Groppel & one-hand vs. two-hand backhand

Groppel & one-hand vs. two-hand backhand

Post by Steve Barnar » Sun, 20 Apr 1997 04:00:00


Well, I had a look at Groppel's book, and in particular at what he had
to say about the reach of a two-handed vs. a one-handed backhand.

It was not very impressive, to say the least.  He merely *asserted* that
*he* didn't observe any reach advantage in the one-handed shot.  Big
hairy deal.  LOTS of very experienced tennis analysts have asserted
exactly the opposite.

Why is it that very few two-handed players are comfortable at the net?
IMHO, one reason is that MANY volleys are stretch volleys, and the
two-handed players aren't comfortable hitting the ball with one hand.
I'd expect the same principle to apply when they were forced to hit a
one-handed ground stroke.

        Steve Barnard

 
 
 

Groppel & one-hand vs. two-hand backhand

Post by David Ho » Mon, 21 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

> Well, I had a look at Groppel's book, and in particular at what he had
> to say about the reach of a two-handed vs. a one-handed backhand.

> It was not very impressive, to say the least.  He merely *asserted* that
> *he* didn't observe any reach advantage in the one-handed shot.  Big
> hairy deal.  LOTS of very experienced tennis analysts have asserted
> exactly the opposite.

Who?

Seriously, if this is going to turn into a battle of references, then
everyone's going to have to pony up.

And here's my contribution: In the last issue of Tennis Magazine, the
Great Gear *** (An entirely unrelated peeve, sorry) the Backhand Grips
article says:

        "Remember, with both hands swinging the racquet, contact
        occurs about even with the front foor, not as far in front
        of the body as contact on a one-handed backhand."

So, the one-handers are hit further from the body than the two-handers.

--
Mike Hoye

 
 
 

Groppel & one-hand vs. two-hand backhand

Post by tennis » Mon, 21 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

>Well, I had a look at Groppel's book, and in particular at what he had
>to say about the reach of a two-handed vs. a one-handed backhand.

>It was not very impressive, to say the least.  

He speaks very highly of you.

He merely *asserted* that

Quote:
>*he* didn't observe any reach advantage in the one-handed shot.  Big
>hairy deal.  

You mean, assertion should be replaced by, what?  Decree?  Ordinance?  Act
of Congress?  His assertion has, in fact, a lot more hair than anything
you say, given that he's spent his whole life <in> tennis, not just
snipping at those in the game from the periphery.

LOTS of very experienced tennis analysts have asserted

Quote:
>exactly the opposite.

Name one.

Quote:

>Why is it that very few two-handed players are comfortable at the net?

Is this from your own survey?  Or just conjecture?  Or just fantasy?

 
 
 

Groppel & one-hand vs. two-hand backhand

Post by Pedro Di » Mon, 21 Apr 1997 04:00:00


: > Well, I had a look at Groppel's book, and in particular at what he had
: > to say about the reach of a two-handed vs. a one-handed backhand.
: >
: > It was not very impressive, to say the least.  He merely *asserted* that
: > *he* didn't observe any reach advantage in the one-handed shot.  Big
: > hairy deal.  LOTS of very experienced tennis analysts have asserted
: > exactly the opposite.

: Who?

: Seriously, if this is going to turn into a battle of references, then
: everyone's going to have to pony up.

: And here's my contribution: In the last issue of Tennis Magazine, the
: Great Gear *** (An entirely unrelated peeve, sorry) the Backhand Grips
: article says:

:       "Remember, with both hands swinging the racquet, contact
:       occurs about even with the front foor, not as far in front
:       of the body as contact on a one-handed backhand."

: So, the one-handers are hit further from the body than the two-handers.

: --
: Mike Hoye

Actually, that just means they're hit at a different point in the swing.
If you visualize the swing as going over the face of a watch, I'd say
contact on the 2H takes place at 5pm, whereas the 1Her makes contact
at 4pm or so. Times subject to change, as I'm having trouble visualizing
my own example. But you get the gist

 
 
 

Groppel & one-hand vs. two-hand backhand

Post by tennis » Mon, 21 Apr 1997 04:00:00


Quote:


>> Well, I had a look at Groppel's book, and in particular at what he had
>> to say about the reach of a two-handed vs. a one-handed backhand.

>> It was not very impressive, to say the least.  He merely *asserted* that
>> *he* didn't observe any reach advantage in the one-handed shot.  Big
>> hairy deal.  LOTS of very experienced tennis analysts have asserted
>> exactly the opposite.

>Who?

What Hoye said.

Quote:

>Seriously, if this is going to turn into a battle of references, then
>everyone's going to have to pony up.

>And here's my contribution: In the last issue of Tennis Magazine, the
>Great Gear *** (An entirely unrelated peeve, sorry) the Backhand Grips
>article says:

>        "Remember, with both hands swinging the racquet, contact
>        occurs about even with the front foor, not as far in front
>        of the body as contact on a one-handed backhand."

>So, the one-handers are hit further from the body than the two-handers.

You've got the wrong plane here, Mike.  In front of the body in this
passage means closer to the net, not further from the body laterally. The
same ball a 1H will hit "further in front", will, with the passage of a
few microseconds, be exactly the same ball as the 2H player will hit.
 
 
 

Groppel & one-hand vs. two-hand backhand

Post by Pedro Di » Mon, 21 Apr 1997 04:00:00

: You've got the wrong plane here, Mike.  In front of the body in this
: passage means closer to the net, not further from the body laterally. The
: same ball a 1H will hit "further in front", will, with the passage of a
: few microseconds, be exactly the same ball as the 2H player will hit.

I agreed with tt boy. Wow. What are the other signs of the Apocalypse?
I blame you, Mike. Someone *must* pay...
Think I'll wash up now. I feel soooo dirty!

;-)

 
 
 

Groppel & one-hand vs. two-hand backhand

Post by Chic » Mon, 21 Apr 1997 04:00:00

I can almost beleive that the distance the ball is hit from the side
of the body is the same wether you use 1H or 2H.  That meaning the
distance along the baseline only.  

What do you people feel about the versatility of a 1H vs 2H?

I tend to think that a person who hits with 1H will be able to hit
slices, volleys, and more defensive shots more easily than someone who
uses 2H.

Chico
*******************************************
Ryan Boudreau - TUNS Electrical Engineering
Halifax, NS

http://www.tuns.ca/~boudrere

 
 
 

Groppel & one-hand vs. two-hand backhand

Post by Pedro Di » Mon, 21 Apr 1997 04:00:00

: I can almost beleive that the distance the ball is hit from the side
: of the body is the same wether you use 1H or 2H.  That meaning the
: distance along the baseline only.  

: What do you people feel about the versatility of a 1H vs 2H?

: I tend to think that a person who hits with 1H will be able to hit
: slices, volleys, and more defensive shots more easily than someone who
: uses 2H.

Ooooh boy. Here we go again.
Seriously, Chico, if you check DejaNews you'll find several threads
hashing this topic out ad nauseum.

: Chico
: *******************************************
: Ryan Boudreau - TUNS Electrical Engineering
: Halifax, NS

: http://www.tuns.ca/~boudrere

 
 
 

Groppel & one-hand vs. two-hand backhand

Post by Steve Barnar » Mon, 21 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

> I can almost beleive that the distance the ball is hit from the side
> of the body is the same wether you use 1H or 2H.  That meaning the
> distance along the baseline only.

> What do you people feel about the versatility of a 1H vs 2H?

> I tend to think that a person who hits with 1H will be able to hit
> slices, volleys, and more defensive shots more easily than someone who
> uses 2H.

> Chico

You and virtually everyone else with an ounce of sense, Chico.

        Steve Barnard

 
 
 

Groppel & one-hand vs. two-hand backhand

Post by Steve Barnar » Mon, 21 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Quote:


> >Why is it that very few two-handed players are comfortable at the net?

> Is this from your own survey?  Or just conjecture?  Or just fantasy?

So what are you saying?  That two-handed players are just as good at the
net as one-handed players?  Name the five best volleyers in the past ten
years, male or female.  How many of them hit two-handed backhands?

Do you think that Sampras switching to a one-handed backhand so he'd
have a shot at winning Wimbledon was a bad move?

        Steve Barnard

 
 
 

Groppel & one-hand vs. two-hand backhand

Post by David Ho » Tue, 22 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Quote:


> : And here's my contribution: In the last issue of Tennis Magazine, the
> : Great Gear *** (An entirely unrelated peeve, sorry) the Backhand Grips
> : article says:

> :  "Remember, with both hands swinging the racquet, contact
> :  occurs about even with the front foor, not as far in front
> :  of the body as contact on a one-handed backhand."

> : So, the one-handers are hit further from the body than the two-handers.

> Actually, that just means they're hit at a different point in the swing.
> If you visualize the swing as going over the face of a watch, I'd say
> contact on the 2H takes place at 5pm, whereas the 1Her makes contact
> at 4pm or so. Times subject to change, as I'm having trouble visualizing
> my own example. But you get the gist

That's an entirely plausible explanation.

My bad. I hadn't considered it in that light.

--
Mike Hoye

 
 
 

Groppel & one-hand vs. two-hand backhand

Post by David Ho » Tue, 22 Apr 1997 04:00:00

As an informative aside, ^^^ this bit up here is part of the technical
information I was talking about.

Quote:
>>He merely *asserted* that
>>*he* didn't observe any reach advantage in the one-handed shot.  Big
>>hairy deal.  

> You mean, assertion should be replaced by, what?  Decree?  Ordinance?  Act
> of Congress?  His assertion has, in fact, a lot more hair than anything
> you say, given that he's spent his whole life <in> tennis, not just
> snipping at those in the game from the periphery.

Well, experimental evidence would be good. I thought you said that's what
it was, a "study".

Measuring from the middle of someone's racquet face at the impact point
and dividing that by their height would probably give you a reliable ratio
describing the distance from the body that an "Average" player hits one or
two-handed backhands.

Anyone know of any kind of study like this?

--
Mike Hoye

 
 
 

Groppel & one-hand vs. two-hand backhand

Post by David Ho » Tue, 22 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Quote:


> : You've got the wrong plane here, Mike.  In front of the body in this
> : passage means closer to the net, not further from the body laterally. The
> : same ball a 1H will hit "further in front", will, with the passage of a
> : few microseconds, be exactly the same ball as the 2H player will hit.

> I agreed with tt boy. Wow. What are the other signs of the Apocalypse?
> I blame you, Mike. Someone *must* pay...

Hey, it happens to the best of us.

Not often, but what the hell.

Quote:
> Think I'll wash up now. I feel soooo dirty!

A good lint brush should solve your problems.

--
Mike Hoye

 
 
 

Groppel & one-hand vs. two-hand backhand

Post by tenni.. » Tue, 22 Apr 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

> > I can almost beleive that the distance the ball is hit from the side
> > of the body is the same wether you use 1H or 2H.  That meaning the
> > distance along the baseline only.

And that's exactly the point.  

Quote:

> > What do you people feel about the versatility of a 1H vs 2H?

> > I tend to think that a person who hits with 1H will be able to hit
> > slices, volleys, and more defensive shots more easily than someone who
> > uses 2H.

A player is definitely disadvantaged trying to hit 2H slice and 2H
volleys, no question about it.  Neither of these shots, however, has
anything to with the reach of a 2H vs 1H backhand.  The "defensive" shots
you mention are just as much unlike the normal 1H backhand for the 1H
player as they are unlike the normal 2H backhand for the 2H player. Both
types of player are challenged to exactly the same degree to make
stretched out, defensive shots.
 
 
 

Groppel & one-hand vs. two-hand backhand

Post by tenni.. » Tue, 22 Apr 1997 04:00:00


Quote:



> As an informative aside, ^^^ this bit up here is part of the technical
> information I was talking about.

> >>He merely *asserted* that
> >>*he* didn't observe any reach advantage in the one-handed shot.  Big
> >>hairy deal.  

> > You mean, assertion should be replaced by, what?  Decree?  Ordinance?  Act
> > of Congress?  His assertion has, in fact, a lot more hair than anything
> > you say, given that he's spent his whole life <in> tennis, not just
> > snipping at those in the game from the periphery.

> Well, experimental evidence would be good. I thought you said that's what
> it was, a "study".

Quoting, without permission, from the reference cited previously ("High
Tech Tennis" by Dr. Jack Groppel, 1992, Leisure Press, 2nd Edition, 1992,
$14.95 US, $18.50 in Canada):

"In a high-speed film study I conducted on 36 highly skilled players, I
could find no differences in reach between the two strokes..."

He then makes the point that strokes outside of the comfort zone pose the
same challenge and are met the same way no matter which style of backhand
the player uses for the "routine" backhand.