PDA

View Full Version : Experiment about mentality on these boards


dacrymn
05-02-2007, 04:54 PM
Okay, here I'm conducting an experiment. In this case, I wouldn't worry so much about 'acting normally' for this, because in all likelihood you all will anyway. But, just in case, please do so. It's not really important, but I feel i have to know this. *NO THIS IS NOT A DISGUISE TO GET YOU GUYS TO READ MY POST. YOU'LL UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS MEANS AFTER YOU READ THE EXPERIMENTAL PART*

Okay, suppose I didn't like my racket anymore, or thought I needed a better one. Regardless, the racket is supposed to accommodate improvement, not just a better racket. In other words, the person in question (me) has improved, and can no longer use their racket effectively. Take that as you will.
Now, pretend I am around 4.0, or slightly higher. I have a 2HBH, takes large loopy swings, relies on spin greatly, especially on serve. Control is a larger priority than power. As for preference in feel, it doesn't really matter. Game Style: "Hit it where they ain't." This player is still developing his "game sense," and all he can really do right now is hit left, right, left, etc, and occasionally throw in an unexpected shot. This would imply that variety is also important. Take that how you will as well.

Now, after you've read this and chosen a racket, tell WHY you chose this racket, MOSTLY IN TERMS OF PERFORMANCE. Feel is always a factor of course, but in this case, it doesn't matter. If you could, please also include EASE OF USE.

Lastly, tell whether you own this racket or not.
Thanks for you help everyone
________
Chevrolet Suburban specifications (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Chevrolet_Suburban)

Voltron
05-02-2007, 05:03 PM
I would recommend the TF T-Fight series, the weight would be based on what you can handle. I like the fact that they have control, but also power. They are easy to use, and preform well. The feel is nice, and spin is easy to generate. By the way, I don't own any of these frames. The only downside is that the sweet spot isn't bigger than my RDS (it's still large though) and even the 335 is a little on the light side. Also, if you didn't like that, I would try to suggest a different racquet based on your experience with the T-Fight series.

dacrymn
05-02-2007, 08:00 PM
hm... Thanks Voltron.
Well, I was hoping to get more responses on that. So, essentially, this is a bump.
________
Ford Discovery Centre picture (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Discovery_Centre)

Noveson
05-02-2007, 08:04 PM
hm... Thanks Voltron.
Well, I was hoping to get more responses on that. So, essentially, this is a bump.

No one wants to give a bad recommendation;)

Voltron
05-02-2007, 08:16 PM
hm... Thanks Voltron.
Well, I was hoping to get more responses on that. So, essentially, this is a bump.
You're welcome, I'm happy to participate in this kind of thing.
No one wants to give a bad recommendation;)
Very true, and probably what is scaring off others. Why don't you give one then?

Noveson
05-02-2007, 08:24 PM
You're welcome, I'm happy to participate in this kind of thing.

Very true, and probably what is scaring off others. Why don't you give one then?

Haha you are right Voltron, I shouldn't be talking. Anyway one of my first thoughts was the Pure Storm, but disregared that because of your emphasis on control. Something I would look at would be the Aerogel 500 Tour, hits very good spin, is heavy enough for a 4.0, and still manages to be control oriented. Also many Yonex's are more control oriented spin racquets(instead of Babolats focus on power and spin) so anything from the 001 MP to the 002 could fit that bill, depending on how much power or weight you need.

Wilson6-1
05-02-2007, 09:33 PM
Okay, here I'm conducting an experiment. In this case, I wouldn't worry so much about 'acting normally' for this, because in all likelihood you all will anyway. But, just in case, please do so. It's not really important, but I feel i have to know this. *NO THIS IS NOT A DISGUISE TO GET YOU GUYS TO READ MY POST. YOU'LL UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS MEANS AFTER YOU READ THE EXPERIMENTAL PART*

Okay, suppose I didn't like my racket anymore, or thought I needed a better one. Regardless, the racket is supposed to accommodate improvement, not just a better racket. In other words, the person in question (me) has improved, and can no longer use their racket effectively. Take that as you will.
Now, pretend I am around 4.0, or slightly higher. I have a 2HBH, takes large loopy swings, relies on spin greatly, especially on serve. Control is a larger priority than power. As for preference in feel, it doesn't really matter. Game Style: "Hit it where they ain't." This player is still developing his "game sense," and all he can really do right now is hit left, right, left, etc, and occasionally throw in an unexpected shot. This would imply that variety is also important. Take that how you will as well.

Now, after you've read this and chosen a racket, tell WHY you chose this racket, MOSTLY IN TERMS OF PERFORMANCE. Feel is always a factor of course, but in this case, it doesn't matter. If you could, please also include EASE OF USE.

Lastly, tell whether you own this racket or not.
Thanks for you help everyone

I would recommend the Head MicroGEL Extreme. Headsize is 100" but has a wider head which provides for more spin and a better 2hbh. The racquet has decent weight and a solid feel. The size and stiffness will provide solid control with ample power. For serving, it is better suited for spin than power, which fits your game, and its heft will allow you to volley when necessary.

Overall, it should be a good choice, certainly for demo.

I don't own this racquet as it doesn't fit my style as well as my racquet. I play a Wilson ncode nSix-one 95.

Bottle Rocket
05-02-2007, 10:09 PM
You're a 4.0 asking for a good all-around racket and don't need a racket made for power. How is this any different than the 100's of other threads asking the same thing without it being an "experiment"?

Since you asked if people own the racket they recommended, you might have ruined your exeriment. People will be careful... I mean, look at Voltron. He tried not to bring up his Yonex!

With that said, I recommend the Fischer M Speed Pro #1. It is vairly low powered, comfortable, extremely manueverable, and versatile. Besides pure baseline power tennis, it seems to suit all styles fairly well. I have owned one.

The Yonex RDS is another nice one, but it is stiffer. It is a little less manueverable, possibly a little more powerful. It is well suited to most styles as well. I've also owned one of these.

Neither are inherently strong serving rackets.

If you like lighter rackets, the MFil 300 is nice. It is a great stick at net and has good feedback. In this range of rackets, the Pure Storm is also nice. I've owned both of these as well. I try to hit with most of the popular rackets, just for fun.

You're going to get just as many recommendations as there are replies, just like all the other threads asking this question.

dacrymn
05-03-2007, 01:58 PM
Okay well that's true Bottle Rocket. Essentially, the purpose of this threat was actually to see if people like Drakulie and NickB or something who would recommend the k90 or other things along those lines. Doubtlessly, they would have recommended it due to "amazing pinpoint control and insane spin" or whatever. You find these reviews, who just say "this is possible of this racket." Unfortunately, i found that this was not true. I wanted to see how many people would recommend the POTENTIAL of a racket, one that is probably unachievable in realistic conditions. A prime example would be the PDR. People here say it's way too powerful, and it hurts your arm. Well i finally tried it out yesterday, and I found out that yes, it was really powerful. However, if you just swing freely and use spin, the power could be turned into something useful. So what do poster's use as a reference? No doubt other people on this board, unless they own it, thus my request that you include whether you own it or not. My conclusion from OTHER recommendations from other recommendation posts (sorry guys, I couldn't really draw a conclusion from just the posts in the thread), is that the first person who says something about a racket has given it a permanent title. They talk about it to people, who then pass it on, etc. Thus, it's actually just a circle of actually one opinion. Unfortunately, I think the people that say the rackets that are difficult to use are RESPECTED. that's the key word there.
People think that they're good, and listen to their advice. Even if they don't like it, they'll say so, but they'll still recommend it to someone who they THINK would like it. Basically, to make all of this short, I think it's not what racket that fits you: YOU HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO USE IT. That's why some people like the Pure Drive and others hate it: it's followers know how to use it. It's all about the mentality of the player and use the tool he has in his hand. People here are saying too much of "it can do this, and it can do that." Question is, do you KNOW how? This is different from whether you CAN or not.
________
XBR500 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Honda_XBR500)

johncauthen
05-03-2007, 02:14 PM
dacrymn, in your draconian post you mentioned only one racquet, the Pure Drive Roddick. I have some set-in-stone opinions about racquets, and if I were to recommend any off-the-shelf racquet to someone, the PDR or any Babolat Coretex racquets are the only racquets I would recommend.

They are the only racquets with weight added to the top of the handle. The Coretex is a weight at the top of the handle, and racquets set up with that kind of weight hit much better. There is no question. It's not even a contest.

little_e
05-03-2007, 02:24 PM
Vokl DNX 10 Mid I don't know why.

nickb
05-03-2007, 02:24 PM
Okay well that's true Bottle Rocket. Essentially, the purpose of this threat was actually to see if people like Drakulie and NickB or something who would recommend the k90 or other things along those lines. Doubtlessly, they would have recommended it due to "amazing pinpoint control and insane spin" or whatever.

I wouldnt reccomend the k90 to a 4.0, although if a 4.0 likes the racquet and feels comfortable with it then id say go ahead and play with it. The are other people who seem to constantly reccomend volkls and the PS 85 but they dont get flamed for it.

As for a racquet I would reccomend the pure control...good spin, enough control, and suits 2 handed backhand baseliners very well. It is also a great all court racquet and volleys/serves very well which means it is versitile in any situation. Headsize not to big and not too small. Its a great racquet and one that you can grow with. Yes I do own this racquet....

PS- Please dont bring my name up trying to single me out on this board as you know of many people who reccomend their racquets countless numbers of times to the point of being ridiculous.

Amone
05-03-2007, 03:06 PM
I would reccomend... hmm... I think I would reccomend the AeroPro Control+. In fact, I did, though the player was not 4.0 level (as far as I can tell). I used that frame, but I didn't like it.

johncauthen
05-03-2007, 03:21 PM
The Control was the original Babolat AeroPro. They didn't like it either, so they changed it to the Drive by adding more weight in the head. Then it worked.

The AeroPro Drive with Coretex has weight added to the top of the handle, and it works even better.

There is only one racquet that works. You can't recommend what you don't like! If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for anyone. In the 70's and 80's the one racquet was the Prince Pro. Everything was a copy of the Prince Pro. Today, soon, everything will be a copy of upper handle weighted racquets like the Coretex racquets.

Hmm, here is a Prince Pro with upper handle weighting from 1987!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/JohnCauthen/PICT0019-1.jpg

katastrof
05-03-2007, 04:23 PM
There is only one racquet that works. You can't recommend what you don't like! If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for anyone. In the 70's and 80's the one racquet was the Prince Pro. Everything was a copy of the Prince Pro. Today, soon, everything will be a copy of upper handle weighted racquets like the Coretex racquets.

What the .... ? Is this a joke?

Doc Hollidae
05-03-2007, 04:26 PM
What the .... ? Is this a joke?

LOL. When I first joined the board I read responses about John's posts, but never really read any of his actual posts. After reading them, each post gets funnier and funnier and more and more outlandish. I understand his theory and all, but the way he presents it makes for some great forum entertainment.

johncauthen
05-03-2007, 04:28 PM
The top pros have used upper handle weighted racquets since 1988 when I showed the concept to Wilson. Edberg won Wimbledon with it in 1988, four months after I showed it to Wilson, then Sampras and Courier got it.

Now it's Babolat technology and Nadal is using it. He's #1 in the race this year. And dacrymn likes it in a draconian way. Is that a joke?

Photographic evidence doesn't lie: there is a 1987 racquet with something just like Coretex added to it.

Bottle Rocket
05-03-2007, 04:46 PM
dacrymn,

I think I sort of see your point.

I also think that people on this board need to realize what's going on. They need to realize things like exaggeration, rumors, spreading false information, and pure dishonesty are common on forums. I think most people around here do understand that... Maybe not the kids in middle school?

The talk and obsession with massive rackets around here bothers me a little bit. I am amazed how many people are actually using 13 ounce sticks. I am also amazed how many people are playing "the best tennis of their lives" with 85 inch frames with swingweights of 370.

This board does not represent the way things are out on a tennis court. People claiming that new rackets coming out are making them "paint the lines" and all that just don't hold much water to me. After a point the difference racket's make as a whole is completely blown out of proportion around here.

I am yet again completely rambling on about nothing...

johncauthen,

I find your posts extremely interesting.

I've owned a PD as well as a PD with Cortex. The way it felt and the way I understand it, the cortex "thing" is fairly insignificant. There was no different in weight distribution as far as I could tell. With that said, the PDR is one of my favorites.

I would be really curious if there was some blind testing done with rackets of the same weight and swingweight with different distributions of weight. Would people really choose the racket with weight in the top of the handle?

In some ways your weighting technique is a contradiction to travelrjm's. Both of you claim the pro's are doing it your way. Actually, both of you claim the pro's at the top of the game are using your weighting.

With that said, the pictures of the Tommy Haas racket had a weight just like you describe. I've never seen a racket with loads of lead around the hoop. Most pro's clearly have lead at 3 and 9.

OK... I've destroyed this thread now... Sorry!

Wilson6-1
05-03-2007, 07:54 PM
Thought this thread was going to be somewhat interesting, but I was wrong. A strange request with the promise of some experiment, followed by a couple of responses and questions, followed by a "holier-than-thou" rant proclaiming the Babolat the best racquet, and finally, followed by a strange post about a 20 year old racquet that was the father of all good racquets. Strange.

Alafter
05-03-2007, 08:51 PM
You must try the GAMMA BIG BUBBA! IT's the only Racquet for you!

tennis_nerd22
05-04-2007, 12:22 PM
Thought this thread was going to be somewhat interesting, but I was wrong. A strange request with the promise of some experiment, followed by a couple of responses and questions, followed by a "holier-than-thou" rant proclaiming the Babolat the best racquet, and finally, followed by a strange post about a 20 year old racquet that was the father of all good racquets. Strange.

Wilson6-1: and after all that, we finally get to this:

You must try the GAMMA BIG BUBBA! IT's the only Racquet for you!

... the best racket in tennis history ! ! ! :D

dacrymn
05-04-2007, 03:20 PM
Thought this thread was going to be somewhat interesting, but I was wrong. A strange request with the promise of some experiment, followed by a couple of responses and questions, followed by a "holier-than-thou" rant proclaiming the Babolat the best racquet, and finally, followed by a strange post about a 20 year old racquet that was the father of all good racquets. Strange.

Fair enough. One thing though, is that I think you misread my explanation. I did not say the PDR was the best racket, it was just a good example for my point. If you think about it, what's the general concensus on these boards about that specific racket? You should come up w/ "Oh wow it's way too powerful can't control it it's killing my arm." Yet, why do you think it was designed that way? The egos on this board want to say that they're "too good" for it (people who have arm problems don't count), and the ones who say otherwise are ridiculed to a certain extent. I also used it because I actually got a chance to hit with it, unlike other rackets I could have used as an example.
Basically, what is the father of these assumptions? For racket's like the K90 (okay sorry NickB. I didn't mean to single you out, but your name was the first to pop in my head due to your dedication to the K90. You have to admit though, unconciously, you have been instilling in people's mind that it is a great racket. This is mostly the reader's fault, whom they have no one else to compare themselves to), it's obviously the fact that Federer uses it, and that it possesses characteristics that is believed to give control and be an "advanced" weapon. I'm saying that all of these stereotypes given to certain rackets comes from either people wanting to make themselves feel impressive (I'm certainly NOT pointing any fingers. I realize some people really do use these well--i've seen one in person) or certain stats, like headsize or weight. In short, everything is designed for a reason, and, if you can harness/use what it's designed for, you can unleash what it's designed for. That's not saying there's a CERTAIN way to do it, it's just that people here say it can do something, but not HOW. I just wanted to emphasize USER more than EQUIPMENT, which I find is much, much more important.
*Sorry for the rant and anything else*
________
drugtest (http://drugtestingkit.org)