> Here comes my hard-serve:
> If all two-handed backhanders want is to have a nice carrer and
> accumulate lots of prize-money then they are ok.
People play tennis professionally to make money and, in some cases, because
being paid to do what you love doing is the definition of the dream job. I'm
sure these aren't the exclusive motives but close enough.
> But if they are aiming at becoming a real tennis legend they better
> start over from scratch.
Everybody and nobody who plays professionally aims to become a "real tennis
legend." Sooner or later, the real tennis legends have only one
characteristic in common: will. Sure, there are some legends who are
legendary because of the beauty and artistry they had, their overall results
notwithstanding. It's simplistic to contend, though, that the mere aiming
coupled with anything less than will can ever get most who aim to the
> Only one-handed backhanders have the
> necessary flexibility to become tennis artists as oposed to
> meaningless grinders who play a bureaucratic game of tennis.
I've always disliked two-handed backhands and, until I had a daughter and
saw the importance of finding a way to help her get the results that are
necessary reinforcement to maintain her interest, would never have thought
to encourage it. Still, I have hope she'll see the light, gain the strength
and timing and make the switch. Hope's dim, though, since that stroke's
everywhere and even the strongest women (the Williamses) haven't been able
to shake it.
> Federer, Sampras, Lendl, Edberg, etc, those are the Gods.
Interestingly, among those there are some with feet of clay and some whose
feats on clay characterize them as divine. Whether they're actually
superhuman I'd actively dispute. Tennis is, after all, a way of life but
it's not all there is to life.
> The two-handed backhand has allowed talentless individuals to become
> tennis champions here and there.
Needless hyperbole works the opposite of effective persuasion. Cultivating a
two-handed backhand has enabled some people with athletic skills to learn
effective, winning tennis.
> Agassi you say? He is the exception, he's got talent, but the kind of
> talent you may find at circus, with his incredible ability to hit back
> so quickly. Still his style is horrible anyway.
His reflexes, his visual acuity, his reflexes and his will, combined, have
made him a name that'll last for some time, the overall ugliness of his game
notwithstanding. He's the definition of "get it back fast, hard, often and
strategically at any expense, including anything that might be termed
'form.'" The question, whether form should be allowed to prevail over
substance is timeless. Would you rather win or look really good losing?
> Let's leave two-handed back-hands for ladies and wimps, they may need
So, has there been a poll in rst? Who, who regularly posts here also plays
and what backhand do you use?
Me? I don't play regularly anymore but my backhand is and will always be