PDA

View Full Version : The inch that changed tennis forever....REPOST


NoBadMojo
05-02-2007, 11:42 AM
This article was posted before, and I think it explains better than anything I've ever read how the gear has changed the game at advanced levels of play. Another poster asked me about it just now which triggered this post. I think it should be made into a sticky --> http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com...ence_inch.html

SFrazeur
05-02-2007, 11:51 AM
Use this one until NBMJ gets a chance to correct the posted link.

http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/issues/200601/200601science_inch.html

NoBadMojo
05-02-2007, 11:59 AM
No clue why the link doesnt parse, but here's a paste of the contents: hopefully it will help to dispel some of the myths circulated in this forum

Racquet Science

The inch that changed tennis forever

By Rod Cross
(Published January 2006 (http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/issues/200601/200601toc.html))
The modern game of tennis is played at a furious pace compared with the old days when everyone used wood racquets. Just watch old film from the 1950s and you will see that the game is vastly different. Ken Rosewall and Lew Hoad barely broke into a sweat. Today's game has players grunting and screaming on every shot, calling for the towel every third shot, and launching themselves off the court with the ferocity of their strokes. The difference is obviously due to the change from wood to graphite racquets, which happened during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Everyone concluded that graphite racquets were much stronger, lighter, and more powerful, while the players themselves somehow became taller, stronger, and fitter. How else could the game have changed so drastically?
Racquet Width, Spin, and Power

The real reason for the change is more subtle. It's because racquets got wider. Wood racquets were always 9 inches wide and 27 inches long, so players could check the 36-inch height of the net by putting one racquet on top of another. Today's players can't do that. Most racquets are still 27 inches long, but they are now 10 to 12 inches wide. They are also lighter, which means they are less powerful, but it also means that players can swing them faster, which they need to do just to get back the power they lost when they became lighter.
When players started swinging their racquets faster, they noticed an interesting effect—they generated more topspin on the ball. A ball with topspin dives down more steeply into the court after it passes over the net compared with a ball without spin. Players noticed that the ball went in more easily, despite the fact that the ball was hit at about the same speed as with their old wood racquets. So they started hitting the ball even harder, which made the ball spin faster, and it still went in. Not only that, the added swing velocity wasn't resulting in mis-hits, due to the larger sweet zone and extra inch or two of frame clearance.
So what did they do next? The extra frame clearance allowed players to start swinging upwards at the ball to get even more spin, and they rotated the racquet in their hand to a Western grip in order to swing at even steeper angles to the ball. That grip gave them problems with their backhand, so they had to grip the handle with the both hands to tilt the frame back into a vertical position. The faster they hit the ball, the faster it spun, and the faster it spun, the harder they could hit it. That's why players today usually have both feet off the ground when they hit the ball, and it's why they need to grunt and scream.
Players were given an inch in the 1970s and they took a mile. The ball now spins 4 or 5 times faster than it did before the 1970s. An increase in just one inch allowed an amazing increase in spin due to steeper, faster swings and a tilting of the racquet forward by up to 5 degrees, all without clipping the frame. An example will make this very clear.
Five Times the Spin

When a ball bounces off the court it acquires topspin, even if it had no spin before it hit the court. In fact, it spins faster than most players can generate themselves when they hit a topspin return. In order to return the ball with topspin, a player needs to swing the racquet both forwards and upwards and fast enough to reverse the rotation of the spinning ball. If the player doesn't reverse the direction of the spin, then the ball will be returned with backspin—it is still spinning in the same direction but traveling in the opposite direction back over the net.
Suppose, for example, that the ball spins at 3,000 rpm (50 revolutions/sec) after it bounces off the court. That is a typical amount of spin when a ball hits the court at around 30 or 40 mph. Returned with a wood racquet, a player won't be able to swing up at a very steep angle without clipping the frame. He will still be able to reverse the spin, but he will get only 200 rpm or so of topspin by swinging the racquet upward fairly rapidly at about 20 degrees to the horizontal. A change in spin from 3,000 rpm backwards to 200 rpm forwards is a change of 3,200 rpm, which is a relatively big change, but it is only enough to return the ball with a small amount of topspin.
Now suppose the player switches to a 10-inch-wide racquet and swings up at 30 degrees to the ball. The player can do that and can also tilt the racquet head forward by about 5 degrees, with even less risk of clipping the frame than with a 9-inch-wide wood racquet being swung at 20 degrees with the head perpendicular to the ground. In this way, the player will be able to change the spin by about 4,000 rpm instead of 3,200 rpm, with the result that the spin changes from 3,000 rpm of backspin to 1,000 rpm of topspin. The result is therefore a factor of five increase, from 200 rpm to 1,000 rpm, in the amount of topspin. That's an amazingly big effect considering that the racquet increased in width by only one inch, or by only 11 percent.
http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/issues/200601/images/200601racquet-tilt.jpg
Why Width Matters

A 9-inch-wide racquet swung with the strings in a vertical plane has about 8 inches of string in the vertical direction and about one-half inch of wood above and below the strings. A 10-inch racquet swung in the same way has about 9 inches of string in the vertical direction. The ball is just over two and one-half inches in diameter, so 3.1 balls can fit across a 9-inch racquet and 3.5 balls can fit across a 10-inch racquet. If the 10-inch racquet is tilted forward 27 degrees, then the strings extend 9 inches diagonally and 8 inches vertically, as shown in Figure 1. The racquet can therefore be swung upwards at 27 degrees or tilted forward by 27 degrees, and it will then present to the ball exactly the same area of string as a 9-inch racquet. No one tilts the racquet forward by as much as 27 degrees, but they now swing up into the ball at angles of 30 degrees or more to generate topspin. Tilting the racquet head forward slightly generates even more topspin.
Giving a player an extra inch of width allows the player to swing up at a steeper angle or faster or both. In that case the ball slides farther across the strings, so you really do need that extra inch. A change in 4,000 rpm rather than 3,200 rpm is therefore not surprising given the extra speed, angle, and tilt made possible by the extra one inch of width.
Going from a 10-inch to an 11-inch racquet does not deliver another huge increase in topspin. The reason is that if players tried to increase the upward speed of the racquet any more than they do now, the ball would sail over the baseline. They can do that for a topspin lob, but the forward speed of the racquet and the ball remains relatively small for a topspin lob. An 11-inch racquet will work better for topspin lobs but not for any other shot. On the other hand, 9-inch racquets were only just over the limit of being able to generate any topspin at all. Give a 9-inch graphite racquet to a player today and the result would be some serious clipping of the frame every few shots, though perhaps not as many as "old-timers" might expect because modern players are so practiced and skilled at steeper swings.
Further details are described in the new book Technical Tennis: Racquets, Strings, Balls, Courts, Spin, and Bounce (http://www.usrsa.com/store/technical.html), by Rod Cross and Crawford Lindsey, available from book store web sites or from the publisher at www.usrsa.com (http://www.usrsa.com/).
About us (http://64.130.31.16/about_rsi.html) | Home (http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/index.html) | USRSA (http://www.usrsa.com/)
Copyright © 2004-2007

Kirko
05-02-2007, 12:13 PM
No clue why the link doesnt parse, but here's a paste of the contents: hopefully it will help to dispel some of the myths circulated in this forum

Racquet Science

The inch that changed tennis forever

By Rod Cross
(Published January 2006 (http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/issues/200601/200601toc.html))
The modern game of tennis is played at a furious pace compared with the old days when everyone used wood racquets. Just watch old film from the 1950s and you will see that the game is vastly different. Ken Rosewall and Lew Hoad barely broke into a sweat. Today's game has players grunting and screaming on every shot, calling for the towel every third shot, and launching themselves off the court with the ferocity of their strokes. The difference is obviously due to the change from wood to graphite racquets, which happened during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Everyone concluded that graphite racquets were much stronger, lighter, and more powerful, while the players themselves somehow became taller, stronger, and fitter. How else could the game have changed so drastically?
Racquet Width, Spin, and Power

The real reason for the change is more subtle. It's because racquets got wider. Wood racquets were always 9 inches wide and 27 inches long, so players could check the 36-inch height of the net by putting one racquet on top of another. Today's players can't do that. Most racquets are still 27 inches long, but they are now 10 to 12 inches wide. They are also lighter, which means they are less powerful, but it also means that players can swing them faster, which they need to do just to get back the power they lost when they became lighter.
When players started swinging their racquets faster, they noticed an interesting effect—they generated more topspin on the ball. A ball with topspin dives down more steeply into the court after it passes over the net compared with a ball without spin. Players noticed that the ball went in more easily, despite the fact that the ball was hit at about the same speed as with their old wood racquets. So they started hitting the ball even harder, which made the ball spin faster, and it still went in. Not only that, the added swing velocity wasn't resulting in mis-hits, due to the larger sweet zone and extra inch or two of frame clearance.
So what did they do next? The extra frame clearance allowed players to start swinging upwards at the ball to get even more spin, and they rotated the racquet in their hand to a Western grip in order to swing at even steeper angles to the ball. That grip gave them problems with their backhand, so they had to grip the handle with the both hands to tilt the frame back into a vertical position. The faster they hit the ball, the faster it spun, and the faster it spun, the harder they could hit it. That's why players today usually have both feet off the ground when they hit the ball, and it's why they need to grunt and scream.
Players were given an inch in the 1970s and they took a mile. The ball now spins 4 or 5 times faster than it did before the 1970s. An increase in just one inch allowed an amazing increase in spin due to steeper, faster swings and a tilting of the racquet forward by up to 5 degrees, all without clipping the frame. An example will make this very clear.
Five Times the Spin

When a ball bounces off the court it acquires topspin, even if it had no spin before it hit the court. In fact, it spins faster than most players can generate themselves when they hit a topspin return. In order to return the ball with topspin, a player needs to swing the racquet both forwards and upwards and fast enough to reverse the rotation of the spinning ball. If the player doesn't reverse the direction of the spin, then the ball will be returned with backspin—it is still spinning in the same direction but traveling in the opposite direction back over the net.
Suppose, for example, that the ball spins at 3,000 rpm (50 revolutions/sec) after it bounces off the court. That is a typical amount of spin when a ball hits the court at around 30 or 40 mph. Returned with a wood racquet, a player won't be able to swing up at a very steep angle without clipping the frame. He will still be able to reverse the spin, but he will get only 200 rpm or so of topspin by swinging the racquet upward fairly rapidly at about 20 degrees to the horizontal. A change in spin from 3,000 rpm backwards to 200 rpm forwards is a change of 3,200 rpm, which is a relatively big change, but it is only enough to return the ball with a small amount of topspin.
Now suppose the player switches to a 10-inch-wide racquet and swings up at 30 degrees to the ball. The player can do that and can also tilt the racquet head forward by about 5 degrees, with even less risk of clipping the frame than with a 9-inch-wide wood racquet being swung at 20 degrees with the head perpendicular to the ground. In this way, the player will be able to change the spin by about 4,000 rpm instead of 3,200 rpm, with the result that the spin changes from 3,000 rpm of backspin to 1,000 rpm of topspin. The result is therefore a factor of five increase, from 200 rpm to 1,000 rpm, in the amount of topspin. That's an amazingly big effect considering that the racquet increased in width by only one inch, or by only 11 percent.
http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/issues/200601/images/200601racquet-tilt.jpg
Why Width Matters

A 9-inch-wide racquet swung with the strings in a vertical plane has about 8 inches of string in the vertical direction and about one-half inch of wood above and below the strings. A 10-inch racquet swung in the same way has about 9 inches of string in the vertical direction. The ball is just over two and one-half inches in diameter, so 3.1 balls can fit across a 9-inch racquet and 3.5 balls can fit across a 10-inch racquet. If the 10-inch racquet is tilted forward 27 degrees, then the strings extend 9 inches diagonally and 8 inches vertically, as shown in Figure 1. The racquet can therefore be swung upwards at 27 degrees or tilted forward by 27 degrees, and it will then present to the ball exactly the same area of string as a 9-inch racquet. No one tilts the racquet forward by as much as 27 degrees, but they now swing up into the ball at angles of 30 degrees or more to generate topspin. Tilting the racquet head forward slightly generates even more topspin.
Giving a player an extra inch of width allows the player to swing up at a steeper angle or faster or both. In that case the ball slides farther across the strings, so you really do need that extra inch. A change in 4,000 rpm rather than 3,200 rpm is therefore not surprising given the extra speed, angle, and tilt made possible by the extra one inch of width.
Going from a 10-inch to an 11-inch racquet does not deliver another huge increase in topspin. The reason is that if players tried to increase the upward speed of the racquet any more than they do now, the ball would sail over the baseline. They can do that for a topspin lob, but the forward speed of the racquet and the ball remains relatively small for a topspin lob. An 11-inch racquet will work better for topspin lobs but not for any other shot. On the other hand, 9-inch racquets were only just over the limit of being able to generate any topspin at all. Give a 9-inch graphite racquet to a player today and the result would be some serious clipping of the frame every few shots, though perhaps not as many as "old-timers" might expect because modern players are so practiced and skilled at steeper swings.
Further details are described in the new book Technical Tennis: Racquets, Strings, Balls, Courts, Spin, and Bounce (http://www.usrsa.com/store/technical.html), by Rod Cross and Crawford Lindsey, available from book store web sites or from the publisher at www.usrsa.com (http://www.usrsa.com/).
About us (http://64.130.31.16/about_rsi.html) | Home (http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/index.html) | USRSA (http://www.usrsa.com/)
Copyright © 2004-2007
just an awesome article!! I've had a chance to watch some of the older pros like Rosewall, Mal Anderson and Pancho Gonzalez play matches with the newer rackets. Rosewall with ultra II , Anderson withe dunlop 200G and Gonzalez with the Prince Mag.Pro 110 size and they still hit very flat shots because of their "grips". eg. continental or eastern; and on a lower level guys like me who use the continental on the forehand side hit flat also. just have a bigger sweet spot to do it with. NOBAD, wonderful article!

bad_call
05-02-2007, 01:39 PM
insightful article. guess i'll be breaking out the tape measure.

tarkowski
05-02-2007, 01:52 PM
insightful article. guess i'll be breaking out the tape measure.

Yeah - I did that too! For the sticks I have in-house:

(Measurement across the mains in inches - string-bed only, no frame)

K90 and N90: 8 7/8
n61 95 18x20: 9 1/8
nTour 95: 9 even
O3 White: 9 7/8

Please let me know if I have misread the article, but in terms of width-across the mains for the modern game, the 90's don't seem to pose too much of a compromise (independent of other factors - one being that they're relatively heavy).

movdqa
05-02-2007, 02:08 PM
The picture indicates that the frame is included. If the picture is saying that 65 sq in racquets were 9 in, then 90 sq in frames should be bigger than 9 in.

tarkowski
05-02-2007, 02:17 PM
The picture indicates that the frame is included. If the picture is saying that 65 sq in racquets were 9 in, then 90 sq in frames should be bigger than 9 in.

Yep - that's what I was thinking. Basically, the 90 stringbed alone is as wide as one of those older racquets (including frame), making me think it's just about given us that inch. Am I wrong in this?

movdqa
05-02-2007, 02:19 PM
I will have to check on that with my 65 sq in racquets at home.

TENNIS_99
05-02-2007, 02:33 PM
Nice info,

what about 11 inch but with low-low power? (might not just the racquet, string,tension as well) Can it still allow to swing hard and keep the ball in?

haerdalis
05-02-2007, 02:57 PM
Yeah nice article.
My PS tour 90 has crosses that are exactly 9 inches long at the widest point.
The frame itself is 10 inches wide.
The NXG OS has crosses that are 10.5 inches long and the frame is just over 11 inches wide.

jonolau
05-02-2007, 05:19 PM
NBMJ, thanks for sharing this excellent article!

NoBadMojo
05-02-2007, 05:28 PM
NBMJ, thanks for sharing this excellent article!

yw grasshopper..nice to see you back on here...hope all is really fine with you, the wifey, and the youngin;s,
Sifu

southpaw
05-02-2007, 06:08 PM
Arrgh... the emperor Cross is naked.

He recklessly combines racquet path and tilt in order to try and force a point.

Racquet path affects spin, racquet head tilt affects trajectory. If you try and hit a normal baseline groundstroke with the racquet face tilted at 35 degrees, the ball will not make it over the net.

Bottle Rocket
05-02-2007, 06:13 PM
If you hit the ball with the racket head tilted, yeah, the ball will go into the ground. It will also go into the ground with tremendous to spin.

If you have a swing path that goes upwards and a racket head tilted downwards, that gives you all the spin you can get. That's what its all about.

That is what the whole article is about... How the change in rackets have made that type of swing so much easier, even possible.

Anyway, I can't say I agree with everything the writer said. For example,

Give a 9-inch graphite racquet to a player today and the result would be some serious clipping of the frame every few shots

I don't know about that.

DoubleHanded&LovinIt
05-02-2007, 06:16 PM
Bottle Rocket,
I love your insights and would love to hear what points you disagree with. By the way, if you get a chance, try to hit the Wilson K Factor K Surge. It's a fun stick to whip around and super suprisingly solid for its weight.

Bottle Rocket
05-02-2007, 06:21 PM
I guess it isn't so much specifics, as much as maybe the whole article...

I understand frames changed and I won't deny there are huge differences between current frames and older ones, especially wood frames. I am pretty sure that 1 inch is far from the whole story here. I don't know. It's possible nothing else has changed in 50 years. Like I said though, interesting article.

Ok, here's something-->

Returned with a wood racquet, a player won't be able to swing up at a very steep angle without clipping the frame. He will still be able to reverse the spin, but he will get only 200 rpm or so of topspin by swinging the racquet upward fairly rapidly at about 20 degrees to the horizontal.

Anybody who has responded in this thread so far can probably walk on a court right now and prove that to be incorrect.

I am not so sure everything he is saying is wrong, it just seems like he is leaving out so many other aspects of the swing as well as how a tennis racket makes contact with the ball.

Where is that data coming from?

I can hit with a wood racket on court without changing a single aspect of my swings. I am currently using a Babolat frame. Granted my shots will lack some pace and spin, but to blame that purely on the width of the head? Nah...

southpaw
05-02-2007, 06:40 PM
That is what the whole article is about... How the change in rackets have made that type of swing so much easier, even possible.


It starts out fine - he talks about the lighter racquets, western grips and steeper swing paths. All correct. But his theory that the width of the racquet is responsible for changing tennis, is just wrong.

bad_call
05-02-2007, 06:52 PM
It starts out fine - he talks about the lighter racquets, western grips and steeper swing paths. All correct. But his theory that the width of the racquet is responsible for changing tennis, is just wrong.

i think width is a valid point here...from my experience hitting with a mid and a mid+.

fearless1
05-02-2007, 07:02 PM
This article was posted before, and I think it explains better than anything I've ever read how the gear has changed the game at advanced levels of play. Another poster asked me about it just now which triggered this post. I think it should be made into a sticky --> http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com...ence_inch.html

"Today's game has players grunting and screaming on every shot, calling for the towel every third shot, and launching themselves off the court with the ferocity of their strokes. The difference is obviously due to the change from wood to graphite racquets, which happened during the late 1970s and early 1980s."

If Rod is saying the ONLY reason for today's "advanced levels of play" is due only to advancements in racquet tech, I say baloney.

If Rod is saying that improvements in racquet tech is just one of many factors that has lead to today's "advanced levels of play", I'm more inclinded to agree.

He seems to be theorizing the former.

Think about it....

Federer vs Gonzo in an exhibition match, each armed with say Jack Krammer Autograph wood racquets. So, Gonzo grunts less or not at all and Federer's quickness suddenly turns to molases...NOT!

ps60
05-02-2007, 11:42 PM
is it a new article not included in the old 4?? pages book ? I've little memory about this piece.

i 've said that once, Rod's article has a lot of Opinion in it. not really research findings.

I like the analysis of racket face tilt, as show in the illustration. But mix it up with swing path, (not shown in the figure) makes it more difficult to comprehend. i'd rather see two separate analyses before combining the effect.

Everyone of us swing upwards i think. But i like to tilt my racket at times. When i am closer to the net and the ball bounces high, i hit it early (not sure if it is still on the rise) and i like to close the racket to say 35-50 degrees (not like Rod said nobody does ...) and hit with a relatively horizontal swing. the ball was bounced About horizontally and hit the ground fast, with lot of spin in it. I like to use this for high bouncing balls, or balls with lot of topspin in it. Problem is with 95" or small rackets, framer or missing the SS is frequent.

Leoboomanu
05-03-2007, 12:19 AM
A bigger head seems to be a disadvantage on volleys...
I think, there are more aspects to consider... Strings, hybrid strings, strings again... Hehehe get my point, imo strings are the most noticeable advancement in today's game... Every should just get a good 90-100in raq and practice hard with it... I've seen someone consistently topspining with a 93in prestige...

ps60
05-03-2007, 07:05 AM
No, i dun think OS is bad in volleying. it increases the successful rate, and makes it much easier. I can volley well (not Good, but clean) with 93" but i couldn't volley at all with my woodie ! No wonder i just stay on the baseline in those days.

and strings are totally Off topic here i guess

Bengt
02-20-2008, 07:38 AM
bump (for the person that was looking for this article).

I recall this info being in their book as well. "The Physics and Technology of Tennis" I believe it's called.

JediMindTrick
02-20-2008, 08:10 AM
A few more numbers:
RDX 500 mid: 9"
RDX 500 MP: 9 1/2"
Pure Storm: 9 1/2"
Pure Drive: 9 3/4"

This is just the stringbed so add another inch for the total width.

Jack & Coke
02-20-2008, 09:42 AM
What's the "widest" racquet?

(i.e. longest crosses)

sureshs
02-20-2008, 09:56 AM
What's the "widest" racquet?

(i.e. longest crosses)

The Head Microgel Extremes I think

JediMindTrick
02-20-2008, 10:07 AM
The Head Microgel Extremes I think

I thought the MG Extreme is a Pure Drive clone.

superstition
02-20-2008, 11:33 AM
There are plenty of other factors, like the change from low bouncing grass and fast concrete to slower higher bouncing courts. Slow courts give topspin an edge, and so do higher bouncing surfaces. Navratilova said the balls used to bounce lower, too, because they were less pressurized or something. Current poly string provides easier topspin production than 60s gut.

Pet
02-20-2008, 11:35 AM
Head Intelligence i.S12 10 7/8" widest point

Jack & Coke
02-20-2008, 12:01 PM
Head Intelligence i.S12 10 7/8" widest point



http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/3248/heartais126pp6.jpg


Brand: Head Intelligence i.S12

Short Desc: Unique symmetrical string pattern offers a forgiving stringbed. Lightweight power and maneuverability for short and compact swing styles. With PowerFrame technology and PowerPattern this racquet provides excellent power and control. Great choice for beginners/intermediates.

Head Size: 115 sq in / 742 sq cm

Length: 28 in / 711 mm

Unstrung Weight: 8.1 oz / 230 g

Unstrung Balance: 1 point HL / 387.5 mm

Composition: Graphite composite w/Piezzo Electric Fibers in shaft

Beam Width: 28.5 mm

Power Level: High

Stiffness: 71

Swing Type: Compact Stroke

Swing Index: S12

Swing Weight: 288

String Pattern: 14 mains / 17 crosses

Grip Type: ComforTac

String Tension: 57 - 66 lbs / 26 – 30 kg recommended



Wow that thing is a beast.. I wonder what it would be like if leaded up to 12-13 oz...

muhahaha!

Strings And Things
02-20-2008, 12:21 PM
bump (for the person that was looking for this article).

I recall this info being in their book as well. "The Physics and Technology of Tennis" I believe it's called.Hey thank. Yeah, I found the article yesterday on RSI.

Strings And Things
02-20-2008, 12:28 PM
Yeah, I personally notice a dramatic increase in spin width larger, wider sized frames as well. I would be able to safely take a bigger "cut" at the ball, and it would result in a clean power shot.

I couldn't do that to the extremes with typical mid size frames.

I am search for a mid size frame that is at least 10-11 wide at 3 & 9 o'clock. If none is available, then I'd be happy with a mid that happens to be wider than a PS 85. Sort of like a hybrid frame -- control oriented/ small head, yet wide at key location (like an infusion of tweener and player's frame).

Strings And Things
02-20-2008, 12:29 PM
(I am unable to edit my posts! ^^^)

I meant: "10-11 inches wide" BTW

retrowagen
02-20-2008, 12:40 PM
All things being equal: of course extra racket width allows potential for topspin. However, there are myriad other factors involved, noteworthy among them:

Racket weight, balance
String grid density (and, to a lesser extent, string gage/string surface friction)

I tend to think that, all things being otherwise equal, more topspin was required to effectively use larger-headed rackets back when they were developed because the longer mains and crosses (and larger, more open string grids) "trampolined" balls as a matter of course. This was the primary setback of the oversized racket; mids were thought to be a compromise. However, some extra power from the trampoline effect, if it could be controlled, was desirable to offset the loss of applied leverage on striking the ball, as the sweetspot of an Oversize was rather closer to the hand than that of a Standard (meaning effectively that the player is playing with a shorter bat).

The article makes one good point, but overlooks several others.

Strings And Things
02-20-2008, 01:12 PM
^^ Yeah, you're right about the loss of leverage when going to the extreme swing paths/face tilt. Some people do find a way to offset the extra power from big power frames by emphasizing the brush/cutting up on the ball.

As for me, I already know what I want in a frame. No need to demo all the different models, Babalot vs Head Vs Yonex etc.
I already know the weight I like, the SW I like, balance etc. The only thing left is that would just like a mid size control frame (doesn't need to be flexable, since the small string area should be enough to cut off the pace, taming the trampoline effect) that happens to be wider at 3 & 9. Imagine if a PS 85 was morphed to a teardrop shape, widening at 3-9 olclock amd very narrow at the throat/8-4 oclock. Now I think that would be my ideal frame.

Does anyone know if the ROK 93 is wider than 9-10"? How About the Yonex mids? Are the KBlade Tours wider than 9-10"?

El Guapo
02-20-2008, 02:14 PM
Yeah, I personally notice a dramatic increase in spin width larger, wider sized frames as well. I would be able to safely take a bigger "cut" at the ball, and it would result in a clean power shot.

I couldn't do that to the extremes with typical mid size frames.

I am search for a mid size frame that is at least 10-11 wide at 3 & 9 o'clock. If none is available, then I'd be happy with a mid that happens to be wider than a PS 85. Sort of like a hybrid frame -- control oriented/ small head, yet wide at key location (like an infusion of tweener and player's frame).
Have you looked at the O3 Tour MS? It might fit the bill.

Strings And Things
02-20-2008, 02:44 PM
Have you looked at the O3 Tour MS? It might fit the bill.Wow, never thought about that! Thanks! I'll look into it.

Strings And Things
02-20-2008, 02:57 PM
Just looked at Prince frames. They don't offer any mid sizes (except the old POG).

I am looking for a Mid that is wider than 9 inches towards the upper part of the hoop (3&9 or 10 & 2 areas).

I grew up being accustomed to Prostaff Mids, but my FH has evolved, therefore I moved on to midplus. I just don't see the need for a bigger head. I switch to a midplus not in need of more power, larger sweet spot, or overall surface area, but switched because of the benefits of the head being wider.

Players have been stuck with these general choices:

1) use mid, and hit flatter

2) use midplus and above, and you can take bigger cuts at the ball

I want to go back to what I am used to (the mid), but also want the benefit of being able to take a huge cut at the ball. I do not need a bigger head, but a wider head. So when I switched to the midplus, I sacrificed the controllability of the mid.

Strings And Things
02-20-2008, 03:11 PM
Have you looked at the O3 Tour MS? It might fit the bill.I see, now! Yeah, that 95" frame seems nice. I was looking at the other Prince tour. Thanks. I'll definitely look into that.

Bud
02-20-2008, 09:15 PM
The Angry Inch! :oops: :lol: