Federer shows what the one-handed back-hand can do for your game

Federer shows what the one-handed back-hand can do for your game

Post by Fab » Sun, 20 Feb 2005 01:59:45


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.

But if they are aiming at becoming a real tennis legend they better
start over from scratch. Only one-handed backhanders have the
necessary flexibility to become tennis artists as oposed to
meaningless grinders who play a bureaucratic game of tennis.

Federer, Sampras, Lendl, Edberg, etc, those are the Gods.

The two-handed backhand has allowed talentless individuals to become
tennis champions here and there.

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.

Let's leave two-handed back-hands for ladies and wimps, they may need
extra-strength.

Watch-out: your return may not clear the net...

Tzago - Rio - Brazil


 
 
 

Federer shows what the one-handed back-hand can do for your game

Post by Dr GroundAx » Sun, 20 Feb 2005 02:44:45

Quote:

> 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.

> But if they are aiming at becoming a real tennis legend they better
> start over from scratch. Only one-handed backhanders have the
> necessary flexibility to become tennis artists as oposed to
> meaningless grinders who play a bureaucratic game of tennis.

> Federer, Sampras, Lendl, Edberg, etc, those are the Gods.

> The two-handed backhand has allowed talentless individuals to become
> tennis champions here and there.

> 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.

> Let's leave two-handed back-hands for ladies and wimps, they may need
> extra-strength.

> Watch-out: your return may not clear the net...

> Tzago - Rio - Brazil



Bit early to be talking about Federer in company with the likes of
Sampras don't you think?

 
 
 

Federer shows what the one-handed back-hand can do for your game

Post by LNC » Sun, 20 Feb 2005 02:46:07


Quote:
> 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.

Quote:

> 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
bullseye.

Quote:
> 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.

Quote:

> 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.

Quote:

> 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.

Quote:

> 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?

Quote:

> Let's leave two-handed back-hands for ladies and wimps, they may need
> extra-strength.

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
one-handed.

L.N.C.

 
 
 

Federer shows what the one-handed back-hand can do for your game

Post by Jér?m » Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:19:47



Quote:
> 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.

> But if they are aiming at becoming a real tennis legend they better
> start over from scratch. Only one-handed backhanders have the
> necessary flexibility to become tennis artists as oposed to
> meaningless grinders who play a bureaucratic game of tennis.

> Federer, Sampras, Lendl, Edberg, etc, those are the Gods.

> The two-handed backhand has allowed talentless individuals to become
> tennis champions here and there.

> 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.

> Let's leave two-handed back-hands for ladies and wimps, they may need
> extra-strength.

> Watch-out: your return may not clear the net...

> Tzago - Rio - Brazil



Upper bullshit.
I agree I prefer the 1 hand backhand, from a "esthetic" point, and because
Edberg was one of my favorite player. Still, it has yet to be proved 1H BH
is more efficient than 2H bH. Both have their strength and weakness.
As for the players mentioned .... Fed, Sampras and Lendl built their main
success on other points than their BH, which was and is th point to aim !
Fed has the great FH and allround game, Sampras the big serve and FH, Lendl
same thing ... Agassi best weapon from the baseline is often his 2H BH, more
consistent than his FH. Same goes with Safin, the best 2H BH (maybe BH
generally speaking) in tennis right now.
Edberg is the only guy you said that has a really tougher BH, but mainly
because his FH was a pain to look at. Plus, he became what he has been
thanks to his magnificient S&V game, not his BH from the baseline.
It seems you found examples just to shoot yourself a bullet in you foot ...
 
 
 

Federer shows what the one-handed back-hand can do for your game

Post by Eric » Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:25:40


Quote:
> 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.

> But if they are aiming at becoming a real tennis legend they better
> start over from scratch. Only one-handed backhanders have the
> necessary flexibility to become tennis artists as oposed to
> meaningless grinders who play a bureaucratic game of tennis.

> Federer, Sampras, Lendl, Edberg, etc, those are the Gods.

> The two-handed backhand has allowed talentless individuals to become
> tennis champions here and there.

Some would say it was the relative weakness of Sampras' one-handed backhand
that kept him from winning the FO, as it was a chink in his armor that could
really be attacked on this surface, once the clay had taken the sting out of
his powerful serve.

Lendl's backhand wasn't capable of much artistry, not was it a particular
aesthetically pleasing or impressive shot compared to the true "great"
backhands. An Agassi, Safin, or maybe even a Kafelnikov or Medvedew, had far
better two-handed backhands than some of those guys.

 
 
 

Federer shows what the one-handed back-hand can do for your game

Post by kurt » Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:36:51

Quote:
>Let's leave two-handed back-hands for ladies and wimps, they may need
>extra-strength.

Safin surelly is a whimp... come on!

What's really your problem with 2HBH? Have you lost recently to a 2HBH?

2HBH can be more "esthetic" than 1HBH... I perfer to see what Safin can
do with is 2HBH than what Fed can do with is 1HBH

 
 
 

Federer shows what the one-handed back-hand can do for your game

Post by The Terminato » Sun, 20 Feb 2005 04:08:24

Sampras backhand was a weakness. But Federers, Edbergs and Lendls
backhand are one of their main weapons. Edberg esp. Lendl and Federer
have superior forehand, but that does not mean they have a bad backhand
at all.
 
 
 

Federer shows what the one-handed back-hand can do for your game

Post by Nirmal Thakke » Sun, 20 Feb 2005 04:15:16


Quote:
> 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.

> But if they are aiming at becoming a real tennis legend they better
> start over from scratch. Only one-handed backhanders have the
> necessary flexibility to become tennis artists as oposed to
> meaningless grinders who play a bureaucratic game of tennis.

> Federer, Sampras, Lendl, Edberg, etc, those are the Gods.

> The two-handed backhand has allowed talentless individuals to become
> tennis champions here and there.

> 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.

> Let's leave two-handed back-hands for ladies and wimps, they may need
> extra-strength.

What do you say about Borg? I have an excellent 1 hander but a 2 hander can
be graceful too..
 
 
 

Federer shows what the one-handed back-hand can do for your game

Post by kurt » Sun, 20 Feb 2005 05:41:14

Quote:
>Lendl and Federer
>have superior forehand, but that does not mean they have a bad
backhand
>at all.

The only thing is that fed's bh isn't of the same level of Safin's
bh...
Of course Safin fh isn't of the same level of fed's fh!
My point being 2HBH can be more effiecient than 1HBH.. Safin and Fed
are excellent to ilustrate that
 
 
 

Federer shows what the one-handed back-hand can do for your game

Post by Buck » Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:32:45

Quote:

> Let's leave two-handed back-hands for ladies and wimps, they may need
> extra-strength.

Molik has a one-handed backhand. And it's not a slice, it's a pretty
solid topspin. I'm not a *** tennis fan, are there any other top
women's players (current and past) who use a one-handed backhand? Did
any of them hit it hard (non-slicing)?
 
 
 

Federer shows what the one-handed back-hand can do for your game

Post by Eric » Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:33:42

Quote:

> > Let's leave two-handed back-hands for ladies and wimps, they may need
> > extra-strength.

> Molik has a one-handed backhand. And it's not a slice, it's a pretty
> solid topspin. I'm not a *** tennis fan, are there any other top
> women's players (current and past) who use a one-handed backhand? Did
> any of them hit it hard (non-slicing)?

Look to Justine Henin for one of the most beautiful and powerful one-handers
in the women's game.
 
 
 

Federer shows what the one-handed back-hand can do for your game

Post by uraniumcommit.. » Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:49:29

Quote:



> > 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
> bullseye.

> > 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.

It's a myth that strength is needed to hit a one-handed backhand. Girls
and children play Frisbee all the time, and the disc is thrown with a
backhand motion.
 
 
 

Federer shows what the one-handed back-hand can do for your game

Post by blanders0.. » Sun, 20 Feb 2005 07:21:29

Quote:




> > > 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
> > bullseye.

> > > 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.

> It's a myth that strength is needed to hit a one-handed backhand.
Girls
> and children play Frisbee all the time, and the disc is thrown with a
> backhand motion.

'fraid you're wrong there Scarp, at least when it comes to kids and
beginners.  Not hitting a tennis ball with a Frisbee either.  Strength

kids tend to find it easier to keep the racquet stable through the
swing using 2-hands.  The swing is simpler too.  By the time they are
stronger, the 2-hander is ingrained. I have heard that JHH was born
with her 1-hander, but she's the rare one.  I do think Frisbee throwing
is aided by having a 1-handed BH.  I could always throw a frisbee like
a mofo---real far.  This is compared to friends of mine that could
throw a football the same distance as me or lift the same amount of
weight, etc. It would be close with any of those. With the Frisbee
though, I could outhrow that thing by a long shot. I always attributed
that to the stability I had developed using a one-hander that allowed
me to really let 'er rip. The other guys had to keep things a bit
tighter so as not to wobble it.  I found that people can be extremely
jealous of a longthrower in Frisbee so it wasn't all fun and games.
 
 
 

Federer shows what the one-handed back-hand can do for your game

Post by uraniumcommit.. » Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:27:14

Quote:

> > It's a myth that strength is needed to hit a one-handed backhand.
> Girls
> > and children play Frisbee all the time, and the disc is thrown with
a
> > backhand motion.

> 'fraid you're wrong there Scarp, at least when it comes to kids and
> beginners.

What's funny is that kids and beginners learned how to hit one-handed
backhands for many decades with heavier equipment than in use today.

PLONK!

 
 
 

Federer shows what the one-handed back-hand can do for your game

Post by SV » Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:46:01


Quote:
> 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.

> But if they are aiming at becoming a real tennis legend they better
> start over from scratch. Only one-handed backhanders have the
> necessary flexibility to become tennis artists as oposed to
> meaningless grinders who play a bureaucratic game of tennis.

> Federer, Sampras, Lendl, Edberg, etc, those are the Gods.

> The two-handed backhand has allowed talentless individuals to become
> tennis champions here and there.

> 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.

> Let's leave two-handed back-hands for ladies and wimps, they may need
> extra-strength.

> Watch-out: your return may not clear the net...

Yep, spot on.  I've gone down this path numerous times here, but generally
get met with a similar response to what you have.  Let's face it, most of
the posters here have little tennis ability themselves (fact, as a poll last
year proved this), so most probably still rely on a 2h-BH themselves,
thereby making them biased and not really in a position to comment on this
matter anyway.

2-handers are only for ladies and children - sure as hell not for pros (the
wta included).

I'm still wondering when Agassi & Hewitt will be asked to give back their
Wimb trophies, given they won a tournament that clearly stipulates it is a
"single-handed championship"...

I've mentioned in the past that the tour should be divided into the
double-handers and the true tennis players.  Imagine the honour roll over
the past 20yrs if that was the case - it highlights this point perfectly...
ie. there is NO COMPARISON:

1h-BH:
McEnroe
Lendl
Becker
Edberg
Sampras
Federer

2h-BH
Wilander
Courier
Agassi
Kuerten
Hewitt