>Interesting that a couple people have suggested that a one-handed
>backhand is more powerful than a two-handed backhand. I don't think
>that the length of the stroke has anything to do with power. The ball
>is on the strings for such a short time that power is all a matter of
>force at the point of impact, not follow-through.
-- IMHO, longer follow-through indicates more power transfer
at the time of impact (unless it involves excess of spin).
>some getting used to, but I've achieved much greater consistency
-- For us recreation-level players, two-handed shot helps to
have more consistency as the feeling for the shot is better.
>that I must short-hop are easier to keep in play. I also find that I
>have much better disguise with a two-handed backhand. I can line up
>for a down-the-line pass and with a last minute flick of the wrists
>take the ball cross-court. I also have no problem using a one-handed
-- This is supposed to be the other advantage of two-handed
backhand or for that matter two-handed forehand too. I distinctly remember
Chris Evert commenting on this aspect of Seles' game (should be some
Wimbledon as Chris is with NBC). When someone else mentioned that he had
more disguise with one-handed backhand, that sounded surprising ! IMHO,
for one-handed backhand, stroke-preparation exposes the diretion more than
two-handed (unless it is someone like Pioline with too much of last minute
wrist-flick). But again there is a difference between recreation-level
game and professional-level game.