3 ms·

It's perfectly fine and understandable if the two-handed backhanded didn't click with you personally. But to generalize your idiosyncratic experience to everyo

by lapcat 3y ago

It's perfectly fine and understandable if the two-handed backhanded didn't click with you personally. But to generalize your idiosyncratic experience to everyone and claim that there's no point to the two-handed backhand is absurd, obtuse, solipsistic. Moreover, "I never learned it" suggests that you didn't spend a lot of time on it, which does imply ignorance.

kazinator 3y ago
The article claims that the one-handed backhand is "on the way to extinction" is because of "the increasing role of power and velocity in the sport. Even clay courts, historically the slowest surface, play hard and fast these days. Players, who spend more and more time in the gym, keep getting bigger and stronger, and now hit forehands at more than 100 miles per hour." So, taking that as the reason for wielding a two-handed backhand, I only posited that "If you're not a tennis pro, dealing with the power play, there is no point to the two-handed backhand" which makes sense in light of the article and doesn't "generalize my idiocyncratic experience to everyone". There is a condition attached in my statement which you omitted in your quote; that condition means it is not an absolute generalization. "Ignorance" can only be applied to intellectual matters, not to a backhand; not spending time on a tennis backhand doesn't constitute "ignorance", especially if I know that it exists and what it is for. "Solipsistic" means that I believe a world view in which only my consciousness is real. That is rather a huge leap from my statement about the two-handed backhand. Please, get a grip.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > So, taking that as the reason for wielding a two-handed backhand That's your mistake. Here's another quote from the article: "The two-handed backhand is far more stable, he said, and the motion is shorter and simpler." There are a number of good reasons for amateur players to use a two-handed backhand, and that's indeed why countless amateur players do use a two-handed backhand. Are you seriously claiming that they're all wrong, and also all of the tennis instructors who teach them are wrong too? It's really quite simple: many players, amateur and pro, hit the ball better and play better with a two-hander than with a one-hander. So why wouldn't you use a stroke that makes you play better? > "Ignorance" can only be applied to intellectual matters, not to a backhand Disagreed. There are difference kinds of knowledge, e.g., knowledge-that and knowledge-how. > "Solipsistic" means that I believe a world view in which only my consciousness is real. Check the dictionary. It also means "very self-centered", for example.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - scyzoryk_xyz 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - kazinator 3y ago
    > So why wouldn't you use a stroke that makes you play better? Mainly due to the repulsive personalities in competitive tennis; but liking it well enough as a recreational activity.

by lapcat 3y ago

kazinator 3y ago

The article claims that the one-handed backhand is "on the way to extinction" is because of "the increasing role of power and velocity in the sport. Even clay courts, historically the slowest surface, play hard and fast these days. Players, who spend more and more time in the gym, keep getting bigger and stronger, and now hit forehands at more than 100 miles per hour." So, taking that as the reason for wielding a two-handed backhand, I only posited that "If you're not a tennis pro, dealing with the power play, there is no point to the two-handed backhand" which makes sense in light of the article and doesn't "generalize my idiocyncratic experience to everyone". There is a condition attached in my statement which you omitted in your quote; that condition means it is not an absolute generalization. "Ignorance" can only be applied to intellectual matters, not to a backhand; not spending time on a tennis backhand doesn't constitute "ignorance", especially if I know that it exists and what it is for. "Solipsistic" means that I believe a world view in which only my consciousness is real. That is rather a huge leap from my statement about the two-handed backhand. Please, get a grip.

lapcat 3y ago
> So, taking that as the reason for wielding a two-handed backhand That's your mistake. Here's another quote from the article: "The two-handed backhand is far more stable, he said, and the motion is shorter and simpler." There are a number of good reasons for amateur players to use a two-handed backhand, and that's indeed why countless amateur players do use a two-handed backhand. Are you seriously claiming that they're all wrong, and also all of the tennis instructors who teach them are wrong too? It's really quite simple: many players, amateur and pro, hit the ball better and play better with a two-hander than with a one-hander. So why wouldn't you use a stroke that makes you play better? > "Ignorance" can only be applied to intellectual matters, not to a backhand Disagreed. There are difference kinds of knowledge, e.g., knowledge-that and knowledge-how. > "Solipsistic" means that I believe a world view in which only my consciousness is real. Check the dictionary. It also means "very self-centered", for example.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- scyzoryk_xyz 3y ago
  [flagged]
- kazinator 3y ago
  > So why wouldn't you use a stroke that makes you play better? Mainly due to the repulsive personalities in competitive tennis; but liking it well enough as a recreational activity.