Should Double-Handed Bakchand Be Banned?

NITB, have you noticed absolutely no one has agreed with your notion of banning the DHBH. This is despite the majority on here being Federer fans, and Roger plays with a SHBH.

If you think the balance has shifted too much to DHBH, these are practical solutions:
-Encourage kids at a young age play with softer and lighter balls- this encourages SHBH- they have done this at quite a few tennis clubs in England (including mine) and it has worked.
-Change in court conditions to encourage more SHBH.
-Limits on racket technology which mean the SHBH becomes a more viable shot.

These are practical solutions, if you think the dominance of the DHBH is a problem.
Your notion of banning the DHBH altogether is frankly delusional. You keep on talking about freedom but having the choice to use either DHBH or SHBH always gives more freedom than being forced to use SHBH.
I don't think you are thinking this through NITB.

Amri,
unlike you I don't need others' approval to think I'm right.
I know I am.

The fact that Nadal has a DBH (and an engineered, freaked one at that) prevents you from seeing how good a solution it is.
The others have not given any reason why they disagree, so I don't know what they think.
I am yet to hear one sound reason against it. And when I say sound I don't mean practical or financial.

The topic is a mind-stretcher, so try and imagine the tour without a DBH, and how the game would change.

I think if anything conditions and racquet technology need to be addressed. You want to encourage all types of shots. What we have seen in the BH is coaches using and teaching it knowing it is the single most reliable method of playing the shot in today's conditions. Outlawing isn't the solution. More a case of other factors to be considered to change coaches in encouraging the choice much rather going for the safer option.

noleisthebest wrote:I don't need others' approval to think I'm right.
I know I am.

Oh well that solves that doesn't it.

noleisthebest wrote:
The fact that Nadal has a DBH (and an engineered, freaked one at that) prevents you from seeing how good a solution it is.

Yes, that must be why, nothing to do with the fact you're talking nonsense.

noleisthebest wrote:
I am yet to hear one sound reason against it. And when I say sound I don't mean practical or financial.

Well if it's not practical or financial how on earth is it 'sound.'

At the moment you are free to choose between a SHBH and DHBH. I have suggested some ways in which you can increase the percentage of people playing SHBH, without banning anything.
Yet you continue with this farcical ludicrous 'solution'.

legendkillar wrote:I think if anything conditions and racquet technology need to be addressed. You want to encourage all types of shots. What we have seen in the BH is coaches using and teaching it knowing it is the single most reliable method of playing the shot in today's conditions. Outlawing isn't the solution. More a case of other factors to be considered to change coaches in encouraging the choice much rather going for the safer option.

legendkillar wrote:I think if anything conditions and racquet technology need to be addressed. You want to encourage all types of shots. What we have seen in the BH is coaches using and teaching it knowing it is the single most reliable method of playing the shot in today's conditions. Outlawing isn't the solution. More a case of other factors to be considered to change coaches in encouraging the choice much rather going for the safer option.

OK, which coach is gong to start encouraging SBH and why? Some die-hard tennis romantic in some club in the middle of nowhere at best. It's got to come as a centralised rule-change, get the game back to its roots. The game has done its natural course, hit the baseline brickwall with the 6 hour long AO final. (plus a 5 hour long SF) and died with Nadal and his physical way he took it, helped by slowing down of playing conditions.

Imagine the tour with everyone playing like Nadal: getting ridiculously fit and running balls down all day: Murray is his best disciple, he's probably outdone him by now, Djokovic ca last a bit, as well. So can Ferrer, Tipsarevic, Monfils and whoever else is prepared to spend ridiculous time and effort on their fitness.

Now take DBH from all these players and rallies will immediately get shorter, careers longer and game back to its more creative core.
You don't want to rally endlessly with a SBH, it's just not natural.

I'm sure you can all come up with more ideas and angles if you just for a minute thought outside the box, I'm just coming up with things on the go, it was meant to be a discussion not persuasion.

All this really got me thinking and imagining....how would Nadal, Murray and Djokovic look playing with SBHs, I'm sure they'd all adapt and that matches would be a lot more interesting.
I can't help it, but I'm finding Nadal almost impossible to imagine hitting a SBH.
Can you imagine Nadal playing SBH Amri? do you think he'd revert to his natural left hand (on backhand)?
Equally hillarous is trying to imagine Federer with a DBH.
Hey, and why not an exo with Nadal playing SBH and Fed DBH

Even worse, imagine Mac playing a DBH....

noleisthebest wrote:All this really got me thinking and imagining....how would Nadal, Murray and Djokovic look playing with SBHs, I'm sure they'd all adapt and that matches would be a lot more interesting.
I can't help it, but I'm finding Nadal almost impossible to imagine hitting a SBH.
Can you imagine Nadal playing SBH Amri? do you think he'd revert to his natural left hand (on backhand)?
Equally hillarous is trying to imagine Federer with a DBH.
Hey, and why not an exo with Nadal playing SBH and Fed DBH

If DHBH was banned, Nadal would switch to a forehand on both sides.
His forehand with his right hand would probably not be as good, but with a month or two of hard work practice I think it would be a pretty effective shot.
Djokovic and Murray meanwhile, would struggle. For both the return of serve with the DHBH deep on the baseline is a key shot, so they would be hugely effected. Anyway I believe banning the DHBH is not a practical measure on the first place, so it's highly unlikely this situation will arise.

noleisthebest wrote:Even worse, imagine Mac playing a DBH....

Before Nadal used DHBH, there was the then GOAT... B............o.................r..............g....................

There are a good number of SHBHs on tour right now, Gasquet, Wawrinka, GGL, Almagro, Tsonga (mixed), Kohlschreiber, Haas, Youzhny, Lopez, Dimitrov, Mahut, Blake to name a few.

Reminds me of the rule to ban Pancho from stepping into the court before the service was complete, with the rule that one foot was always touching the ground.

Let the game evolve. Why mandate a choice?

laverfan wrote:

Let the game evolve. Why mandate a choice?

Why let it go down the drain?

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Let the game evolve. Why mandate a choice?

Why let it go down the drain?

Despite the names from the current Top 100 who use SHBH, the game is going down the drain? Why?

Who is the next SBH player that is likely to win a slam (apart from Federer)?

That and everything else I've written on the topic aside (feel free to read it), I don't really fancy watching tennis much if there's no SBH in the second weekends of slams and if matches are described as "brutal", "physical" "bruising" etc....
I remembered another word in the meantime: grueling

noleisthebest wrote:Who is the next SBH player that is likely to win a slam (apart from Federer)?

Perhaps no one, apart from Federer, has a game (including a SHBH), good enough to win a slam.

noleisthebest wrote:That and everything else I've written on the topic aside (feel free to read it), I don't really fancy watching tennis much if there's no SBH in the second weekends of slams and if matches are described as "brutal", "physical" "bruising" etc....
I remembered another word in the meantime: grueling

That is a personal choice. There is always the off button for any gadget that otherwise brings you words or images that you dislike.

There may be other posters who are equally bothered if there were to be no DHBH in the second week of a slam.

noleisthebest wrote:Who is the next SBH player that is likely to win a slam (apart from Federer)?

That and everything else I've written on the topic aside (feel free to read it), I don't really fancy watching tennis much if there's no SBH in the second weekends of slams and if matches are described as "brutal", "physical" "bruising" etc....
I remembered another word in the meantime: grueling

Not a chance in the world. I certainly do not consider Tsonga a SHBHer. It's not because he pulls a shot every now and then that he is (I know LF is going to post 3 links showing otherwise ). All the other SHBH never put their 2 hands on the BH. I only do it if a very fast and hard ball comes to my BH but it's not a proper BH as I just block the ball back and am using the 2nd hand to keep still. Happens once in a month roughly.

To go back to the question, none of the other have the talent needed to win a slam SHBHed. They can hardly reach teh 1/4F. If I had to pick one, I'd say Wawrinka, then later maybe Dimitrov....but a very long shot.

Tenez, check Page 1, Tuesday 10:16 pm not sure whether you've seen my comment.



As for SHBH/DHBH debate, if there is a consensus that the conditions benefit the DHBH too much (hence creating a lack of SHBH at the top of the game) I fully agree that we should create more variety in the conditions to make it more balanced.

That's a much better idea than banning the DHBH altogether.

NITB, if you hate the DHBH to the extent you think it should be banned, then why do you support Djokovic (whose DHBH is one of his biggest strengths.)

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I think if anything conditions and racquet technology need to be addressed. You want to encourage all types of shots. What we have seen in the BH is coaches using and teaching it knowing it is the single most reliable method of playing the shot in today's conditions. Outlawing isn't the solution. More a case of other factors to be considered to change coaches in encouraging the choice much rather going for the safer option.

OK, which coach is gong to start encouraging SBH and why? Some die-hard tennis romantic in some club in the middle of nowhere at best. It's got to come as a centralised rule-change, get the game back to its roots. The game has done its natural course, hit the baseline brickwall with the 6 hour long AO final. (plus a 5 hour long SF) and died with Nadal and his physical way he took it, helped by slowing down of playing conditions.

Imagine the tour with everyone playing like Nadal: getting ridiculously fit and running balls down all day: Murray is his best disciple, he's probably outdone him by now, Djokovic ca last a bit, as well. So can Ferrer, Tipsarevic, Monfils and whoever else is prepared to spend ridiculous time and effort on their fitness.

Now take DBH from all these players and rallies will immediately get shorter, careers longer and game back to its more creative core.
You don't want to rally endlessly with a SBH, it's just not natural.

I'm sure you can all come up with more ideas and angles if you just for a minute thought outside the box, I'm just coming up with things on the go, it was meant to be a discussion not persuasion.

The issue aside from conditions is coaching. Look at Switzerland and there top 2 players play with a SHBH. It isn't so much romanticism being the reason some will always play the shot and endorse to newcomers.

I think it can still feature prominently in a players game. Just a case of how rounded off the other parts of their games are. Players like Blake, Ljubicic and Gasquet had/have beautiful BH's but lacked a potent and consistent FH's that compliment such a shot. It seems SHBHers are generally weak on the FH side. Sampras had a monster FH and an average stable BH. Federer really is the only player cut from a different cloth entirely in terms of his arsenal having so many dominating and potent shots.

Youzhny another who has a lovely BH, but in turn has a shocking FH at times given how well he can hit it. Lacks consistency

legendkillar wrote: Players like Blake, Ljubicic and Gasquet had/have beautiful BH's but lacked a potent and consistent FH's that compliment such a shot.

I am not convinced Blake and Gasquet have worse FH than Murray, Djoko and Nadal. IN my view they have better FH if anything. In fact to me Nadal has probably the worse FH in terms as hurting opponents. HOwever though it doesn;t hurt, it is horribly consistent and forces you to attack it if yuo do not want to run too much.

Blake and Ljubo for intance have no problem beating Nadal on faster surfaces, they just have problems doing it on slower ones when the ball comes back.

If you watch any match between Nadal v Blake or Ljubo, you will see that their shots are better than teh spanish but they are simply asked to deliver 3 or 4 great shots per rally and then end up tiring. No different than when Nadal plays Youzhny.

No great FHs were needed to win Shanghai or the USO but being able to run for 4 or 5 hours was crucial.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote: Players like Blake, Ljubicic and Gasquet had/have beautiful BH's but lacked a potent and consistent FH's that compliment such a shot.

I am not convinced Blake and Gasquet have worse FH than Murray, Djoko and Nadal. IN my view they have better FH if anything. In fact to me Nadal has probably the worse FH in terms as hurting opponents. HOwever though it doesn;t hurt, it is horribly consistent and forces you to attack it if yuo do not want to run too much.

Blake and Ljubo for intance have no problem beating Nadal on faster surfaces, they just have problems doing it on slower ones when the ball comes back.

If you watch any match between Nadal v Blake or Ljubo, you will see that their shots are better than teh spanish but they are simply asked to deliver 3 or 4 great shots per rally and then end up tiring. No different than when Nadal plays Youzhny.

No great FHs were needed to win Shanghai or the USO but being able to run for 4 or 5 hours was crucial.

I wasn't implying their FH's were weaker than Murray or Djokovic.

For players like Ljubo, Blake and Gasquet to have had a chance win Slams needed a FH to match their BH. My point here is that for the SHBH to be a more desired shot amongst newcomers and coaches, they need a really good FH.

I will agree that DHBH is most economical and dominant shot on the tour. The SHBH requires a FH to match. It goes to the point you made last year about the SHBH being made extinct by the DHBH which conditions and technology really favour nowadays.

I think that the talented SHBHers tend to have weaker FH's.

I think Djokovic and Murray have really good FH's. I think they are more risk adverse and will go to the BH as the stronger shot to execute and win points off.

Tenez wrote:Not a chance in the world. I certainly do not consider Tsonga a SHBHer.

This is called an opinion, correct?

Tenez wrote:It's not because he pulls a shot every now and then that he is (I know LF is going to post 3 links showing otherwise ).

Does this forum require so much repetition?

Tenez wrote:All the other SHBH never put their 2 hands on the BH. I only do it if a very fast and hard ball comes to my BH but it's not a proper BH as I just block the ball back and am using the 2nd hand to keep still. Happens once in a month roughly.

Perhaps there are others who do the same.

Tenez wrote:To go back to the question, none of the other have the talent needed to win a slam SHBHed. They can hardly reach teh 1/4F. If I had to pick one, I'd say Wawrinka, then later maybe Dimitrov....but a very long shot.

Because there are better players (SHBH or not).

Gasquet can, but he does not seem to want to, whether it is a physical or mental limitation, or both, only he knows.

LF Tsonga has a DHBH.
Whether from time to time he plays a SHBH is irrelevant.

Anyway everyone has their different opinions and different players they support/ shots they like for different reasons.
I like the way Rafa plays, I like his style.

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:Not a chance in the world. I certainly do not consider Tsonga a SHBHer.

This is called an opinion, correct?

Well I call it a fact actually! Remember, I belong to type A,B,D,E,F....Z type of posters. You are a C type, so you might see things pretty differently than us.

legendkillar wrote:

I think that the talented SHBHers tend to have weaker FH's.

Usually those SHBH like Blake, Ljubo, Wawrinka and Gasquet have a good serve and I do not know players with a good serve who have a weak FH. A good serve requires good timing, pace and precision (for the average size player) and a FH is also about pace, timing and precision.

I think Djokovic and Murray have really good FH's. I think they are more risk adverse and will go to the BH as the stronger shot to execute and win points off.

I would say Djoko has a decent FH but essentially his cross court FH which he can really whip/spin. It goes much closer to the net than Nadal but can get a better angle/pace ratio.

Murray's FH, I am not convinced yet. He is muscling the ball too much for me.

What I am saying is that you put Djoko, Nadal and Murray shots on Gasquet's legs and those guys lose to Gasquet anytime.

[quote="Tenez"]

legendkillar wrote:

I think that the talented SHBHers tend to have weaker FH's.

Usually those SHBH like Blake, Ljubo, Wawrinka and Gasquet have a good serve and I do not know players with a good serve who have a weak FH. A good serve requires good timing, pace and precision (for the average size player) and a FH is also about pace, timing and precision.

I think Blake and Ljubo were more power servers. Ljubo had a wonderful service motion. The rythym was mesmorising. Wawrinka and Gasquet have slower serves and for me don't produce the number of first serve points needed to get past the top DHBHers.

The one thing Ljubo, Blake and Wawrinka have in common is they hit far too flat and are not players of topspin.

Gasquet however is. His lack of success, fitness aside is more mental for me. Falls apart far too easily.

I think Djokovic and Murray have really good FH's. I think they are more risk adverse and will go to the BH as the stronger shot to execute and win points off.

[quote]I would say Djoko has a decent FH but essentially his cross court FH which he can really whip/spin. It goes much closer to the net than Nadal but can get a better angle/pace ratio.

Murray's FH, I am not convinced yet. He is muscling the ball too much for me.

What I am saying is that you put Djoko, Nadal and Murray shots on Gasquet's legs and those guys lose to Gasquet anytime.[/quote]

Not convinced that Gasquet would endure success if he had the shots of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. Give him some iron in those legs, and with his shots he could feature in the top 10 for sure.

legendkillar wrote:Not convinced that Gasquet would endure success if he had the shots of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray.

No he woudl be much worse than he is now. That's what I am saying. I see Gasquet as a better shot maker than those three. It was actually pretty obvious v Murray untill Murray beefed up even more.

Give him some iron in those legs, and with his shots he could feature in the top 10 for sure.

I think Gasquet with Djoko moving and Nadal stamina would actually be better than them cause his mental woudl also improve considerably. If you now that you are fitter than your opponent and that the longer the match the more likely you are to win, the better it is for your spirit.

Amritia3ee wrote:NITB, if you hate the DHBH to the extent you think it should be banned, then why do you support Djokovic (whose DHBH is one of his biggest strengths.)

As I have already said, I don't hate the shot per se, but I think it ruins the game of tennis in its original beautiful all-court form.

At the moment, DBH-ers have a massive advantage over SBH-ers due to slow conditions (balls,strings,courts) that all-court tnenis has almost disappeared and all you are seeing is base-line rallying of DBHers which, because the shot is more often safe than not , tend to be repetitive and boring to watch after some time.

I am not blaming the players for the conditions, it's not their fault, but when tennis gets in the base-line rut exclusively, I really can't stand it.
That's why I don't like watching Nadal Djokovic or Murray Djokovic matches.
When there are two more attacking minded base-liners like Djokovic Berdych, I don't mind watching.

That aside, I think Nole would have avery good SBH anyway, and he'd play a beautiful game as his mindset, although safe and self-doubting from time to time is attacking at heart.

Murray would also benefit from faster conditions. I have seen him play once I can't remember where now, he had a really good all-court game.

DBH is an unnecessary shot in my opinion. The philosophy behind it is to have two forehands, i.e. equal strength on both wings.
The strange thing is that that extra control and power are used a lot more to defend than attack.

There are different ways to bring tennis back to its all-court variety and beauty and having everyone play SBH is one way of achieving it.

noleisthebest wrote:That aside, I think Nole would have avery good SBH anyway, and he'd play a beautiful game as his mindset, although safe and self-doubting from time to time is attacking at heart.

His SHBH slice does not support this!

legendkillar wrote:

The issue aside from conditions is coaching. Look at Switzerland and there top 2 players play with a SHBH. It isn't so much romanticism being the reason some will always play the shot and endorse to newcomers.

I think it can still feature prominently in a players game. Just a case of how rounded off the other parts of their games are. Players like Blake, Ljubicic and Gasquet had/have beautiful BH's but lacked a potent and consistent FH's that compliment such a shot. It seems SHBHers are generally weak on the FH side. Sampras had a monster FH and an average stable BH. Federer really is the only player cut from a different cloth entirely in terms of his arsenal having so many dominating and potent shots.

Youzhny another who has a lovely BH, but in turn has a shocking FH at times given how well he can hit it. Lacks consistency

You've got the point here with some SBHers having an average forehand. Yes, Federer does stand out with all his inexhaustible riches, but he's not the only one with good SH shots on both wings: Ljubicic was very good on both wings, as well. Gasquet, too when he wants to, which is a rare thing these days. Strakhovski is pretty good as well, just weak between the ears, unfortunately.

If everyone had to play SBH then all academies would have to scrap DBH, otherwise you have the state of game as you do.

Players today go for DBH almost automatically (certainly is the school of though in the UK), some of them may start off with a SBH and then give up along the way, as the pressure of delivering starts to pile on.

It would be great fun to have one tournament per year with SBH only, just for fun, at the end of season perhaps, everyone would enjoy it!

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:That aside, I think Nole would have avery good SBH anyway, and he'd play a beautiful game as his mindset, although safe and self-doubting from time to time is attacking at heart.

His SHBH slice does not support this!

He'd master it, I'm positive !

I would definitely not ban it. Even if we take the view that we do not want to see much of it, it feels like attack on the symptoms rather than the root cause. Dominance of DHBH is the product of the current game rather than vice versa. I grant you, banning it would make some of the most extreme examples of endurance tennis less feasible, but I do not think it would lead to say resurgence of S&V. If we want more S&V, and less endless rallies, conditions/equipment need to be changed, no magic about it.

laverfan wrote:There are a good number of SHBHs on tour right now, Gasquet, Wawrinka, GGL, Almagro, Tsonga (mixed), Kohlschreiber, Haas, Youzhny, Lopez, Dimitrov, Mahut, Blake to name a few.

LF, to me this list just demonstrates that we do have a woeful lack of SHBHs on tour. Sure, they are not actually extinct, but they are definitely a relatively small minority. If someone argues that there is a shortage of SHBHs, then this list more supports than refutes that notion.

I must say I am surprised at the staunch support some here have for DBH.
It appears to come from freedom fighters, but what happened for SBH-ers and their freedom to play their game?

To answer the OP, even though I know nitb you don't need anyone's approval but I'll still give you mine , yes, it should be banned. Isn't it Wimbledon the "All England Lawn Tennis Club Single Handed Championship of the World" after all? I'd say any DHBH who won it should give the title back to the SHBH who went furthest in the tournament. By that measure stick I'd say Fed should have 2-3 more of them!

Sounds pretty fair to me! (straight face!)

sphairistike wrote:To answer the OP, even though I know nitb you don't need anyone's approval but I'll still give you mine , yes, it should be banned. Isn't it Wimbledon the "All England Lawn Tennis Club Single Handed Championship of the World" after all? I'd say any DHBH who won it should give the title back to the SHBH who went furthest in the tournament. By that measure stick I'd say Fed should have 2-3 more of them!

So then Djokovic's Wimbledon title is taken away from him?
What type of Djokovic 'fan' are you??