Readers Write

David (Smith),
 
I'm wondering why you feel that the arm should be straight for backhand volleys.  Certainly it needs to be straight if the ball is quite far away, or if it is quite low, but it seems better to me if the arm is a bit bent for most volleys, backhand and forehand.
 
You state that a person gets more leverage on the backhand volley if the arm is straight, but I think that you should look a bit more at how levers work.  There is no leverage with the arm because it is simply attached to the shoulder.  There is no fulcrum to provide leverage. 
 
Actually, the straighter and the longer a person's arm is the more muscular strength it takes to make the backhand volley.  But our muscles are not as strong going that direction, compared to the muscles that can be used to hit forehand volleys.  Straightening the arm actually makes the shot weaker, not stronger. 
 
Do you have videos of a number of top players hitting backhand volleys?  If so, can you put them on your site and see what they are doing?
 
I like your book, Tennis Mastery, very well and I got an extra copy to share with others.  But this advice on backhand volleys has puzzled me for some time. 
 
I certainly agree with you that it is important to use the Continental grip, and to keep the shot simple, using the unit turn and a short motion to impart a bit of underspin in most situations.  But your advice to have the arm straight seems to me to complicate the matter, and to make the shot more difficult most of the time.
 
Please get back to me with your thoughts on this.
 
Best regards, 
Bob Romer, Ed.D., USPTA  

Bob,
 
Many thanks, first of all, for writing in with your comments. I'll try to explain better why the backhand volley is not only best hit with a fairly straight arm, but that if you watch the majority of skilled players hit their volley, we will indeed see this commonality among nearly all. (We have well over 1000 clips of dozens of players hitting volleys on our TennisOne site. I think if you inspect the majority of these, you will notice the commonality I speak of.)
 
As far as how players learn to hit volleys two key elements are to be considered. First off, the most natural thing to do on the backhand volley is to bend the elbow since the hinge joint moves in this one direction as a player turns to hit a backhand volley. The majority of players who bend the elbow will attempt to straighten the elbow right at contact. This one move is one of the major causes of players developing tennis elbow. In addition, the action of bending the elbow on the unit turn will always cause the player to take the racquet back too far in most all cases. Because of the natural tendency to do this, it is very important to train players to maintain position of the arm during the turn.
 
The second element is that there is leverage when the backhand volley is executed correctly when the elbow is maintained straight during the contact phase. Here, we can look at the professional golfer in the same manner: the skilled golfer keeps their left elbow straight (right-handed golfer), within the swing to create the same leverage I refer to. A breakdown of the elbow in golf results in the same loss of leverage. You will notice this elbow position is maintained in golf even on very soft shots around the green. The reason? To keep the stroke pattern from breaking down and creating a repeatable stroke they can depend on.
 
We do have a fulcrum in the hitting arm; it is very close to the shoulder and creates a third-class lever in its execution. While you are correct in the concept of using more muscle to create a large, powerful stroke, when we use this lever concept in blocking or punching or driving a short backhand volley, you can hold your racquet in two fingers and hit a very strong volley.
 
There are a couple exceptions I've seen among the pros, but the concept is maintained: Patrick Rafter used to have a bend in his elbow...however, when he drove his backhand volley, the bend was maintained throughout the shot, therefore acting the same as if it were actually held straight. And, of course, some balls hit right at us, can't be hit with a straight arm.
 
In a nutshell, from a teaching standpoint, I've trained hundreds of top ranked players and developed hundreds more of highly skilled NTRP level players. In teaching the volley with a straight arm, I've never failed to get a player to learn to hit backhand volleys with excellent success and desired ability. (Even in training my 8-year old daughter; she has exceptional volleys even at a young age and having only played for a short time...as you can witness in my series of training an 8-year old on TennisOne.)
 
The vast majority of players who learn without the emphasis or training of keeping the arm fairly straight are without exception the players who have had the most trouble learning to volley with skill and advanced patterns. (I usually get these players years later when they have not advanced their net play over the years!)
 
I guess I can only suggest you take a very close look at the hundreds of clips of volleys being hit by the pros and see if you can see this pattern.
 
I won't say I've completely convinced you of the importance of this learning element, but, I hope I've explained at least my take on it from my 35 years of teaching!
 
I appreciate your comments regarding my book, TENNIS MASTERY, and hope you will continue to write in and submit your questions and comments about all we do here at TennisOne. 
 
Thanks for your note!  
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

TennisOne,

I normally enjoy and agree with most everything you have to offer and maybe we will find in this case we differ simply in degree or interpretation...

The key reason for using the term 'hit the ball out in front' is to discourage recreational and some club players from hitting the ball at their sides...backhand and forehand volleys!  Way too many players, when faced with incoming, simply go what I call broadside (like an extended stick figure), or step away so that their bodies are parallel to the alley and their racquet perpendicular to it, losing sight of the ball, mishitting, missing structural integrity, not seeing the court in front of them.  Most recreational and some club players simply do not account for enough footwork and positioning needed and way too many players take their racquets too far back and apply too much of a swing.  Lastly, I think some acknowledgement should be made that backhand volleys are biomechanically harder than forehands, especially as they climb up above your waist and higher.  The higher balls contact point is invariably farther out in front where there is more structural support.

Kind regards,
Stephen Chertok

Stephen,
 
I am not in total disagreement with your interpretation and conceptual ideas of the backhand volley as it applies to the recreational player. However, a couple points to ponder too:
 
While I agree that the use of the phrase "hit the ball in front of you" is indeed often used to keep players from hitting late or moving back to hit any volley. However, I think if you look at one of your rationales, you will reconsider your own statement.
 
"Not seeing the court in front of them."
 
This is a common mistake that so many recreational players make: Seeing the court in front of the player while making contact is one of the worst things a player can attempt. Attempting to look out to the court while trying to hit a ball will always result in the player taking their eye off the ball...and worse yet, be focused not on the ball but on the court and their opponent.
 
As shown in the video clip of the pros hitting the volley, the ball is struck no where out in front towards the target but out to their side as described in the article. This is not an anomolie, but the norm among not just the pros but any skilled player of any age or sex.
 
In reality, hitting the ball to one's side gives the player a moment longer to track the ball as well as providing a better dimensional view of the ball's incident angle of approach to the players racquet. In other words, players will often mishit more balls when they try to hit the ball well out in front of them towards the target because they only have the dimension of the ball coming in on a 'head on' approach. By turning sideways, players gain time and gain the perspective of the ball's other dimensions such as arc and height.

I don't know if I totally agree that the backhand volley is more difficult than the forehand. Biomechanically, it is easier. The arm is already out in front when the player turns; the arm movement is away from the body instead of pinching in as it often does on a forehand volley; the contact point is usually easier to keep in front since the racquet shoulder is in front. However, because most club and recreational players learn to volley incorrectly, the poor results of their attempts usually result in them avoiding the shot from the get-go. The forehand seemingly is easier to hit simply by default, rather than any technical persuasion, at least in my opinion.
 
I'm not going to completely disagree with you, except for these points that are what I would consider subtle divisions. You make some valid points too and I greatly appreciate your desire to share them and discuss them. I especially agree with your point about higher volleys being more difficult. (But, if a player learns to hit these correctly too, they should not be as difficult as many players make them!)
 
Thank you, Stephen for taking the time to write in!  
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

TennisOne,

I've enjoyed visiting your website for some time and learning a good deal from it. For lack of the proven foundation of your contributing writers, I just would like to offer my 'alternative' view on the art coaching. Hoping you'll enjoy enough to share it with your readers!

IF...

If you forsake teaching your students some kind of lessons
Simply act as a sounding board or a looking glass 
If you let them hit the shots they feel like hitting
Not trying to control the way they play, the way they swing
So the true nature of their game arises, untouched by someone's cognizance
If you tone down the voice and give up the spotlight
Enable players to hear their inner coach and open their third eye
Thus be impressed by intuitions rather than with your instructions
If you shake off the demon who strives to take away a player’s agency
And suffer the kids' rebellion to defend the birthright to act for themselves
If you concede your right may be their wrong, and their right may be your wrong
Yet through empathy open a stubborn mind
If you reckon we’re all prompted to think, see, feel differently
Because we in fact need everyone’s talent to understand what the game holds
If you follow coaching reviews not as dogmas nor books one must play by
But as accounts of what successful players commonly do and don’t
Which inspire students to a higher level while they discover for themselves

If so stroke makers trust their own dictates and feel their heart at peace
If not with every selection, at least with most of them 
If you support the practice of whatever shot makes sense to them
That they eventually feel or foresee that can be executed
Given a second chance to hit it right, yet no second thought it is fair play  
Rather than haphazard, they pursue their own dream shots
And know that every ball is an opportunity to make them come true
If you feed not their ego with fishy compliments
Hook not students with bait or hustle, or promise
Instead make easy to catch themselves doing it right
If you teach beyond what they want, or what you want that they need
If you stress happiness when all around indulge in pleasure
For the joy of one good deed lasts longer than a thousand feel-goods
And esteem of oneself goes deeper than praises from one's opponents
Encourage them to add their own flair and change for their own right
For miserable players lend a deaf ear to sound stroking
And go for shots that do not ring true

If you make that the biggest lesson, students learn it from themselves
Letting their conscience be the guide to find the paths for both racket and ball
If players carry out this lesson of tennis for life through the days
You’ll have made this world a better place to play
And which is more, you’ll be a coach, my friend

(Disclaimer: I'm not sure Rudyard Kipling was a tennis player!) 

All the best,
Eric Thorel

Dave (Smith),

Grip drift is a big problem in tennis. Even worse is "grip fog" - not knowing what grip one is using. Ask these people what their grip is, and they don't know. They will try some phantom swings to see what "feels right". These people may end up being the biggest "grip drifters." Because it feels right doesn't make it right, like in many things in life.

I have never heard anyone explain why the continental grip is best for serving. I figured out that even though the continental grip is "open" for shots hit below the shoulder, it is "closed" for shots hit above the shoulder. This creates topspin naturally as the ball rolls down the face during impact. So the "swing up behind the back of the ball to get topspin on your serve" instruction isn't necessarily correct. If the racquet face is moving in the direction you want the ball to got, and the racquet face is closed, you will get all the topspin you need in any stroke.

The purpose of the upward projection of the of the arm and the racquet is to cause the arm to stop moving at the top of the swing, since it can't go any higher without coming out of its socket. This causes the racquet to snap forward across the top of the swing. This allows all of the kinetic energy in the arm to be transferred to the racquet. This shows up as a "pop" in the serve, and virtually no feeling of impact in the arm.

Any kinetic energy in the hands, arm, and body at impact is wasted energy in any stroke. The only mass that should be moving during impact is the racquet head. Ultra high speed slow motion shows this to be true, particularly in a baseball swing. I saw a slow motion swing of David Ortiz of the Red Sox in which the only mass moving when he hit an out of the park home run was his bat. His hands and arms were not moving forward (swinging) and his body was motionless while his bat rotated over 30 degrees through the impact due to the pronation/supination of his hands/arms, which itself has little kinetic energy due to the small radius of gyration of these rotations.

It seems counter intuitive that our body parts should not be swinging when we hit a ball. But when the racquet, hands, arms, and body are one singular mass during impact, it is the most inelastic collision possible. One hundred and fifty pounds to move a ball that weighs a tenth of a pound. Something really wrong here. Huge waste of energy. May its the cause of global warming.

Bob

Bob,
 
Thanks for your note. Obviously, there is complexity in nearly every swing, especially the serve. Hitting up on a ball on the serve is ONE way to hit topspin on the serve. My father, (nationally recognized coach Bruce Smith) used to demonstrate this by serving and releasing the racquet at contact; the served ball would land in the court, the racquet would fly up and over the side fence, demonstrating that indeed the serve can be hit with a racquet moving up to make a ball move down. Obviously, as a racquet face closes, this string bed will naturally impart topspin if moving forward, too.
 
I do agree that players in general, (recreational, beginners, and many other levels) add more movements than are empirically needed. In fact, I usually mention this in most of my clinics, workshops, and conventions discussions...that most players end up embellishing flawed stroke patterns, polluting and making a complex movement that much more complex! I have demonstrated serving on my knees to show the simplicity of not even using my legs, to hit a 100mph serve in the box. (Yes, I have to have some upward swing element to get a serve in from that position!)
 
When I have a 14 year old girl who stands at 5'6", serve over 110 mph, it shows that size and even height and strength are not as critical as technique...since I've seen grown men with muscles to spare, barely serve 70 mph...because of poor technique.
 
But, all in all, the newsletter about the Grip Drift, was equally about something very simple: it demonstrated or articulated that players change their grip in mid swing...nothing much more than that! I hope that is not lost in the other valid points you brought up.
 
Thanks again for writing in!
 
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

TennisOne,

You (Dave Smith) are probably right about the increase in pro players using the two-handed backhand.  The only thing you didn't mention that the two-handed players have BOTH.  And, the fact that they have both is what makes them great! Example: Wilander, Agassi, Courier, Safin. Can you imagine a pro on the tour with ONLY a two-handed backhand and not a one-handed also?

{I personally feel that Safin would be better if he had evolved to only a one-handed backhand as did Sampras. It has to do with the "style" of game he would have now". He's an "aggressive baseliner" now, but I think he would be better and less frustrated if he had more of an all-court game like Sampras. He said he started learning when he was age 3}

As a teaching pro for 38 years, I know that recreational players (not having played as a jr.) have to have BOTH a one-handed slice backhand approach shot and volley if they have a two-handed backhand if they ever want to make it to 4.0 and above.

Another observation I have over the past 38 years is that the so-called "blue chip athletes" have almost whole-handedly had solely a one-handed backhand. Examples: Sampras, Graf, Sabatini, Henin, Edberg, Martina.

Another observation I have is that: Pro players today started playing when they were age 3 to 5. They probably started with a full-size racquet and regular 3' net so had to hold on with 2 hands. I don't agree with this teaching method, but a few have made it through the ranks of all the millions of kids who were exposed with this method who probably eventually quit the game because they couldn't play the net (doubles).

As you can see, I am a big believer in the one-handed backhand, especially in teaching the recreational player (those who did not play jrs) Most don't have the financial means or time to learn BOTH backhands.

Sheryl Behne, USPTA Master Professional

Sheryl,

Thank you for your note and experience.

Yes, you are correct in my lack of room to include my philosophy on the one-handed backhand use among two-handed players in my newsletter on the vanishing one-handed backhand(But, the article was mainly an observation of the tremendous transformation of the two-hander among pros.)
 
But, you are exactly right: all two-handers need to learn how to slice one-handed if they hope to have a well-rounded game. This is not an issue however based on the fact that they hit two-handed backhands. Those who hit one-handed topspin must also learn a nearly completely different backhand using usually a continental grip, an underspin stroke, a far different animal than a strong eastern backhand gripped topspin.
 
Learning to slice a backhand is not prevented by anyone using a two-handed topspin backhand...no more than saying the serve prevents a player from learning to hit a dropshot; they are two different shots that either the student learns and masters each or they don't.
 
I consider the slice backhand as a defining shot that, like you, I agree that if you don't own the shot, you won't make it much past the 3.5 level. 
 
I don't necessarily agree that players who use two hands can't play doubles if they started as kids using these strokes. Having taught 3500 players, nearly all my students are excellent doubles players because, like the slice backhand, we teach the volley equally to all other shots. My 9 year old daughter hits two hands on both sides for her ground game but volleys as good as any top level player because she was taught to volley correctly with the right grip and volley technique. She loves doubles and I have had hundreds of kids like her become excellent doubles players year after year because of this compete teaching philosophy.
 
Yes, I do see other clubs who spend almost no time on correct volley patterns and hence, they hit great groundies, but can't volley a ball to save their life. Much like teaching the serve, either you teach it correctly and players can hit big second serves with kick, slice or hybrid spin, or the student leads a life of dinking second serves and hence, can't move past mediocre levels for life.
 
I believe you understand these things and I suspect your students benefit greatly by your experience.
 
Thank you again for writing in!
 
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

TennisOne,

This is the question that has been on my mind all this week when a talented 10 year old boy I coach (he possesses an excellent single handed backhand which he can topspin and slice with ease) said he would like to try a double handed backhand with a view to changing to it.  I asked him what the reason for the change would be and he said he thought it would be more powerful.
 
I am aware of my own bias which is that it would be a shame to drop such a good one-hander never mind take on all the challenges that a change would bring after 4 years of one handed backhand.
 
I explained that until he is about 14 the difference in strength would be more apparent than later - however I always take a players ideas seriously and agreed to a 3 week experiment before any rash decisions.
 
Since then I have been scouring the internet/coaching literature to put all the pros and cons together.  I was looking for stats on trends in players coming onto the scene and ratios of one handed players versus two-handers over the last 10 years and then your article popped up!!!
 
Is the trend entirely due to evolution of the game or do you think that it is also due to the fact it is now coached more often as the no 1 choice backhand compared to coaching in the past?
 
Have there been any biomechanical studies on the power generated by two hands over the power of one?  Is the two-hander more powerful or is it just a stronger shot in terms of being able to maintain racquet head stability and  control on fast paced balls?
 
How does it fit with game style?  Does the one-hander not still have the advantage as an "all court player" - with improved reach and strength in the dominant hand from playing one-handed surely one-handers are better volleyers?  Does the double handed backhand suit the game style of an aggressive baseliner better than that of an all court player?
 
Or, as your article tends to suggest should we be encouraging all our aspiring players to go two-handed if they are to have any hope at the top of the game?
 
Crucial questions and any more answers on the above and how best to manage change would make good future articles for Tennis One!!!  Keep me posted
 
Jo Robinson
Guernsey, UK

Jo,
 
Thank you for your note, questions and comments! Let me address them in order you asked:
 
As mentioned in the article, I believe that the two-handed dominance today is due to the number of pros seeing the value of it as the foundation for developing topspin in youngsters, and beginning adults compared to the general difficulty most kids and adults see in trying to hit an effective one-hander.
 
But, also the evolution of the game, the topspin dominance in general and the emulation of tennis stars would be in the mix for identifying why the nearly complete transition to the two-hander among most all top players.
 
In terms of power, the question must be asked "is more power and less control better than less power and more control?" Most people can generate "whip" power with one hand, the combination of wrist and angular swing elements to generate maximum racquet head speed. Obviously, this badminton or racquetball swing pattern is not desirable for tennis for two main issues: Spin and continuity of the swing plane. Two hands indeed provides stability and a repeatable swing path, the two key elements to any skilled player's ability to hit more effective, consistent shots. Also, the other element that you alluded to, the ability to handle harder hit balls can be argued in favor of the two-hander.
 
I believe that all two-handers in the near future (or most are now) developing an all-court game to go with the two-handed baseline game. Today, most all are using the backhand slice more and more; we are seeing players get to the net when the occasion presents itself; and I believe we are seeing a more powerful overall two-hander than we did ten years ago. This last point is typical of any shot: as players evolve, they look for ways to hit shots better and better...we have seen this on the serve, the forehand and the return of serve off better and better serves.
 
Personally, I see the two-handed stroke the better stroke to teach all. I have a handful of one-handers who transitioned nicely from a two-handed foundation. Yet, I see very few who are able to abandon the one-hander in favor of moving to two. Your young player would be the exception...of course, it is important to understand it is far easier for kids to evolve than adults.
 
I think we will see a continued dominance of the two-hander, yet I believe we will still see plenty of one-handers on the fringe. It is almost like the two-handed forehand today: we are seeing more two-handed forehand players on tour in the top 100 than we are seeing one-handed backhand players! Yet, the one-handed forehand is always going to be an offensive weapon for most. (But, the two-handed forehand is not just a great learning method, but we are seeing more and more pros coming with the shot!)
 
I hope you will keep an eye on the game as we do at TennisOne! It will continue to be an interesting sport to watch evolve...and to ponder what the next evolution will be!
 
Thank you again for writing us!
 
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

TennisOne,

Another great instructional article (from Doug King) I do wish to bring up the possibility that for me the linear contact zone may not be the best model to describe particularly the modern forehand

I think some of your thoughts presented on the one handed backhand how we lost our way may be influencing this concept

I do think the modern one handed backhand does lend itself by its nature to a sharp sloping upward linear path and any where within this contact zone the racquet will be going upward enough to generate some topspin (But you do not have the option of hitting this shot late like you do on the forehand)  Even though for 40 years I thought of ball contact in terms of the linear contact zone concept and perhaps because I did think this way for so long  this linear concept does not work for me in terms of the modern forehand and two handed backhand (where for righties the left hand plays a major role) Something more along the lines of bringing the racquet to the ball and applying the upward force at this time with the hand, along with the existing forward force of the body will give the ball plenty of power but also the necessary spin

Since the ball is only on the strings for a little more than an instance if we are not applying significant upward force during this contact point there will not be much topspin applied to the ball All of your concepts work for me in terms of bringing the racquet to the contact point but at the contact point the force must have a fairly sharp upward vector to generate the top spin that allows the modern game to exist and for me the concept of a long contact zone does not help me achieve this action

In looking at all the videos on Tennis one, the one thing I notice is how once contact is made there is very little more forward follow through Force applied to move the strings upward really keeps the racquet from going much more forward  You can explain the so called buggy whip forehand by noting that the contact was more along side than in front of the body and the racquet had to go up on contact

Those are my thoughts but perhaps I have mishit. Always looking forward to your next article,
Steve

Hi Steve,

I think you are absolutely correct. The stroke ends it's forward drive quite abruptly on the modern version of the topspin stroke, as opposed to reaching out to the target as we were taught years ago. .What I intended to do in this article is to make the distinction between rolling the racquet face over the ball (ala McEnroe) and actually maintaining a stable line through the contact and having the lift on the ball be more the result of grip and contact point. With the more severe grips the contact point is further in front (or closer to the body on line towards the target) and the stroke more naturally ends with a lifting action at this point in the stroke.

The other thing I was trying to emphasize was that in order for the hand to make the correct linear approach to the ball and target through contact the arm action is very similar to the pull and push action of the pool cue stroke - not so much a swing as a contraction and extension. Again the object is not to produce a perfectly straight line but to be able to maintain controlled rotation around that axis. I hope I was able to impress those points and if not I apologize.

Best regards and thanks for the note!
Doug

TennisOne,

That was a great article on the two-handed forehand!

We have found that teaching the two handed forehand and backhand off both sides is a far better and easier way to learn that teaching one handed shots first. Hence the reason why we created The Natural two- handled racquet. In time, as beginners get better timing and grow stronger, they will naturally start to recognize the shots that are preferable to hit with one hand and start to develop those.

This is the first time I have written. Your site is excellent and I consistently get good articles that force me to think about what I am doing and if there is a better way to do it.

Thanks,
Dann Battistone
www.NATURALTENNIS.com

Dann,
 
It is great to hear from a top-level pro who understands the uses and advantages of using two-handed strokes from both sides!
 
Love watching you and your brother play using the Natural, a two-handled racquet that balances the concept of either hitting two-hands on both sides or using a one-handed forehand on both sides without the need for grip repositions. I've seen many of the you-tube clips of the two of you playing, hitting and serving with the racquet. I have one of the Natural racquets, courtesy of Llonel Burt who read my book, Tennis Mastery, and saw that I had an understanding of using both hands on both sides. I take the racquet with me when I speak at conventions or clubs, and recommend that players watch you and your brother play using it.
 
In the near future, I hope to write up an article on you and your brother Brian playing with the Natural and sharing both your success as well as the racquet and the concept of hitting the way you do, (two hands on both sides) as well as the way Brian uses it with one hand forehands on both sides as well as the jump serve.
 
Hope you both are having success on tour this year. Please keep us posted on things!
 
Best wishes,  
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne

TennisOne,

In over twenty years of teaching I have had two students who are hitters of the two-handed forehand.& The first, a 50-year old physician, has a nice looking one-handed backhand and his real weapon, the cross-handed two-handed forehand. Hit hit the shot very hard, very flat and very well. In his first lesson with me he mentioned that I probably wouldn't understand why he hit that way with his forehand. I took the logical guess that he might be a converted racquetball player who just couldn't stop using too much wrist action and some pro started him on this two-handed shot. He thought it was a lucky guess. Over the next couple years he learned how to add significantly more topspin on the shot when he wanted to do it. His flat shot remains his favorite. My second student, Megan, is much more interesting. She's a junior in high school who just barely made the varsity team of her school. She is also a very shy, quiet type. When she took her first lesson with me, it was the first time she had ever taken a private lesson and I was stunned she would be able to make any team with the techniques she was displaying, most especially with her incredibly wristy (fast snap through the impact zone) forehand. Every shot in her game she was able to make significant changes to lock in better (new) muscle memory of new techniques, except her forehand groundstroke which would improve mildly at best and then revert back.

Now I've used the cross-handed two-handed forehand many times as a corrective technique on various stroke production flaws, but never with the intent to change the student to the two-handed. forehand. In Megan's circumstance I thought this might be a student who truly needs to change. Before I started the permanent change, I challenged Megan to hit as many moderately fed tennis balls in the court as she could get out of 100. She made 55. I challenger her again to see if she could improve and she got 49. Then we went to work. We broke the stroke down and put in several minutes of every lesson focusing on the two-handed forehand. Honestly, the moment she changed she would have easily beat her scores of 55 and 49, but I wanted to build her confidence and increase her power level. At first Megan struggled hitting the balls deep enough. I knew she was much more consistent, but the shot still needed work. Over the next four to five weeks we did many drills that focused on net clearance and ball velocity. Now I challenged her to do the 100 ball drill again. Her first score was 87 (40 of the first 50 / 47 of the second 50). The second 100 she scored 92. (46 and 46). I could go on about Megan, but the smile on her face is all I want to remember. She has one year left to play high school tennis and she's not going to be a star, but she is going to be surprising quite a few people on her team when fall practices begin.

Jay Huffer

Jay,
 
First off, thank you for your note and sharing your experience with your students using the two-handed forehand! It was 18 years ago that I, quite by accident, taught the two-handed forehand. (I had already taught 18 years using traditional one-handed forehand methods.) I had a girls tennis team where about ten of the girls just had an most difficult time getting and keeping the racquet below the ball to brush up for topspin. Out of frustration, I told all the girls to put their left hand on, take the racquet back, touch the ground with the tip, and then come up to the ball from there. Viola! Every girl discovered in one moment what topspin felt like and how to create it. Over half stayed with the two-hander and I found right then and there that it could be taken to very high levels.
 
Your experience mirrors my own. I have many adults use the shot(In the video clip on the newsletter, the one with the players hitting the ball, three of those four players had NEVER used the shot before and all three learned the shot only moments before I shot that video...the only person who had already had learned it was the young 10 year old girl who has used it for the past year.)
 
The bottom line is, the stroke can be phenomenal in helping players learn something new, correct some flawed stroke pattern, and can be used to reach the highest levels. (Obviously with more pros now using the shot, no one can deny that the shot can't be taken to the pro tour!)
 
Thanks again for your comments! Hope your note, combined with my newsletter might help others learn and understand this shot for these values!
 
Best wishes,
Dave Smith, Senior Editor TennisOne