Should Double-Handed Bakchand Be Banned?

Less baseline rallying, more all-court tennis

Less drill type of tennis - more flair

Less sprinting around the court, longer and healthier careers

DO IT NOW!!!!!!!!

From the other thread:

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:I simply can't comprehend how a Djokovic fan would want the authorities to basically ban his biggest weapon. His defensive DHBH return is the most lethal strength in this game, very very strange you would want it to go.
It would also take away freedom on the players on court to do what they want with their racket.
Banning racket and string technology is one thing, which I think might be necessary, but banning the DHBH and thus freedom on court, is frankly ludicrous.

Amri, tennis is bigger than Djokovic and people playing tennis with a DBH.

It would limit the freedom of what you can do with the racket out on court.
It would kill the game.

I don't understand why a Djokovic fan would want Djokovic's game to be destroyed (let's be honest I don't see Djoko winning slams if he is forced to change to SHBH), and also destroy freedom with your racket out on court.
It would destroy tennis, as well as Djokovic. So very very strange coming from a Djokovic+tennis fan.

You could argue to limit racket technology, or string technology etc. that's much more practical.

I think DBH has, with slowing down of conditions moved the game away form the net. The original game of tennis was very creative, imaginative all-court, full of flair and fun.
Great part of that was played by the exclusive use of single bakchand.
Bakhand was the weakness in anyone's game, so you had to use it to move forward.
Double backhand kind of equals your wings and encourages defense.

Look at Murray! A defensive player with a great backhand.....
Djokovic is better as he attacks, so his overall game is different.
But when they play each other.....just ridiculous!

I enjoyed Federer Wawrinka match a lot more tennis-wise. And it was their SBH that made the difference.
It's watchable if you have at least one SBH in a match, two- it's a turn-off.

noleisthebest wrote:I think DBH has, with slowing down of conditions moved the game away form the net.

That's a ridiculous comment. It's the conditions/new technology which has taken the game away from the net.
Does Wawrinka ever go to the net?

noleisthebest wrote:
The original game of tennis was a very creative, imaginative all-court game full of flair and fun.
Great part of that was played by the exclusive use of single bakchand.

Exclusive? Where on earth have you got that from. The DHBH isn't a new concept from this decade, it's been used for a long long while. It has become more popular now though.

noleisthebest wrote:
Bakhand was the weakness in anyone's game, so you had to use it to move forward.

That phrase just doesn't make any logical sense.

noleisthebest wrote:
Double backhand kind of equals your wings and encourages defense.

I don't see how this one makes much sense either.
New technology has encouraged defence, the DHBH is just a product of that (it is a very steady returning shot). DHBH on faster conditions can be an attacking shot.

noleisthebest wrote:
Look at Murray! A defensive player with a great backhand.....
Djokovic is better as he attacks, so his overall game is different.

Djokovic is only slightly more aggressive than Murray, you are totally over-estimating the gap there. In-fact with the DHBH I would say Murray uses it to attack more (but FH Djokovic uses to attack more).

Djokovic attacks a lot more than Murray. That's why he's won 5 slams and all the rest.
Also, this is not a Murray Djokovic debate. That's on a different thread.

noleisthebest wrote:Djokovic attacks a lot more than Murray. That's why he's won 5 slams and all the rest.
Also, this is not a Murray Djokovic debate. That's on a different thread.

Winning slams doesn't really indicate attacking play.... (I think Djoko is probably slightly more aggressive though)
Anyway perhaps you can address my other comments then

Does anyone remember or know how the first DBH backhand was received by fellow players and fans?

Obviously, the ban would not happen overnight.
But say ban it from 2020, nice round number, give time to the youngsters to switch back, and "schools" of tennis "thought" to rethink their strategies.

Pace (faster conds) is the only factor which can bring back a good balance between those 2 types of BHs.

I like DHBH as well...but I don't think we shoudl make it too easy for those who have 4 lungs.

Tenez wrote:Pace (faster conds) is the only factor which can bring back a good balance between those 2 types of BHs.

Well I agree to an extent, I don't think all surfaces should be fast or slow, instead I believe we should have variety.

Tenez wrote:
I like DHBH as well...but I don't think we shoudl make it too easy for those who have 4 lungs.

4 lungs?
Not sure that's possible.

noleisthebest wrote:Obviously, the ban would not happen overnight.
But say ban it from 2020, nice round number, give time to the youngsters to switch back, and "schools" of tennis "thought" to rethink their strategies.

That's an absurd idea on so many levels- frankly beyond ridiculous.

Amritia3ee wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Obviously, the ban would not happen overnight.
But say ban it from 2020, nice round number, give time to the youngsters to switch back, and "schools" of tennis "thought" to rethink their strategies.

That's an absurd idea on so many levels- frankly beyond ridiculous.

Why is it absurd? Imagine footballers all of a sudden being allowed to use hands, as well, that's how stupid it is to use two hands on a backhand. As if you are disabled, so one hand is not enough.

Amritia3ee wrote:Well I agree to an extent, I don't think all surfaces should be fast or slow, instead I believe we should have variety.

But that's exactly what we are missing nowadays. Variety stops after the semi. And take Federer out, and variety will stop after the 4th round.

4 lungs?
Not sure that's possible.

Oh yeah...You woudl not believe what science can do nowadays. Ask Nadal!

On variety... I do agree with you on that, we should have differing surfaces (not all fast or slow).

On Nadal, it is shame you have such a black and white narrow minded view of him.

noleisthebest wrote:
Imagine footballers all of a sudden being allowed to use hands, as well, that's how stupid it is to use two hands on a backhand.

It really isn't.

Honestly NITB, this idea of yours is nonsensical. It would make much more sense to change rackets, string technology, conditions etc.

Amritia3ee wrote:On variety... I do agree with you on that, we should have differing surfaces (not all fast or slow).

On Nadal, it is shame you have such a black and white narrow minded view of him.

I would say we are all made up of "black and white". You seem to only see the white side of Nadal, not its darker side.

Amritia3ee wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
Imagine footballers all of a sudden being allowed to use hands, as well, that's how stupid it is to use two hands on a backhand.

It really isn't.

Honestly NITB, this idea of yours is nonsensical. It would make much more sense to change rackets, string technology, conditions etc.

Why is it nonsensical?
Tennis was not meant to be played with tho handed shots in the first place.
Imagine how nonsensical it must have been when it started.

I have nothing against DBH per se, it's an interesting shot both to play and watch, but it just detracts and degenerates the original, nicest side tennis can offer: creativity and playfulness.

I admit, it's good to watch well balanced SBH DBH fights, but they are very rare because the slower conditions have swung the game heavily towards favouring DBH which has now peaked in its ridiculousness with tennis becoming a defensive as opposed to attacking game.
If you like football, I'm sure you prefer to watch Brazilians to Italians.

Now, we all know that Brazilians would never look as good without the Italians, still...imagine if a football pitch was suddenly 200m by 150m....how would Brazilians be able to attack....

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:On variety... I do agree with you on that, we should have differing surfaces (not all fast or slow).

On Nadal, it is shame you have such a black and white narrow minded view of him.

I would say we are all made up of "black and white". You seem to only see the white side of Nadal, not its darker side.

Well yes, I am a Nadal fan I don't try to hide that.

To answer to the topic : NO. Players should be free to play any style they want to play.

noleisthebest wrote:
Tennis was not meant to be played with tho handed shots in the first place.

Where do you get these lines from??

There is no way tennis is 'meant' to be played, you play as you like.

noleisthebest wrote:
I admit, it's good to watch well balanced SBH DBH fights, but they are very rare because the slower conditions have swung the game heavily towards favouring DBH which has now peaked in its ridiculousness

So then you'll agree with me a change in conditions/ limit on racket techonology would be a much better solution than banning the whole shot.

It's a ridiculous impractical notion.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:To answer to the topic : NO. Players should be free to play any style they want to play.

Yes I fully agree with ROTLA on this one

Amritia3ee wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
Tennis was not meant to be played with tho handed shots in the first place.

Where do you get these lines from??

There is no way tennis is 'meant' to be played, you play as you like.

From Wimbledon website:

• Gentlemen's Singles Trophy first presented by the All England Club
  in 1887. It replaced the Field Cup (1877-1883) and the Challenge Cup
  (1884-1886) which were both won by William Renshaw after twice winning
  the gentlemen's title three times in succession. The AELTC spent 100
  guineas to purchase a trophy as the Club was not prepared to risk losing
  a third Cup to a future three-times Champion so the decision was taken
  that the new trophy would never become the property of the winner.
  
• The
  Cup, which is made of silver gilt, stands 18 inches high and has a
  diameter of 7.5 inches. The inscription on the Cup reads: "The All
  England Lawn Tennis Club Single Handed Championship of the World".
  

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/behind_the_scenes/201205091336568697615.html

I would sooner they restrict the string materials so that it requires more skill from the players hand than that of the string.

legendkillar wrote:I would sooner they restrict the string materials so that it requires more skill from the players hand than that of the string.

why?

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I would sooner they restrict the string materials so that it requires more skill from the players hand than that of the string.

why?

Because the current string technology play into the player who can hit the most spin. No this isn't a singled aimed shot at Nadal, but I recall McEnroe I think made the point that the kevlar strings just made it so easy for a player to hit a shot with so much topspin that it required little effort from the player to execute. I see it that certain strings can demand the same from each player and that it then comes down to the individuals ability in the hands.

I don't know much about strings from personal experience, so I can't comment on how exactly they affect the game esp on a professional level, although I know the basic difference as I have experienced it a little.
I can only comment from what I see when the pros play.
Strings have definitely changed the game massively from the wooden racquet days, but regardless of the strings, reverting to exclusive SBH, would put the game in its less physical place where it should be.
Attacking tennis has never been physical like defensive and DBH plays a huge role in that. Strings do as well, as do balls, court speed etc...

But wasn't tennis so much more fun to watch in the SBH days?

Also, pundits like Mac and the others often say things just to please the media and glorify their sport.

I take what they say with a pinch of salt. The one guy who seems to be always speaking his mind and hasn't sold his soul yet is Becker.

It was. It really was enthralling to see so many volley based rallies. Not everything should be played on the baseline. The Vilas and Borg matches were great to watch.

Well for McEnroe to be concerned by the ease string material such as kevlar is impacting on the game means he does hold some decent points.

When he speaks of players and such I turn off.

legendkillar wrote:It was. It really was enthralling to see so many volley based rallies. Not everything should be played on the baseline. The Vilas and Borg matches were great to watch.

So seeing how the game has progressed from those days, where do you see it in 10 years' time, all being equal?

legendkillar wrote:Well for McEnroe to be concerned by the ease string material such as kevlar is impacting on the game means he does hold some decent points.

When he speaks of players and such I turn off.

True, but he can be sometimes funny. Still very volatile and hot-headed, although clearly loving the sport and caring about it.
I saw a programme with Cash, Henman and himself during this Wimbledon (they were on some terrace) he said a lot of very insightful things, Cash, being a UK resident now was the "safest".
They should not be afraid to speak their minds, but it's easy to see that they often say one thing and think another.

I doubt it. It is hard to see tournaments take a step back in time to what made tennis great and compelling viewing. For me it will still place emphasis on physical conditioning ahead of proper shot making skills. Sounds depressing I know.

That's why I loved Connors. When he did Wimbledon he was brutal and held no punches about what he said. No surprise the Beeb didn't invite him back

Giorgio De Stefani (1933-34) is the earliest player I know who could switch and play SH on either side. He asked for permission to use two racquets in 1931 which was denied.

In one of his articles written to the The Sydney Morning Herald Fred Perry described Stefani as a "freak player" and his style as unorthodox and that he lacks the beauty of shot execution of those as Bunny Austin and Jack Crawford.

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

Very interesting that Fred Perry himself made a statement like this one, despite being an excellent player himself.

The highlighted part seems to be echoed by many posters for some of the current players. I wonder why?

Thanks for that LF.

For me, beauty of shot execution is a very much preferred bonus that comes with a SBH, but that's not the prime reason for preferring it.

BTW, what has the fact that Perry was an excellent player got to do with his dislike for the "freak"?

legendkillar wrote:That's why I loved Connors. When he did Wimbledon he was brutal and held no punches about what he said. No surprise the Beeb didn't invite him back

I don't remember much of what he said. Have any of his "pearls" stuck with you?

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:That's why I loved Connors. When he did Wimbledon he was brutal and held no punches about what he said. No surprise the Beeb didn't invite him back

I don't remember much of what he said. Have any of his "pearls" stuck with you?

I recall he called Henman a bottler which I recall annoyed the hell out of Lloyd and Barker. Infact he labelled a few players bottlers as he was leading the crusade for players with that extra fortitude.

I recall him labelling Rusedski as useless at the net.

He called it as it is.

He always hated Sharapova. Thought Grosjean had 'strong buttocks'

And as always he favourite was to predict Roddick would win Wimbledon every year from 2003-2006.

legendkillar wrote:
I recall he called Henman a bottler which I recall annoyed the hell out of Lloyd and Barker. Infact he labelled a few players bottlers as he was leading the crusade for players with that extra fortitude.

I recall him labelling Rusedski as useless at the net.

He called it as it is.

Shame BBC always employs sycophants who are allowed to use only sugary superlatives. They can have those for the masses but have someone with spark for the likes of us.

I think Americans have the worst commentators, they are so ignorant and patronising or full of themselves I always turn the sound off. There was only once one really brilliant older guy, but don't know his name.
Jimbo comes across as a bitter man to me for some reason.

I like the ESPN guys. They tend to let match unfold than rather reminsince about old matches like some of the oldies do.

Amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:On variety... I do agree with you on that, we should have differing surfaces (not all fast or slow).

On Nadal, it is shame you have such a black and white narrow minded view of him.

I would say we are all made up of "black and white". You seem to only see the white side of Nadal, not its darker side.

Well yes, I am a Nadal fan I don't try to hide that.

Exactly, so if you admit you are a fan and don't want to see his possible darker side, then I certainly would not like to force it upon you. However you posting here shows that you are still intrigued by it.

legendkillar wrote:I like the ESPN guys. They tend to let match unfold than rather reminsince about old matches like some of the oldies do.

I watch ether on tennistv during masters series and ATP tournaments or any stream I can get for DC and slams, so get to hear quite a wide range from all sorts of channels.

I do have a twitter account but have never used it, I have even forgotten the password, but if I had the time do dig it out I'd send a tweet to Robbie and ask him what he thinks about getting rid of DBH
I do like him, he's got integrity and is charming in his South African way. If only he could stop repeating the auxiliary verb at the end of every sentence.....(Murray breaks, Murray does! etc)

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:On variety... I do agree with you on that, we should have differing surfaces (not all fast or slow).

On Nadal, it is shame you have such a black and white narrow minded view of him.

I would say we are all made up of "black and white". You seem to only see the white side of Nadal, not its darker side.

Well yes, I am a Nadal fan I don't try to hide that.

Exactly, so if you admit you are a fan and don't want to see his possible darker side, then I certainly would not like to force it upon you. However you posting here shows that you are still intrigued by it.

Well as a Nadal fan I think I recognise the positive and negatives aspect about Nadal's game. Having watched him for years I have a very firm knowledge on his game.
Whether you can argue I try and manipulate my knowledge to fit my agenda as I am a Nadal fan is your call

One thing is for sure though, many people can argue, and have argued, that you are bias against Nadal and frankly don't want to see anything in him that already doesn't fit with your view.

I remember a debate on 606v2, and it was on Nadal's banana shots (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuXsWt53cHs). I remember some Federer fans were complementing Nadal on that, and then someone (I think it was either CAS or Barrystar) commented in detail about the grip Nadal uses and what a difficult shot it is to execute.
You then came online, and I don't think you liked what you were reading, and commented that everyone was wrong as the shots took 'no talent' and then claimed the shot path for the banana shot was the same as the cross court forehand.
This was of course totally wrong analysis. Nadal's banana shot doesn't have the same trajectory or path as his CC forehand at all.
Look at 00:08 of this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7esv3cNtbk&feature=related
Compared to 00:33 of this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuXsWt53cHs
It's very clear the banana shot curves two ways before bouncing (hence it's called a banana shot) while his cross court forehand only curves in one way.

We are talking about banning single backhand here, not Nadal's moon-balling.
But whilst at it, I remember S. Tignor's Nadal Fan cClub thread from last when somebody left a comment : ...with a forehand that only his (Nadal's) mother could like.
You're not Nadal's mother Amri, are you?

noleisthebest wrote:We are talking about banning single backhand here

Well firstly I think you mean double.
Secondly you've been talking about Jimmy Connors and American commentators, I think the discussion was off track anyway (not that it's a bad thing).
Thirdly your idea of banning the DHBH was frankly ridiculous, absurd, and impractical. It would take away freedom on the court, and if you did want more SHBH you could change the conditions/racket technology to suit that style. That's a far more practical solution.

noleisthebest wrote:
But whilst at it, I remember S. Tignor's Nadal Fan cClub thread from last when somebody left a comment : ...with a forehand that only his (Nadal's) mother could like.
You're not Nadal's mother Amri, are you?

Who's somebody? Why would I care if some random guy left a comment on a blog?
No, I'm not Nadal's mother.

noleisthebest wrote:Thanks for that LF.

For me, beauty of shot execution is a very much preferred bonus that comes with a SBH, but that's not the prime reason for preferring it.

BTW, what has the fact that Perry was an excellent player got to do with his dislike for the "freak"?

Surprised that a player of Perry's stature allowed being beaten by Stefani get to him. Stefani denied Perry a 'Grand Slam'.

Why the label of 'freak' for Stefani? It is uncalled for and is disrespectful for a Tennis player.

Amritia3ee wrote:
Thirdly your idea of banning the DHBH was frankly ridiculous, absurd, and impractical. It would take away freedom on the court, and if you did want more SHBH you could change the conditions/racket technology to suit that style. That's a far more practical solution.

You keep telling me about ridiculousness and absurdity, but I don't see why. DBH gives you no freedom, on the contrary, you get shorter reach(i.e. you have to be faster and run more), the only thing you get from it is more control and power, i.e. safety, but that's no freedom, freedom and beauty of tennis is with single backhand, just like it is with the forehand.

noleisthebest wrote:
You keep telling me about ridiculousness and absurdity, but I don't see why.

Because banning a shot is a ridiculous idea.

noleisthebest wrote:
DBH gives you no freedom

I'm talking about freedom to play whatever shot you want, atm you can play either SHBH or DHBH.
It can be argued that conditions mean DHBH is more successful atm, but a change in conditions/ technology could change that (a far better option than banning DHBH).
In my club they are making children play with lighter softer tennis balls to encourage SHBH from an earlier age. It's a much better idea than your notion of banning DHBH.

noleisthebest wrote:
on the contrary, you get shorter reach(i.e. you have to be faster and run more),

Have you ever seen Djokovic stretch with the DHBH? Shorter reach, are you kidding me?

noleisthebest wrote:
The only thing you get from it is more control and power, i.e. safety, but that's no freedom,

Do you know what the word freedom means? How does having the choice to use either DHBH or SHBH increase freedom from being forced to use SHBH??

Amri, sorry, but you are completely confused on the subject.
Djokovic example clearly shows it.

noleisthebest wrote:Amri, sorry, but you are completely confused on the subject.
Djokovic example clearly shows it.

Go on then, explain yourself...
How does having the choice to use either DHBH or SHBH increase freedom from being forced to use SHBH??

Explain it.