? The new slice string coming out may make the slice a weapon against Nadal types again. Stringing techniques can also accentuate slice. Not many devotees of the methods though, and they are not well known.

[johnyandell]

Another thoughtful one:

There are a number of questions packed into your commentary, the primary question being whether the two-hander is actually superior to the one-hander. The other questions concerning the impact two-hand instruction and culture have on lifelong recreational tennis are quite unrelated but nonetheless interesting, as well.

On the primary question, determining what it is that makes those one-handers so great would seem to me to be very difficult, indeed. Is it the one-handed backhand itself that gives those stars their advantage? Or might it be that the one-handed backhand is so inherently difficult that anyone capable enough of mastering it is likewise also an all-around superior athlete (even superior to others at the world class level)? What if, in effect, the one-hander functions as a kind of world-feature qualification/disqualification criterion: that is, it’s such a difficult stroke that if you’re skilled enough to master it for competition at the world class level, you’re probably an altogether better athlete?

Looked at from an entirely different angle, it may be that all court players have a great advantage, and the pedagogical and strategic approach taken by coaches who teach the one-handed backhand is to train their students to develop an all court game. So that’s the game they eventually master. Perhaps two-handers end up disadvantaged at the world class level simply because they aren’t encouraged to (and thus never do) develop the all court game.

Personally, I think both things are in play. But it’s an admittedly unfounded hunch.

As to the corollary questions concerning the impact on tennis, I can’t quite agree that the two-hander has an overall adverse impact, because it at least makes the game accessible to youth, and without some kind of serviceable backhand, the game can be incredibly frustrating. No matter where one starts off in exposing kids to sports, there simply can’t be the assumption that a particular sport will be a “game for life.” That might turn out to be true, it might not. Whatever one does for sport, physical activity, and physical conditioning, it really has to be a “game for fun.” And if it stays that way, then it will be a game for life. If not … well, that’s a shame.

--Craig Stainbrook

[stotty]

Wow it just keeps going! Here is another two-handed argument:

Thank you for bringing up this interesting topic! It makes for a fun conversation.

Here are just some facts you left off your comments:

1. First off you inaccurately speak of one handed backhands without describing the type of one-handed backhand. 99% of all men pros have a one-handed backhand--a backhand slice which has become a required tool in the tool box. Notice how both Mats Willander and Nadal successfully developed a usable slice backhand late in their careers. Witness Roger's exquisite dismantling of Raonic with his precision backhand slices. Few of the women have developed an effective slice backhand because their pros and coaches haven't taught them this extraordinarily important shot.

2. Secondly you didn't mention women. I think at this point every woman in the top ten has a 2-handed topspin backhand. Any one-handed TS backhands you'll see in the women's game can't hold a candle to the two-handed topspin weapons of Serena, Maria, or many others. No comparison. Certainly Henin had a good one, but it was still limited compared to the top two-handed TS BH's in the women's game.

3. In both the men's and women's game, 99% of all players who hit with one-handed topspin backhands succeed in spite of their one-handed TS backhands not because of it. It's a liability they have to protect and they generally use it sparingly. Certainly there are few one-handed TS backhanders who have strong return of serves on the backhand side, but in both the men's and women's game the two-handed TSBH is a huge advantage when returning serve, especially when complementing an effective slice backhand.

4. The urban myth that Peter Sampras became a better player because he switched to a two-hander is not based on the real facts. He had the best and most effective serve in the history of the game which gave him a huge advantage. He could hit out on the returning games because he knew he wasn't going to be broken--a huge advantage. In my view he would have been a much better player with a two-hand TS backhand. To say that Pete ever beat Andre because of his backhand is almost laughable. And as you all know he didn't really volley that much anyway. He would serve and get ready for the next point. And of course on clay, his backhand was picked on repeatedly by any number of players.

5. Stan's one-handed TS backhand is indeed a weapon, but hardly the biggest weapon in the game. I think Roger's TSFH is a much bigger weapon and there are any number of ATP TSFH's that are more of a weapon than Stan's excellent TSBH. In addition, I would take Novak's two-hander any day of the week. It might not be as powerful but it is more consistent, better placed, and he has the major advantage of being able to return and pass in extrarordinary ways that a one hander could only dream of. And on top of this, Stan's TSBH is streaky. When his timing is off a bit, his game falls apart and this is one reason why his overall consistency in playing against the top players is sketchy.

6. As a coach of juniors, I love it when my students are facing a player with a one-hand TSBH, you know that high and heavy balls deep to the bh will cause them fits and you can approach net way more easily. It's such an obvious weakness sometimes I feel guilty having my players pick on this deficiency.

7. A two-handed topspin backhand is such a major advantage on clay it almost seems unfair. On clay, it's a rare day when a player with a one-handed topspin backhand will beat Nadal. His 2-handed TS backhand is a (no pun intended) a revolutionary shot!

8. Yes, Roger and Stan have excellent TSBH's but Roger can't beat Nadal because his one-handed TSBH can't handle Nadal's high and heavies. As I said Stan is streaky! If, as a pro, you are trying to identify at an early age the next Stan, that's a tough one to figure out. We all know people develop and grow in much different ways. Maybe it's in the genetic makeup of the Swiss? :-) But I have seen so many young players attempt to hit a one-hander and see them eventually quit the game or lose interest because it's such a liability. They start to blame themselves rather than acknowledging that they need to add the second hand!!!

9. Your criticism of American junior coaches is a bit amusing because there are so many tennis professionals I know who still prefer the one-handed topspin backhand. Criticizing tennis professionals because there are so few one-handed TSBH's is comparable to blaming tennis coaches for all the topspin forehands juniors hit instead of continental flat forehands, or overhanded serves instead of underhanded serves, or generally hitting short volleys instead of deep volleys. All of these things are standard for one simple reason they make you a much better player. In the case of this conversation, a two handed topspin backhand is far superior to a one-handed topspin backhand. Any advantages of a one-handed TSBH disappear when a player owns an adequate one-handed slice backhand.

Finally, I hope that you convince more players to use one-handed TS backhands because it makes it so much easier for the student I coach to win!

Good conversation and bring it on!

Laury Hammel, Member of USTA New England Hall of Fame and coach of nationally ranked players every year since 1973.

I like this one the most....don't agree with all of it...but it's a considered (perhaps opinionated some might say) response...and I do like a coach with strong views. Well done Larry.

[GeoffWilliams]

The players have decided. Two hands won. Back court won. Now, there are matches when people back up off short shots like crabs, and no doubles players are at the net at all.

They get passed too easily, and miss too many unpracticed easy volleys and over heads. Many women especially can't even hit an over head at all. (Sharascreecha.)

[stotty]

Hold on a minute...

Interesting comments about the one hander. But I would ask you look at the other side of the coin:

Look at all the discrimination the two-hander received until it final broke through 40 years ago. The two-hander was derided and players were routinely dissuaded from using it. It took the monumental achievements of three players (collectively), Borg, Connors and Evert to break that spell.

Things have since swung the other way and all coaches know why but in all fairness the two-hander can be a beautiful shot also.

I found a clip some time ago of a twelve year old Sidney Wood hitting a forehand with a semi-western grip. Ten years later he was continental. Was that semi-western coached out of him? Was Sidney Wood and players like him ahead of time? Or are coaching myths incredibly stubborn?

I suggest all the coaches leave the room and let the players decide.

[don_budge]

The 4 forms of political and corporate lies…

DB,

And don't forget the multiple lie strategy. What Orwell called the big lie. If you tell enough lies and just keep going your opponents will never be able to correct them all.

This is more a general point and not apropo of any of the comments here on the backhand. And personally I like the NY Times. They do print too much bad news though.

Actually it was Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels that were the proponents of the "Big Lie" theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

Don't forget to read the article at the end of the post. The 4 forms of corporate and political lies. These types of lies have an insidious way of filtering down and infecting our lives…even in our decision making process of hitting one-handed or two-handed backhands.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/03/24/the-forms-political-and-corporate-lies/

But I do believe that the loss of one-handed backhands is a product of systematic propaganda and lies…much as the loss of net play or all court tennis in general. I was there when it started…or rather when it ended…as you were.

But of course…you are right. This is only general philosophical musings and "not apropo of any of the comments here on the backhand." If it's inappropriate then I beg your pardon.

But it is interesting to note that we seem to agree about the one-hand backhand in general.

I love this comment by Kim Warwick…

At the Australian Open I watched Feliancio Lopez for the first time and he showed me that a serve volleyer can make it top 10 in today’s tennis if they sped up the courts 5-10%

Kim

It is sort of a truth regarding the speed of the court but the omissions are monstrous. He makes a good point about the courts…but conveniently omits that when he was playing tennis the racquets were fully 50% smaller. I wonder if that little omitted piece of information has had any influence on the two-handed backhand relative to the one-handed.

[johnyandell]

DB,

And don't forget the multiple lie strategy. What Orwell called the big lie. If you tell enough lies and just keep going your opponents will never be able to correct them all.

This is more a general point and not apropo of any of the comments here on the backhand. And personally I like the NY Times. They do print too much bad news though.

[johnyandell]

A great one-hander conversion story about a female junior player!

This occurred when I was the Director of High Performance at the Peachtree City Tennis Center in Georgia. Natalie was in my High Performance group and she also took private lessons from me as well as another pro that worked for me in HP. After working with her for about 6 to 8 months I was never comfortable with her two handed backhand. It was always the side that tended to break down. This was about 12 years ago and at that time backhands were less about being a weapon and more about being bullet proof. Natalie was a very good, multi talented athlete. Sometimes when we were picking up balls she would drop one and hit a one handed backhand over to me. I kind of liked what I saw so I asked her to hit a few more to me. I then backed her up to the baseline an fed her some balls an asked her to keep hitting the one handed shot. We stayed with it for about a half hour and at the end I called her over and said I think we should give it a shot. I mentioned it to the other Pro and he was a little hesitant but then said lets try it. If I remember correctly, Natalie was ranked roughly in the 30 range in the USTA Southern region at that time. After switching to the one handed backhand she dropped into the 60 to 70 range. By the time she aged up into the 16's she was top 5 in the South. She then went to UT and the rest is history.
Dwayne Clegg

[johnyandell]

Wow it just keeps going! Here is another two-handed argument:

Thank you for bringing up this interesting topic! It makes for a fun conversation.

Here are just some facts you left off your comments:

1. First off you inaccurately speak of one handed backhands without describing the type of one-handed backhand. 99% of all men pros have a one-handed backhand--a backhand slice which has become a required tool in the tool box. Notice how both Mats Willander and Nadal successfully developed a usable slice backhand late in their careers. Witness Roger's exquisite dismantling of Raonic with his precision backhand slices. Few of the women have developed an effective slice backhand because their pros and coaches haven't taught them this extraordinarily important shot.

2. Secondly you didn't mention women. I think at this point every woman in the top ten has a 2-handed topspin backhand. Any one-handed TS backhands you'll see in the women's game can't hold a candle to the two-handed topspin weapons of Serena, Maria, or many others. No comparison. Certainly Henin had a good one, but it was still limited compared to the top two-handed TS BH's in the women's game.

3. In both the men's and women's game, 99% of all players who hit with one-handed topspin backhands succeed in spite of their one-handed TS backhands not because of it. It's a liability they have to protect and they generally use it sparingly. Certainly there are few one-handed TS backhanders who have strong return of serves on the backhand side, but in both the men's and women's game the two-handed TSBH is a huge advantage when returning serve, especially when complementing an effective slice backhand.

4. The urban myth that Peter Sampras became a better player because he switched to a two-hander is not based on the real facts. He had the best and most effective serve in the history of the game which gave him a huge advantage. He could hit out on the returning games because he knew he wasn't going to be broken--a huge advantage. In my view he would have been a much better player with a two-hand TS backhand. To say that Pete ever beat Andre because of his backhand is almost laughable. And as you all know he didn't really volley that much anyway. He would serve and get ready for the next point. And of course on clay, his backhand was picked on repeatedly by any number of players.

5. Stan's one-handed TS backhand is indeed a weapon, but hardly the biggest weapon in the game. I think Roger's TSFH is a much bigger weapon and there are any number of ATP TSFH's that are more of a weapon than Stan's excellent TSBH. In addition, I would take Novak's two-hander any day of the week. It might not be as powerful but it is more consistent, better placed, and he has the major advantage of being able to return and pass in extrarordinary ways that a one hander could only dream of. And on top of this, Stan's TSBH is streaky. When his timing is off a bit, his game falls apart and this is one reason why his overall consistency in playing against the top players is sketchy.

6. As a coach of juniors, I love it when my students are facing a player with a one-hand TSBH, you know that high and heavy balls deep to the bh will cause them fits and you can approach net way more easily. It's such an obvious weakness sometimes I feel guilty having my players pick on this deficiency.

7. A two-handed topspin backhand is such a major advantage on clay it almost seems unfair. On clay, it's a rare day when a player with a one-handed topspin backhand will beat Nadal. His 2-handed TS backhand is a (no pun intended) a revolutionary shot!

8. Yes, Roger and Stan have excellent TSBH's but Roger can't beat Nadal because his one-handed TSBH can't handle Nadal's high and heavies. As I said Stan is streaky! If, as a pro, you are trying to identify at an early age the next Stan, that's a tough one to figure out. We all know people develop and grow in much different ways. Maybe it's in the genetic makeup of the Swiss? :-) But I have seen so many young players attempt to hit a one-hander and see them eventually quit the game or lose interest because it's such a liability. They start to blame themselves rather than acknowledging that they need to add the second hand!!!

9. Your criticism of American junior coaches is a bit amusing because there are so many tennis professionals I know who still prefer the one-handed topspin backhand. Criticizing tennis professionals because there are so few one-handed TSBH's is comparable to blaming tennis coaches for all the topspin forehands juniors hit instead of continental flat forehands, or overhanded serves instead of underhanded serves, or generally hitting short volleys instead of deep volleys. All of these things are standard for one simple reason they make you a much better player. In the case of this conversation, a two handed topspin backhand is far superior to a one-handed topspin backhand. Any advantages of a one-handed TSBH disappear when a player owns an adequate one-handed slice backhand.

Finally, I hope that you convince more players to use one-handed TS backhands because it makes it so much easier for the student I coach to win!

Good conversation and bring it on!

Laury Hammel, Member of USTA New England Hall of Fame and coach of nationally ranked players every year since 1973.

[don_budge]

The New York Times…A propaganda rag

"Recently the New York Times Magazine published an article announcing the death of the one-handed backhand. The basic point was Roger Federer couldn't exchange backhands with Rafael Nadal's forehand, and therefore the stroke was obsolete."

The New York Times is a propaganda rag. This statement…as everything in life and tennis is a clue to how they use information and the lack of it to contort and distort the truth.

One of the biggest contributing factors to Roger's inability to handle the Nadal forehand has been the disparity in the equipment. All of these years we have witnessed a debacle of monstrous proportions as Federer has given his closest competitors such a clear advantage over himself. His recent resurgence is "Living Proof" that the size of the racquet is the sole largest contributor to all things playing tennis shots in the style of modern tennis.

The comparison of Bjorn Borg using a Prince Graphite and John McEnroe using a Dunlop Maxply comes to mind. I am certain that Borg's topspin forehand would have made mincemeat out of McEnroe but as it stood McEnroe had all of the means at his disposal to neutralize the relative strengths of Borg to make it an even proposition. The reverse is also true.

The game has been ruthlessly engineered and pimped ever since the big money came into the game back 1968 and all of the propaganda covering up these simple facts and misconstruing the truth has lead to the demise of the game in general…not just the one hand backhand.

This nonsense about the death of the one hand backhand is pure Orwellian malarky. The bad news is it is old news. There aren't that many alive to know the truth and there are even fewer that will actually tell it.

"The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." Guess who?

Tennis lied big to us alright. Tennis went from Dunlop Maxply Fort to Prince Graphite in the wink of a young girl's eye. They have been consistent in their lie too. One cannot even recognize tennis for what it was. We like to lie to ourselves…we like to think to ourselves that we are superior to the past…superior to the old ways. Old is old…and irrelevant.

This kind of thinking tends to contribute to a whole planet of people to lose their way. Tennis…and the New York Times are merely helping the sheeple on their way. It helps for a nation of people to be convinced that they are “exceptional” when in reality they are not. They are just like all of the rest of the peoples of the planet. Susceptible to lies and chicanery. They have been sold seven invasions of foreign countries under the guise of their very own national security when in reality they had a better chance of being hit by a car.

Professional tennis more and more begins to resemble Big Time Wrestling. The death of the one hand backhand is a symptom...not the disease.

Please read the article below...if you are remotely interested in what kind of world you are living in. Otherwise...Party On Wayne!!!

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/03/24/the-forms-political-and-corporate-lies/

[johnyandell]

Here's an opposing view from a guy who was in the top twenty, beat a ton of top players, won an Aussie doubles title and was in a Aussie singles final.
Remember him? Kim Warwick. Check out his coaching experience with one-handers:

In my opinion the only advantage a two hander has is with return of serve and topspin lob. There has been an average of 15 one handers in the top 100 over the last 20 years and in that time the percentages taught to young students worldwide has been approximately 1-50. That makes me feel that a one hander is better than a two hander by a big margin. The average player in local competitions has an enormous advantage with a one hander even though coaches invariably teach young kids to hit with a two hander for the short term enjoyment of their parents.
I have had 14 No.1’s here in Australia since 1994 and 7 of those were one handers. 3 achieved a ranking in the 100’s whilst none of the two handers made it past 350. I have also had over 100 students reach national level with approximately 50% being one handers.
At the Australian Open I watched Feliancio Lopez for the first time and he showed me that a serve volleyer can make it top 10 in today’s tennis if they sped up the courts 5-10%

Keep up the good work John,

Kim

[johnyandell]

Another interesting comment:

Clearly for some players the two hander is not an option. I have coached many players who are very one handed. So the use of the opposite hand just gets in the way and holds the racquet back.
Clearly even the great Federer backhand is his weakness. Warrinka' is better and actually makes the other player try to avoid it when it's on.
I think Sampras is a poor choice of the one hander being a great shot. Did he win from his backhand or Was it his serves and volleys? At Rolland Garros where his serve was more returnable and he hit more backhands, his record is awful. Sure there are other factors like sliding but an amazing 1 hander would surely have win him a few more matches there.
I think your point however is for Sampras, the two hander may have been worse.
Of course if you go with the 1 hander you better make it awesome. I don't agree a greater % off 1 handers make it. Of the ones that survive maybe but most will not survive or will change.
Ultimately I feel both need to be taught but if I have a player that can do both, double hander topy with 1 hand slice and volley is the way to go.
With the power of the serve, the heavy rallies and need for angles and disguise, I believe a good two hander is superior in these areas.
There are 6 in the top 20 with 2 handers but do 5 of them have their 1 hander as their weakness? If 1 hander is so good wouldnt it be 14 and not 6?
Are you saying Novak, Murray and Nadal can't slice or backhand volley? Nadal's slice is very ugly but very effective. Andy his a sweet slice and Novak gets the job done.
In your last point of the growth of the sport, I also disagree. Most players will have greater success with two hands so will stay in the game longer. The majority are not going to put the work in required and would possibly quit in frustration. The amount of missed 1 handers required is not great for a beginners confidence which can affect the rest of their game also.
The 1 hander is a lovely looking shot and I also love the variety of having serve and volley players. I think there will always be 1 handers for the reasons I mentioned above. I hope there will also always be serve and volley.
However tennis is not platform diving or gymnastics. A judge does not give you "style" or "pretty" points. In this case I would support 1 handers. But in a game where performing under extreme pressure is the name of the game, the two hander is clearly winning.
Danny

[klacr]

I got the email John. I read the email. I love the email. Spot on. Tremendous stuff. But certainly not surprised as its coming from you. Great work.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[lobndropshot]

I'd like to see a guy with fed/nadal combo forehand, stanimals bh, raonic serve, edberg volley, sampras accuracy, all with one handed determination to kill all comers. Not going to happen though.

A player like that would be a head case. Too many choices for each point.