PDA

View Full Version : Why more 5.0s use midsize than pros?


Heavy Metal Tennis Star
10-19-2007, 08:14 PM
matter of fact, i see mroe 4.0-5.0 use the ncode 90 tour and kfactor 90 than pos, why is that?

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-19-2007, 09:05 PM
Why do you think that is? Do you have a theory?

NLBwell
10-19-2007, 09:08 PM
Because many are older than the pros and learned their game with smaller headsized rackets. I have tried to switch and couldn't - I'm back to my Kennex Black Ace with 86" headsize.

Steve Huff
10-19-2007, 09:26 PM
I think there's a lot of truth to that. With "today's game" of heavy topspin, the smaller the head size, the greater the disadvantage (when it comes to hitting the string and not hitting frame).

Plus, pro's play for money. Club players often play with what they think will make them a better player. Truthfully, I really don't know what percent or 5.0 players use midsize frames. I've only seen a few.

kalic
10-19-2007, 09:43 PM
Older players learned tennis with midsizes, and that's ok.Young are just Fed-fans, and think that racquet is key of his amazing strokes (they even don't know that Fed never uses n90 and k90, that's paintjobs).

AndrewD
10-19-2007, 10:16 PM
Not saying this is the main reason but I do believe one factor to consider is that ,at the levels below 5.0, people tend to play a flatter (lower bouncing) game whereas at the 5.0+ level they tend to play with more and much heavier (heavier doesn't mean loopy) topspin. Tougher to counter that high bouncing, heavy top with a midsize but not as tough when dealing with a flatter, lower ball.

Again, I'm not saying that's the sole reason, just something to consider.

BreakPoint
10-19-2007, 11:39 PM
Because many are older than the pros and learned their game with smaller headsized rackets. I have tried to switch and couldn't - I'm back to my Kennex Black Ace with 86" headsize.

Not saying this is the main reason but I do believe one factor to consider is that ,at the levels below 5.0, people tend to play a flatter (lower bouncing) game whereas at the 5.0+ level they tend to play with more and much heavier (heavier doesn't mean loopy) topspin. Tougher to counter that high bouncing, heavy top with a midsize but not as tough when dealing with a flatter, lower ball.

Again, I'm not saying that's the sole reason, just something to consider.
I totally agree with both comments.

keithchircop
10-20-2007, 12:54 AM
at the levels below 5.0, people tend to play a flatter (lower bouncing) game whereas at the 5.0+ level they tend to play with more and much heavier (heavier doesn't mean loopy) topspin. Tougher to counter that high bouncing, heavy top with a midsize but not as tough when dealing with a flatter, lower ball.

Exactamundo.

That's why it is possible to improve your game AND be competitive with a mid especially at 4.0 and under. At those levels, how often will you meet someone whose balls will bounce heavy, penetrate ten feet till your shoulder height on hard-courts? At 3.5 and below, you'll meet players with late preparation, swinging off their back leg - no wonder they need 10oz sticks to generate some power and hit the ball over the net. And so many people on these boards believe you're doomed to be a 2.5 forever unless you use an OS.

Here's the difference between a 90 and a 107:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2079/1762209702_81c094160a.jpg

{sarcasm}No way a 3.0 can advance with a mid...{/sarcasm}

galatti
10-20-2007, 02:58 AM
matter of fact, i see mroe 4.0-5.0 use the ncode 90 tour and kfactor 90 than pos, why is that?

There is the Federer Factor for sure. Many will deny though ;)

Duzza
10-20-2007, 03:07 AM
It's because a lot of people are delusional about their ability.

keithchircop
10-20-2007, 03:07 AM
There is the Federer Factor for sure. Many will deny though ;)

If they're 4.0-5.0 they've probably been playing since before Federer won a slam.

three eights
10-20-2007, 05:54 AM
Exactamundo.


No way a 3.0 can advance with a mid...



That is just silly...

NoBadMojo
10-20-2007, 06:15 AM
matter of fact, i see mroe 4.0-5.0 use the ncode 90 tour and kfactor 90 than pos, why is that?

you could expand this to also say that 'more 3.5's use the k90 frame than 5.0's'


the reverseness of racquet selection

bubbatex
10-20-2007, 06:41 AM
Not to hijack either - but as an old guy coming back to the game, I certainly want an advantage. I have a 110 now, but it is too stiff for my arm. If you take the common recommendations that I have read here - I am looking for a flexible racket with the most weight I can swing comfortably. Most rackets I find that meet those specs are around 95-100.

I have just embarked on this quest and I could be wrong - but that is just the way it seems right now to me. The bigger the head, the lighter the racket and an older arm could use more weight thus you have to choose a smaller head.

10sfreak
10-20-2007, 07:12 AM
Not to hijack either - but as an old guy coming back to the game, I certainly want an advantage. I have a 110 now, but it is too stiff for my arm. If you take the common recommendations that I have read here - I am looking for a flexible racket with the most weight I can swing comfortably. Most rackets I find that meet those specs are around 95-100.

I have just embarked on this quest and I could be wrong - but that is just the way it seems right now to me. The bigger the head, the lighter the racket and an older arm could use more weight thus you have to choose a smaller head.
Bubbatex, have you tried the POG OS? Very arm-friendly, 107 in., around 12 oz. Wish I hadn't sold mine years ago...:-(

bubbatex
10-20-2007, 07:15 AM
Bubbatex, have you tried the POG OS? Very arm-friendly, 107 in., around 12 oz. Wish I hadn't sold mine years ago...:-(

OK, I will show my ignorance now - what is a "POG"? Prince? I have all of the other acronyms figured out but that one! Thanks.

hjminard
10-20-2007, 07:22 AM
OK, I will show my ignorance now - what is a "POG"? Prince? I have all of the other acronyms figured out but that one! Thanks.

Prince Original Graphite

bubbatex
10-20-2007, 07:23 AM
Ah, thanks - I was in the family!

keithchircop
10-20-2007, 08:01 AM
That is just silly...

Check your sarcasm meter.

keithchircop
10-20-2007, 08:19 AM
you could expand this to also say that 'more 3.5's use the k90 frame than 5.0's'

That means a lot of players reached 3.5 using mids, which is something some people around here deem impossible.

Yonex.
10-20-2007, 08:23 AM
*I am a 4.0, serve and volley. Sometimes baselines, and I use a PS85 Taiwanese. I play better with a 80s in. racquet than a oversize. It is kind of hard to believe your theory's.

NoBadMojo
10-20-2007, 08:51 AM
That means a lot of players reached 3.5 using mids, which is something some people around here deem impossible.

right..they get to the 3.5's and are forever stuck there stuffed <in part> by their bad choice in gear. lots of people also say they use a mid sized frame because anything larger is just too powerful. it's very easy to hit most any racquet long..just takes a bit of bad technique. they hit more balls in the court with their midsize frame with their bad technique so I guess that does give them better control in an odd sort of way

the reverseness of racquet selection

Glorious
10-20-2007, 09:13 AM
It's all about what makes you feel most comfortable and allows you to play your best tennis. If you prefer a 90 or an 85, then go for it. If you prefer a racket 95 or greater then use that.

-Mark

sureshs
10-20-2007, 09:20 AM
I think there's a lot of truth to that. With "today's game" of heavy topspin, the smaller the head size, the greater the disadvantage (when it comes to hitting the string and not hitting frame).

Plus, pro's play for money. Club players often play with what they think will make them a better player. Truthfully, I really don't know what percent or 5.0 players use midsize frames. I've only seen a few.

Not saying this is the main reason but I do believe one factor to consider is that ,at the levels below 5.0, people tend to play a flatter (lower bouncing) game whereas at the 5.0+ level they tend to play with more and much heavier (heavier doesn't mean loopy) topspin. Tougher to counter that high bouncing, heavy top with a midsize but not as tough when dealing with a flatter, lower ball.

Again, I'm not saying that's the sole reason, just something to consider.

The comment about hitting the string and not hitting the frame was hilarious! Don't tell that to those who believe that going from a 90 to 95 will not matter at all in this respect.

Today, even physically short and undeveloped juniors who take lessons regularly can hit a high bouncing top spin from either wing. Granted they are not Nadals, but I have seen adults struggle with their 1 handed backhand trying to return this. A bigger head gives you much more stability when taking this kind of ball, which is curving higher and away.

bluegrasser
10-20-2007, 09:24 AM
Not to hijack either - but as an old guy coming back to the game, I certainly want an advantage. I have a 110 now, but it is too stiff for my arm. If you take the common recommendations that I have read here - I am looking for a flexible racket with the most weight I can swing comfortably. Most rackets I find that meet those specs are around 95-100.

I have just embarked on this quest and I could be wrong - but that is just the way it seems right now to me. The bigger the head, the lighter the racket and an older arm could use more weight thus you have to choose a smaller head.

Radical or Prestige IMO...

dacrymn
10-20-2007, 09:25 AM
Just putting it out there, but age does not necessarily mean skill. Just pointing that out, as many of you are making that allusion.

keithchircop
10-20-2007, 10:00 AM
it's very easy to hit most any racquet long..just takes a bit of bad technique. they hit more balls in the court with their midsize frame with their bad technique

Or maybe they can keep the ball in with an nBlade 106 but don't want to turn themselves into topspin monkeys.

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-20-2007, 10:15 AM
I knew that the thread would turn into an indictment of players who use mid sized racquets as posuers. Some players prefer to use sticks with small heads. Many more prefer mid plus frames which range betwee 95 and 100 inches.

Most of the 4.0 to 5.0 players that I know in South Florida use mid plus racquets. I use an old Prestige. I chose what works best for me.

My point is that it is an illusion that so many 4.0 to 5.0 players use small head sizes. It seems like many players are using mid sized frames because they tend to be a vocal group on these forums.

I don't know too many people who use mid sized frames, so I welcome the opportunity to have discussions with like minded people on the web.

couch
10-20-2007, 10:19 AM
I knew that the thread would turn into an indictment of players who use mid sized racquets as posuers. Some players prefer to use sticks with small heads. Many more prefer mid plus frames which range betwee 95 and 100 inches.

Most of the 4.0 to 5.0 players that I know in South Florida use mid plus racquets. I use an old Prestige. I chose what works best for me.

My point is that it is an illusion that so many 4.0 to 5.0 players use small head sizes. It seems like many players are using mid sized frames because they tend to be a vocal group on these forums.

I don't know too many people who use mid sized frames, so I welcome the opportunity to have discussions with like minded people on the web.

Definitely agree.

cys19
10-20-2007, 10:23 AM
I haven't tried many racquets, but I get a general impression that mid-sized frames tend to have thin beams, which translates into more feel. I first noticed this when I demoed the LM Prestige Mid. Could it be that these mid-sized players prefer feel over spin?

NoBadMojo
10-20-2007, 10:53 AM
. an older arm could use more weight thus you have to choose a smaller head.

Perhaps you've been drinking the TW forum KoolAid. Older arms usually benefit from lightrer racquets not heavier racquets as older arms typically cant handle the higher swingweights of most midsized frames, nor do they generate the power they used to and can benefit from something lighter and stiffer..midsized frames are often heavier frames. Also midsized frames have smaller sweetzones and miss hitting with a racquet is never very good for an older arm...or any arm for that matter

There are comfortable frames with larger heads

If you know what your ideal swingweight range is and what headsize you can typically reliabnly hit the sweetzone on, most everything else can take care of itself and racquet selection isnt so confusing and difficult

bubbatex
10-20-2007, 11:04 AM
Radical or Prestige IMO...

Thanks blue - I am on a Radical OS demo now. BTW - the SP Black felt way too light to me.

bubbatex
10-20-2007, 11:09 AM
Perhaps you've been drinking the TW forum KoolAid. Older arms usually benefit from lightrer racquets not heavier racquets as older arms typically cant handle the higher swingweights of most midsized frames, nor do they generate the power they used to and can benefit from something lighter and stiffer..midsized frames are often heavier frames. Also midsized frames have smaller sweetzones and miss hitting with a racquet is never very good for an older arm...or any arm for that matter

There are comfortable frames with larger heads

If you know what your ideal swingweight range is and what headsize you can typically reliabnly hit the sweetzone on, most everything else can take care of itself and racquet selection isnt so confusing and difficult

Yep, I was on that koolaide......but, for me that scenario makes sense. I can't swing a lighter stick as good as I can a heavier one. My problem is I have not been playing long enough (again) to figure out exactly what my idea weight is. Gotta swing more sticks!

sureshs
10-20-2007, 11:11 AM
Not to hijack either - but as an old guy coming back to the game, I certainly want an advantage. I have a 110 now, but it is too stiff for my arm. If you take the common recommendations that I have read here - I am looking for a flexible racket with the most weight I can swing comfortably. Most rackets I find that meet those specs are around 95-100.

I have just embarked on this quest and I could be wrong - but that is just the way it seems right now to me. The bigger the head, the lighter the racket and an older arm could use more weight thus you have to choose a smaller head.

Definitely don't go for more than 100 and less than 11 oz strung. Otherwise you will become another old guy wearing an elbow brace and icing all the time.

drakulie
10-20-2007, 11:36 AM
I just attended the United States Clay Court Championships for 45's. This was 128 draw. I saw only one guy using a frame larger than 100 square inches. Most of these guys were using 90-98 square inch frames. >>> On clay of all things (oh my!). Most of these guys are 5.0 plus players with a few ex ATP pros.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=161872

By the way, for the poster who said 3.5 players are stuck at 3.5 because of their frame selection>>> buy a clue. They are stuck at 3.5 because they don't want to improve>>> not because of their frame selection. If that is the case, how do you explain so many 3.5 players using big bubbas who are stuck at 3.5??

ps: Only two Volkls. :)

bubbatex
10-20-2007, 11:51 AM
Definitely don't go for more than 100 and less than 11 oz strung. Otherwise you will become another old guy wearing an elbow brace and icing all the time.

I am already that guy! Does this not contradict what Mojo said above? However, those numbers are in line with my "comfort zone".

NoBadMojo
10-20-2007, 12:04 PM
I just attended the United States Clay Court Championships for 45's. This was 128 draw. I saw only one guy using a frame larger than 100 square inches. Most of these guys were using 90-98 square inch frames. >>> On clay of all things (oh my!). Most of these guys are 5.0 plus players with a few ex ATP pros.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=161872

By the way, for the poster who said 3.5 players are stuck at 3.5 because of their frame selection>>> buy a clue. They are stuck at 3.5 because they don't want to improve>>> not because of their frame selection. If that is the case, how do you explain so many 3.5 players using big bubbas who are stuck at 3.5??

ps: Only two Volkls. :)

your post doesnt make any sense and isnt relevant to this particular discussion.


.........................

WChiang
10-20-2007, 12:34 PM
I just attended the United States Clay Court Championships for 45's. This was 128 draw. I saw only one guy using a frame larger than 100 square inches. Most of these guys were using 90-98 square inch frames. >>> On clay of all things (oh my!). Most of these guys are 5.0 plus players with a few ex ATP pros.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=161872

By the way, for the poster who said 3.5 players are stuck at 3.5 because of their frame selection>>> buy a clue. They are stuck at 3.5 because they don't want to improve>>> not because of their frame selection. If that is the case, how do you explain so many 3.5 players using big bubbas who are stuck at 3.5??

ps: Only two Volkls. :)

Good points. (Yours is a great thread with the pics/videos btw, drakulie, thanks)

The frame size fixation by some on the board has become laughable and is bad information. Many players as they get older stay with their heavier frames and avoid arm injury by not making a switch to lighter and often stiffer racquets. I also attend many Open level tournaments (and over 45/50 events) and numerous players use 90 and 95 racquets. This is fact and to ignore it and say otherwise is foolish. Of course there are 98 frames too and a few 100's. ITS NOT A BIG DEAL. I thought this head size stalking had disappeared, LOL. (Of course I rarely see Volkls too, drak, ;) ..)

Cervantes
10-20-2007, 12:37 PM
My coaches always said that the pros have such developed power in their technique, they're always looking for control. Having said this, Sampras, I understand, used a small, stiff frame for control, weighted up for power. So figgur...

quest01
10-20-2007, 12:38 PM
There are hardly any pros that use a 90 sq inch racket. Federer used a 90, Hewitt used to use a 90 and someone on the WTA tour uses a 90. (I dont remember her name) I dont even know any club players and people that i play against that use a 90. The only people i have seen use 90s are traditionalists and Federer fanboys.

BreakPoint
10-20-2007, 12:43 PM
r they hit more balls in the court with their midsize frame with their bad technique so I guess that does give them better control in an odd sort of way

But guess what? Hitting more balls in at any level below 5.0 usually means winning the match.

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-20-2007, 12:47 PM
I think the premise of the thread is flawed. It's unlikely that more 4.0 - 5.0 players use mid sized frames than the pros, it just seems that way because like minded people discuss their frames on these boards.

BreakPoint
10-20-2007, 12:47 PM
Older arms usually benefit from lightrer racquets not heavier racquets as older arms typically cant handle the higher swingweights of most midsized frames, nor do they generate the power they used to and can benefit from something lighter and stiffer..midsized frames are often heavier frames.
"Lighter and stiffer" also usually equals tennis elbow for older players with old arms and tendons.

NoBadMojo
10-20-2007, 12:53 PM
There are hardly any pros that use a 90 sq inch racket. Federer used a 90, Hewitt used to use a 90 and someone on the WTA tour uses a 90. (I dont remember her name) I dont even know any club players and people that i play against that use a 90. The only people i have seen use 90s are traditionalists and Federer fanboys.

Right..in the real world <the non TW Forum world>, midsized frames are rarely even discussed other than as a trip down memory lane...they're pretty much a non factor. Lots more oversized frames being used at the club level than mids for sure. Lots more club level players posting on the forum than 5.0's. Point of fact is that there isnt a single thing a midsized frame does that cant be done with a larger/more realistic headsize and you lose the disadvantages of a mid in the process. Thankfully, I havent had to give a midsized lesson in about 6 years. This forum just isnt very indicative of the real world. There are some other players on the ATP using a mid..players like Safin, but noteworthy is the fact that these players rankings have slipped. of course the reverseness of racquet selection rule always applies

people are sure free to use whatever they like and for whatever reasons they like, but what is bad, is the bad info parsed on this forum by the midsized zealots <some of whom wont even acknowledge things like Hewitt actually making the move to a MP headsize>. these people are the ones who flip things around saying that those of us who actually know what we are talking about are the ones causing the trouble around here when they are the ones misdirecting people who come here looking for decent advise and attacking people for giving good advice

vkartikv
10-20-2007, 12:55 PM
One of my hitting partners switched from an i.radical MP to a k90. He is a solid 4.5 but his game has suffered since the change. It's been over 10 weeks and he is still suffering from pain in his wrist and balls landing very short on the court. You would think 10 weeks is more than enough to settle into your groove with a racquet. He changed purely because Federer uses it and he wants his game to mirror Federer's.

I, on the other hand took all the advice on this board with a pinch of salt and moved from the PS 85 to a more forgiving and spin-handling 200G, albeit with a denser string pattern. Is my game better? Definitely. Would I go back to a mid? Certainly not - why change a winning formula that's comfortable and full of fun (which is what rec players look for)? Did I do the right thing? I didn't by using an 85 which was not suited for my level of play but am certainly moving in the right direction by using a bigger head that helps me handle those college kids' extreme topspin better.

NoBadMojo
10-20-2007, 01:14 PM
One of my hitting partners switched from an i.radical MP to a k90. He is a solid 4.5 but his game has suffered since the change. It's been over 10 weeks and he is still suffering from pain in his wrist and balls landing very short on the court. You would think 10 weeks is more than enough to settle into your groove with a racquet. He changed purely because Federer uses it and he wants his game to mirror Federer's.

I, on the other hand took all the advice on this board with a pinch of salt and moved from the PS 85 to a more forgiving and spin-handling 200G, albeit with a denser string pattern. Is my game better? Definitely. Would I go back to a mid? Certainly not - why change a winning formula that's comfortable and full of fun (which is what rec players look for)? Did I do the right thing? I didn't by using an 85 which was not suited for my level of play but am certainly moving in the right direction by using a bigger head that helps me handle those college kids' extreme topspin better.

now we're getting some real world practical applications. along the same lines, one of my regular hits <a 5.0 at the time> changed to the n90 and since then his level of play has also eroded. he is the ideal candidate for this frame..very strong and very grooved flatter strokes and mild grips and plays at least 4 times a week. he's too stubborn to change back to something reasonable. i wish he would as he's not much of a challenge for me anymore. i am sure things like this will get flipped right around it will be said that some players games have improved since making the change to a mid, but that is much less likely and far more rare and the trend is quite clearly the other direction.

beyond my n90 friend, i have hit with a small handful of mid users over the past 5 years. one is a 3.5 teaching pro who was using an iPrestigeMid but who has moved on to a MP, another played the singles draw at Wimbledon and WAS swinging PMacs frame at the time..i am hard pressed to think of others at the moment. this was by playing at/teaching at resorts where people visit from all over the world. almost hit with the venerable Craig Clark but he chickened out <teasing>....or am I?????? ;O

I bet there are pockets where midsized frames are being used...that doesnt mean the people have made a good choice in choosing the mid frame. yes, i know the k90 may be a TW best seller, but again, that doesnt mean the people buying these frames have made a good choice...kFactor often = FedFactor

sureshs
10-20-2007, 01:26 PM
I just attended the United States Clay Court Championships for 45's. This was 128 draw. I saw only one guy using a frame larger than 100 square inches. Most of these guys were using 90-98 square inch frames. >>> On clay of all things (oh my!). Most of these guys are 5.0 plus players with a few ex ATP pros.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=161872

By the way, for the poster who said 3.5 players are stuck at 3.5 because of their frame selection>>> buy a clue. They are stuck at 3.5 because they don't want to improve>>> not because of their frame selection. If that is the case, how do you explain so many 3.5 players using big bubbas who are stuck at 3.5??

ps: Only two Volkls. :)

Didn't you mention in the other thread that the lone guy with the big Bubba defeated the Volkl guy?

sureshs
10-20-2007, 01:27 PM
I am already that guy! Does this not contradict what Mojo said above? However, those numbers are in line with my "comfort zone".

No it doesn't. Avoid the extremes of too demanding player's sticks and the grandpa sticks.

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-20-2007, 01:31 PM
One of my hitting partners switched from an i.radical MP to a k90. He is a solid 4.5 but his game has suffered since the change. It's been over 10 weeks and he is still suffering from pain in his wrist and balls landing very short on the court. You would think 10 weeks is more than enough to settle into your groove with a racquet. He changed purely because Federer uses it and he wants his game to mirror Federer's.

I, on the other hand took all the advice on this board with a pinch of salt and moved from the PS 85 to a more forgiving and spin-handling 200G, albeit with a denser string pattern. Is my game better? Definitely. Would I go back to a mid? Certainly not - why change a winning formula that's comfortable and full of fun (which is what rec players look for)? Did I do the right thing? I didn't by using an 85 which was not suited for my level of play but am certainly moving in the right direction by using a bigger head that helps me handle those college kids' extreme topspin better.

It's tough to extrapolate the reason for his decline in performance because there are so many different factors that go into a racquet. Yes, the difference may have been the smaller head size, but it may also have been the change in stiffness, string pattern, beam size, static weight, swing weight, etc.

NoBadMojo
10-20-2007, 02:03 PM
But guess what? Hitting more balls in at any level below 5.0 usually means winning the match.

"Lighter and stiffer" also usually equals tennis elbow for older players with old arms and tendons.


Hopefully people understand that my not responding to your posts directed at me, do not indicate that I agree with what you've said...most usually, it's the opposite

BreakPoint
10-20-2007, 02:07 PM
Didn't you mention in the other thread that the lone guy with the big Bubba defeated the Volkl guy?
Yeah, but that's not really saying much, it is? ;) LOL

Cervantes
10-20-2007, 02:35 PM
I agree...however, at the club level @4.5, I think the search for control takes precedence. This also takes into account playing styles, i.e. those who typically play with lots of spin vs. flat ball hitters. It seems a tight string pattern vs. an open one tend to keep the ball flatter. I needed more power, so switched to the Babolat Aero Pro something...lots of top, too much power.

Try hitting flat with a racquet designed for topspin, or try hitting top with a tight string pattern, and one will compromise their desired effect.

The MidPlus Prestige Flexpoint fit the bill in my case. Tweaked the pop and control hybrid with Kirschbaum Touch Multifiliment Mains, Technifiber Pro Blend Crosses and I'm very happy, if not satisfied with the results.

Of course, being an only child, I'm rarely satisfied, and always get my way. So the search for perfection continues.

DrewRafter8
10-20-2007, 02:58 PM
We had a lot of discussion about this at the club I play at recently. I really agree with what the owner said. It was that your racquet should help you. My racquet compliments my game and helps me. Most players in my area use MP because it helps us. If you can effectively use mids, great. I've used them in the past but feel best suited with a MP right now. The game seems to have changed a bit.

BounceHitBounceHit
10-20-2007, 03:29 PM
almost hit with the venerable Craig Clark but he chickened out <teasing>....or am I?????? ;O

Mojo,

I would have been glad to hit with you, but I was suffering w/ some strange bleeding from my ears. I believe this was around the same time Fed tried out a Euro HPS 6.0 95. ;)

Seriously, I am really looking forward to our finally getting together for a hit. The time will come! :)

Best,

CC

P.S. When I was on The Island to give those talks I was experimenting with a Babolat Pure Control MP, so it wouldn't have been as much fun anyway!!! ;)

jmverdugo
10-20-2007, 03:44 PM
Well, i think this situation is just happening around you because around me is all the contraire. I only know two people that play with mid rackets, they both are member of this forum and play really good tennis. All the 5.0 that i know, and some of them play Futures back in my country (maybe this is a bigger rating), use midplus rackets 95-100. I have attended Futures tournament and i only remember seeing two guys using mid rackets, a Ncode n90 and a Companion (brazilian brand).

I think each person should use what they feel comfortable with and stick with it on the goods and the bads. It is not a good idea to make amazing shots for the first 20 min and after that dont being able to swing the racket or play just two days a week because your arm is in pain.

However, nowdays, if i have to recommend a racket and a style of play to a child or boy, i would definitely say mid - over size and spin all the way. Midsize and flat shots are not competitively this days. And to be honest, i like the modern game of tennis.

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-20-2007, 03:54 PM
Well, i think this situation is just happening around you because around me is all the contraire. I only know two people that play with mid rackets, they both are member of this forum and play really good tennis. All the 5.0 that i know, and some of them play Futures back in my country (maybe this is a bigger rating), use midplus rackets 95-100. I have attended Futures tournament and i only remember seeing two guys using mid rackets, a Ncode n90 and a Companion (brazilian brand).

I think each person should use what they feel comfortable with and stick with it on the goods and the bads. It is not a good idea to make amazing shots for the first 20 min and after that dont being able to swing the racket or play just two days a week because your arm is in pain.

However, nowdays, if i have to recommend a racket and a style of play to a child or boy, i would definitely say mid - over size and spin all the way. Midsize and flat shots are not competitively this days. And to be honest, i like the modern game of tennis.

Well put, jmverdugo. You also noticed how small a difference there actually is between a 90" head and a 95" head. The difference is miniscule. IMO, most of the differences people percieve between racquets are due to factors that have nothing to do with head size.

I also agree with your advise to young people and beginners. I would also recommend they begin with a mid+ or overrsize stick with some pop. The idea is to make the game fun for them so that they continue playing and learning.

By the way, my back is healing well, but the doctor says I should take it easy until I see him on Tuesday.

NoBadMojo
10-20-2007, 04:11 PM
Mojo,

I would have been glad to hit with you, but I was suffering w/ some strange bleeding from my ears. I believe this was around the same time Fed tried out a Euro HPS 6.0 95. ;)

Seriously, I am really looking forward to our finally getting together for a hit. The time will come! :)

Best,

CC

P.S. When I was on The Island to give those talks I was experimenting with a Babolat Pure Control MP, so it wouldn't have been as much fun anyway!!! ;)

aye....should the bleeding reoccur because Hewitt has switched to an MP sized frame from a Mid, I suggest Klip Legend gut as suture material. Think 18gauge may be best....no prestretch ;O

Have you noticed that TW now has Iso and they have a new IsoPro along with the Classic you've been using in the Mojo setup? Are you gonna try the new one when your cache is empty? would enjoy your feedback as I have no plans to try it

EDIT: Oops..in the interest of accuracy I remembered another Midsized user I've encountered...he's my regular Tuesday hit. He's a 5.0 who has been using a ProStaff90 for quite a long time. he's switching to the Becker11

jmverdugo
10-20-2007, 04:14 PM
[QUOTE=Klatu Verata Necktie;1822406]Well put, jmverdugo. You also noticed how small a difference there actually is between a 90" head and a 95" head. The difference is miniscule. IMO, most of the differences people percieve between racquets are due to factors that have nothing to do with head size.[QUOTE]

This is true, i was afraid to hit with a midsize because ill be shanking all the time, but gues what, it didnt happend, now that i remeber i even felt it a bit more powerfull than my regular racket, it may be due to the weight though, I must say that i use them for a short period both the k90 and the pc600, i liked more the PC600:-) .

Bolt
10-20-2007, 04:26 PM
almost hit with the venerable Craig Clark but he chickened out <teasing>....or am I?????? ;O

Be careful ... you risk waking a sleeping dragon. :)

anirut
10-20-2007, 05:16 PM
Though I specifically use a mid, I'm not 5.0. No way.

I think today's game has changed as Mojo has always put it. With the surface at the club I play, I have no problem playing my Redondo mid. The surface is fast (very fast) and bounces don't get very high. It's just easy to play with traditional style.

Now, when I play at other places, I begin to struggle to keep up. I have to pull out the Core #6 or MW200G, 95 head, to keep my play in shape, as the court surfaces are of competition standards -- and they are much slower than what I'm used to. Spins from the other end can jump as high as my shoulder and to return that with a mid is quite a feat.

I do admit that the MP is necessary when I necessarily have to play.

I do enjoy playing the mid just to play tennis. Nothing competitive here.

So ...

If you're playing competitive tennis and serious about your wins & losses, bring out the best gear for your situation and ability, and keep your pride in the bag.

If you're playing just to enjoy tennis, careless of your scores, just play with whatever you're happy with.

Game, set and match?

HodeClassicMP
10-20-2007, 06:12 PM
It is way too early to draw the conclusion, we need to clear few things

1. what is the definition of ATP pro? Top 100, top 200, or top1000, or top 20000?
The reason I brought this up is that, we only see those atp pros at tournaments. The draw probably will be round 64, round 32... yeah, I know there are some qualifiers.... But we do NOT see round 1000.

2. How many mids, mps, oversizes are out there at level top 1000? Maybe even top 10000?

If we know the answers of these quz, then we will do the statistics.

BounceHitBounceHit
10-20-2007, 06:18 PM
Have you noticed that TW now has Iso and they have a new IsoPro along with the Classic you've been using in the Mojo setup? Are you gonna try the new one when your cache is empty? would enjoy your feedback as I have no plans to try it



Didn't see that............I am pretty pleased w/ The Mojo. :) Perhaps some of our other intrepid string jockeys are willing to give it a spin (get it, a 'spin'?) and let us know? ;)

CC

Mick
10-20-2007, 06:19 PM
Q: "Why more 5.0s use midsize than pros? "

One possibility:

1/ Pros get paid by racquet companies.
2/ Racquet companies want pros to use larger headsize than midsize because more people would buy larger headsize racquets
3/ Pros would comply (except for Federer, Hewitt) and get paid handsomely.

1/ 5.0s don't get paid by racquet companies.
2/ they can play with whatever headsize racquet they want to play with

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-20-2007, 06:24 PM
It is way too early to draw the conclusion, we need to clear few things

1. what is the definition of ATP pro? Top 100, top 200, or top1000, or top 20000?
The reason I brought this up is that, we only see those atp pros at tournaments. The draw probably will be round 64, round 32... yeah, I know there are some qualifiers.... But we do NOT see round 1000.

2. How many mids, mps, oversizes are out there at level top 1000? Maybe even top 10000?

If we know the answers of these quz, then we will do the statistics.

Great point.

I find it amusing that the same people who say that mid sized racquets are not used by enough pros to be applicable to today's game are the same people who continually warn people not to purchase a stick because a pro uses it.

IMO people who believe that using a mid sized stick is a disadvantage should promote the use of small heads so that they can have an advantage over those who use mid sized frames.

Kaptain Karl
10-20-2007, 06:38 PM
To the OP's question:

I cannot think of a single 5.0 player in Colorado using a Mid. (I'm sure they exist; I just cannot think of one right now.) In fact, I'm in the minority among my 5.0 peers, in that I use a MP.

Many of our 5.0s use OS frames. (I've opined before I think it's our thin air which drives people toward the larger sweetspots more common with the OS frames.) Altitude definitely changes this game.

I'd estimate our 5.0s use OSes and MPs about equally.

- KK

BreakPoint
10-20-2007, 07:24 PM
To the OP's question:

I cannot think of a single 5.0 player in Colorado using a Mid. (I'm sure they exist; I just cannot think of one right now.) In fact, I'm in the minority among my 5.0 peers, in that I use a MP.

Many of our 5.0s use OS frames. (I've opined before I think it's our thin air which drives people toward the larger sweetspots more common with the OS frames.) Altitude definitely changes this game.

I'd estimate our 5.0s use OSes and MPs about equally.

- KK
Well, that begs the question, if these 5.0's that use OS racquets were forced to use Mids, would they still be playing 5.0 level tennis?

Because, AFAIK, ratings are supposed to be equipment independent, aren't they?

jmverdugo
10-20-2007, 08:28 PM
Well, that begs the question, if these 5.0's that use OS racquets were forced to use Mids, would they still be playing 5.0 level tennis?

Because, AFAIK, ratings are supposed to be equipment independent, aren't they?

I see your point, but why somebody would force them to change rackets? or why would they change their rackets by their own will?. Pros use the kind of racket they use because those rackets "helps" them to play better not because they want to probe anything. If they would feel they can play better with the bigg bubba they would change. The kind of racket one choose is to help one to win the match, not to make it more difficult and rewarding, that makes no sense.

couch
10-21-2007, 07:37 AM
Well, that begs the question, if these 5.0's that use OS racquets were forced to use Mids, would they still be playing 5.0 level tennis?

Because, AFAIK, ratings are supposed to be equipment independent, aren't they?

BP, if you changed to an OS racquet would you still be a 4.5 (I think that's what you are rated, sorry if I'm wrong)? I bet it can go both ways.

With the thinking around here sometimes it seems if these OS players switched to mids, or even mid pluses, their ratings would go up to 5.5, not down. ;)

As you have stated many times, players should play with what they feel comfortable with regardless of their level.

superstition
10-21-2007, 08:01 AM
I was playing with a guy who was using a stiff midplus with poly and he thought his racquet was great until he hit with my Prostaff 85 (old Chinese) with 17 gauge Babolat gut. He said "this racquet is so powerful and has amazing control". Hit shots were much harder and more difficult to deal with.

There are tradeoffs and benefits with any racquet design. A small head makes hitting angles easier and allows flat hitters to hit harder. It makes returning serve more difficult.

I started with an oversize and never could control it. I went to a midplus which was better and then down to a mid. I even played with a standard size Ultra II for a while. For me, a 90 sq in mid is quite big. I don't want to go any higher. I tried an oversize again recently (dense string pattern Wilson Prostaff 6.1) and hated it. Oversize racquets are not for me.

Weight and grip size are just as important as head size, too. I can't stand lightweight racquets or small grips.

What some posters also may be forgetting is that oversize racquets have never been popular among pros... for a reason. Right now, most pros are using 95-100, right?

drakulie
10-21-2007, 09:19 AM
Right..in the real world <the non TW Forum world>, midsized frames are rarely even discussed other than as a trip down memory lane...they're pretty much a non factor.

In the "real world", they are rarely discussed because people are too busy playing tennis and minding their own business, rather than trying to tell the person on the next court that they have no business playing with the frame they are using.

Also, as I already proved in the USTA Clay Court Championship Thread >> midsize frames are still being used. And on clay of all things.


Point of fact is that there isnt a single thing a midsized frame does that cant be done with a larger/more realistic headsize

Here I agree with you. However, there isn't a single thing a larger headsize does that can't be done with a mid.

Thankfully, I havent had to give a midsized lesson in about 6 years.

You must not have many students.

This forum just isnt very indicative of the real world.

Once again I agree with you. As I said, in the "real world" people are too busy playing tennis and minding their own business rather than "policing" the racquet selection of their opponents or people 8 courts down from you.


There are some other players on the ATP using a mid..players like Safin, but noteworthy is the fact that these players rankings have slipped.

So has Roddicks, Blakes, Johansons, etc, etc, etc. Everyones ranking slips at one point or another. Their frame choice has anything to do with it. If it did>>> you would be on the tour, as it seems you are the only one that knows which racquet will magically take one from 3.5 to 4.0.

but what is bad, is the bad info parsed on this forum

Again I agree with you.

NoBadMojo
10-21-2007, 09:32 AM
In the "real world", they are rarely discussed because people are too busy playing tennis and minding their own business, rather than trying to tell the person on the next court that they have no business playing with the frame they are using.

Also, as I already proved in the USTA Clay Court Championship Thread >> midsize frames are still being used. And on clay of all things.




Here I agree with you. However, there isn't a single thing a larger headsize does that can't be done with a mid.



You must not have many students.



Once again I agree with you. As I said, in the "real world" people are too busy playing tennis and minding their own business rather than "policing" the racquet selection of their opponents or people 8 courts down from you.




So has Roddicks, Blakes, Johansons, etc, etc, etc. Everyones ranking slips at one point or another. Their frame choice has anything to do with it. If it did>>> you would be on the tour, as it seems you are the only one that knows which racquet will magically take one from 3.5 to 4.0.



Again I agree with you.

not worth my time to review and respond to

keithchircop
10-21-2007, 09:57 AM
In the "real world", they {mids} are rarely discussed because people are too busy playing tennis and minding their own business, rather than trying to tell the person on the next court that they have no business playing with the frame they are using.

As I said, in the "real world" people are too busy playing tennis and minding their own business rather than "policing" the racquet selection of their opponents or people 8 courts down from you.

Amen to that.

Also, in the real world if someone were to tell you something along those lines and you'd disagree with him, he wouldn't bring a few friends that agree with him along and try to brainwash you.

haerdalis
10-21-2007, 10:28 AM
I cant say I know exactly what a 5.0 would be here in Sweden. i really dont think we have those sort of players here. The only players interested in racquets and strings are those who play competetively at a pretty high level. But alot of those who play maybe once a week socially have midsized racquets because they havent bought a new one for the past 10 years or so.
Nobody on our mens team plays with a racquet with a smaller than 95 sq in frame.

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-21-2007, 10:30 AM
All these arguments could have been avoided had more respondents realized that the thread is based on a faulty premise. There are most likely not more 4.0 to 5.0 players who use mids than there are pros.

By the way, Federer would have had a different result in Mardid had he used a larger frame ;)

BreakPoint
10-21-2007, 10:37 AM
BP, if you changed to an OS racquet would you still be a 4.5 (I think that's what you are rated, sorry if I'm wrong)? I bet it can go both ways.

BTW, yes, if I switched to a much more powerful racquet I would probably win a lot more matches because I could just blow people off of the court. But for me, it's not all about winning. It's about the feel.

Rabbit
10-21-2007, 10:37 AM
To the OP's question:

I cannot think of a single 5.0 player in Colorado using a Mid. (I'm sure they exist; I just cannot think of one right now.) In fact, I'm in the minority among my 5.0 peers, in that I use a MP.

Many of our 5.0s use OS frames. (I've opined before I think it's our thin air which drives people toward the larger sweetspots more common with the OS frames.) Altitude definitely changes this game.

I'd estimate our 5.0s use OSes and MPs about equally.

- KK

Likewise, here. I thought about the 5.0 community here, and quite frankly 99% of them play with Prince O's of one kind or another and again 99% of them are Mid+'s. I don't know of a single 5.0, or above here locally playing with an OS. The OS community here is largely the 3.0 - 3.5s and they tend to play with Prince/Wilson.

The vast majority of old farts from 3.5 - 5.0 around here played Volkl, but that demographic is starting to fall off. Most of them are now moving to Head frames for some reason.

sureshs
10-21-2007, 10:41 AM
Yeah, but that's not really saying much, it is? ;) LOL

For the record, the bold emphasis was added by BP. It was not present in my post.

couch
10-21-2007, 01:18 PM
Hey BP,

I'm not sure, I could be wrong, but it seems as though there are a lot of people saying they went from a mid to Pure Drive or OS and had way too much power and couldn't control the ball, keep it in the court, etc., etc. and that's why they use a mid. So it seems like these posters' levels would drop if they went to an OS or even a Mid +. So I think it can definitely go both ways.

I know if I were to switch to an OS frame I would probably have a little more trouble controlling the ball, etc., unless it was a Prince Graphite or similar OS racquet. Most OS racquets these days are of the more powerful type and not the player type like the old Prince Graphite.

That's the only point I was trying to get across.

couch
10-21-2007, 01:22 PM
BTW, yes, if I switched to a much more powerful racquet I would probably win a lot more matches because I could just blow people off of the court. But for me, it's not all about winning. It's about the feel.

Well, I guess that's what makes us different (besides you using a mid and me a mid +) ;), I like to blow my opponents off the court. :)

LafayetteHitter
10-21-2007, 01:27 PM
After reading this thread I decided the next time I go to the courts if there is anyone using a Midsized frame I am automatically turning him in. Improper racquet head size not permitted as some people on the forum I visit think it is harming his game. Although quite a few of the 4.5-5.0 guys at the Mon and Tue indoor matches I go to who use midsized frames will be happy to know that our guys that went to nationals are actually most likely 5.5-6.0 because their racquet is bumping them down. LOL

Rakukojin
10-21-2007, 01:40 PM
BTW, yes, if I switched to a much more powerful racquet I would probably win a lot more matches because I could just blow people off of the court. But for me, it's not all about winning. It's about the feel.

Well, I guess that's what makes us different (besides you using a mid and me a mid +) ;), I like to blow my opponents off the court. :)
I couldn't help but post this picture ;)

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/5656/princeoftennisch330p13sz6.th.png (http://img101.imageshack.us/my.php?image=princeoftennisch330p13sz6.png)

Kaptain Karl
10-21-2007, 01:42 PM
Well, that begs the question, if these 5.0's that use OS racquets were forced to use Mids, would they still be playing 5.0 level tennis?How is this (invented) question of yours "begged" by my post? (Hint: It isn't.) Please don't *look* for ways to pick arguments, BreakPoint.


Oversize racquets are not for me.Good. Hopefully nobody is trying to force you to play with something you don't enjoy.

What some posters also may be forgetting is that oversize racquets have never been popular among pros... for a reason. Right now, most pros are using 95-100, right?This isn't really accurate, because the "terminology" has been gradually changing over the years since the Prince aluminum was introduced. Both the definitions of "OS" and "Mid" -- and lately "MP" have been somewhat elastic.


BTW, yes, if I switched to a much more powerful racquet I would probably win a lot more matches because I could just blow people off of the court. But for me, it's not all about winning. It's about the feel."Color me suspicious." I am very skeptical of all four of the claims nested in your assertion....

- KK

keithchircop
10-21-2007, 01:50 PM
After reading this thread I decided the next time I go to the courts if there is anyone using a Midsized frame I am automatically turning him in. Improper racquet head size not permitted as some people on the forum I visit think it is harming his game. Although quite a few of the 4.5-5.0 guys at the Mon and Tue indoor matches I go to who use midsized frames will be happy to know that our guys that went to nationals are actually most likely 5.5-6.0 because their racquet is bumping them down. LOL

This is a good one.

Good. Hopefully nobody is trying to force you to play with something you don't enjoy.

Nobody is forcing mid users to use OS racquets here, but some are sure bugging us and have been for a very long while.

LafayetteHitter
10-21-2007, 01:53 PM
This is what I think of each time I read a thread with some people complaining about other users that play with frames that they don't play with themselves.

Samir: No one in this country can ever pronounce my name right. It's not that hard: Samir Na-gheen-an-a-jar. Nagheenanajar.
Michael Bolton: Yeah, well at least your name isn't Michael Bolton.
Samir: You know there's nothing wrong with that name.
Michael Bolton: There was nothing wrong with it... until I was about 12 years old and that no-talent *** clown became famous and started winning Grammys.
Samir: Hmm... well why don't you just go by Mike instead of Michael?
Michael Bolton: No way. Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.

That would be the conversation between a midsize classic frame and a tweener I suppose.

keithchircop
10-21-2007, 01:55 PM
Hahah I'll keep that one in mind, Scott!

LafayetteHitter
10-21-2007, 01:59 PM
I'm playing with a 98" frame at this time but I understand the feel to play with a mid frame completely. I can just never understand what the long term desire of so many of the posters here to persuade people to larger frames. If I play with most of the super powerful OS frames out there I would be sailing balls over the fence because I "DO NOT" want to change my strokes and adjust.

keithchircop
10-21-2007, 02:01 PM
You're telling me? I don't wanna be a topspin monkey either. Not that I rule out using a somewhat bigger frame some day, but first I'd have to find one which feels as good as the Trisys 300 you sold me :)

LafayetteHitter
10-21-2007, 02:09 PM
The new Prestige MG Pro sounds like it might be an interesting frame to try out. One of these days I will pick up a PT280 to try out as well. The classic Head frames are quite sweet.

keithchircop
10-21-2007, 02:51 PM
We'll see how stiff the Prestige Pro is. I recently tried my friend's Microgel Radical 107 and liked it - it's very low powered for an OS. Microgels may feel better than the Liquidmetal and the Flexpoint, but that one doesn't feel as good as the PC600. I would have to add at least 0.8 ounces to it anyway.

vkartikv
10-21-2007, 03:32 PM
You're telling me? I don't wanna be a topspin monkey either. Not that I rule out using a somewhat bigger frame some day, but first I'd have to find one which feels as good as the Trisys 300 you sold me :)

Just FYI: I am pretty much a flat-strokes guy too but I (thankfully) found a midplus racquet that compliments my game. True, most mids favour flat strokes but Dunlop has helped us old-school guys find a nice midplus filled with feel. Try one if you get a chance - you don't have to convert but atleast you'll know what's out there.

JohnP
10-21-2007, 04:00 PM
BTW, yes, if I switched to a much more powerful racquet I would probably win a lot more matches because I could just blow people off of the court. But for me, it's not all about winning. It's about the feel.

That's hilarious.

vkartikv
10-21-2007, 04:17 PM
BTW, yes, if I switched to a much more powerful racquet I would probably win a lot more matches because I could just blow people off of the court. But for me, it's not all about winning. It's about the feel.

Ok, so you do admit that a switch would help you win more. Isn't that really what a coach/teacher wants from his player? Isn't that the point NBM is trying to make? Which coach has ever advocated 'feel' over results?? I am not taking sides here but watching the two of you go at each other is like beating a dead horse.

bertrevert
10-21-2007, 04:22 PM
Not saying this is the main reason but I do believe one factor to consider is that ,at the levels below 5.0, people tend to play a flatter (lower bouncing) game whereas at the 5.0+ level they tend to play with more and much heavier (heavier doesn't mean loopy) topspin. Tougher to counter that high bouncing, heavy top with a midsize but not as tough when dealing with a flatter, lower ball.

No, not true. Throughout the grade levels you have juniors and seniors playing high bouncing games or flatter ones. Perhaps you haven't stepped on court with a 16 year old 4.0-5.0 wielding a Babolat recently? They're below 5.0 but they're game is all high safe spin on the BH side and tough to counter with a MID (so I agree with you on that). I just don't buy your assertion that the heavier ball is the flatter. Usually yes but not always. Below 5.0 (I think) I played a Japanese guy who landed everything on the service line at which point it would bounce and I countered - 6 feet behind the baseline! Was that heavy? You bet.

Perhaps like me you play on artificial grass and so see MIDs around. But not much. It's rubbish to say they're out there on hardcourts in juniors' hands because I just don't see that.

Today, even physically short and undeveloped juniors who take lessons regularly can hit a high bouncing top spin from either wing. Granted they are not Nadals, but I have seen adults struggle with their 1 handed backhand trying to return this. A bigger head gives you much more stability when taking this kind of ball, which is curving higher and away.

Yes I agree with this. This is far more "real world" which is a phrase I like to see finally in this thread.

Man, I have seen some ridiculous phrases on this forum about "connoisseurs" and "shotmakers" who reckon they are an elite - yes because they use a mid. Want the links??!!! Sheesh... what rubbish.

Smaller racquet - you may make a few great shots; doesn't make you a match winner.

Okay some want to play for feel. But if someone is on this forum looking for racquet advice then they proabably are looking to improve, which, if they compete, is then objectively about winning more matches.

If that is your objective and not some warbling in the ether then get real and use what works in the modern game which is far more baseline and spin "curving higher and away" coupled with a few net approaches.

bertrevert
10-21-2007, 04:29 PM
Ok, so you do admit that a switch would help you win more. Isn't that really what a coach/teacher wants from his player? Isn't that the point NBM is trying to make? Which coach has ever advocated 'feel' over results?? I am not taking sides here but watching the two of you go at each other is like beating a dead horse.

Not a dead horse. It's about what's your orientation and what you see as a way forward for the game. It's just the same as those threads that say the old racquets were better. While I agree there's a lot more junk out there now, with finer gradients in specification trying to appeal to more levels of play -- call it "choice" -- nevertheless, those older racquets don't cut it in the hands of amateurs competing. I have seen players with Pro Staff and N or K90s simply lose at the amateur level through their own - UE. And I mean that is the marker right there.

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-21-2007, 04:41 PM
They're below 5.0 but they're game is all high safe spin on the BH side and tough to counter with a MID (so I agree with you on that). I just don't buy your assertion that the heavier ball is the flatter. Usually yes but not always. Below 5.0 (I think) I played a Japanese guy who landed everything on the service line at which point it would bounce and I countered - 6 feet behind the baseline! Was that heavy? You bet.


In my experience, I don't experience any more consistency with a mid sized or oversized stick than I do with my mid sized head, and I don't lack any power. I believe that many mid sized users experience this phenomenon. It doesn't make sense to defect from something that works for you.

On the other hand, I am sure that there are some people out there who stubbornly hold onto their small headed sticks even though they don't get results. Those people should consider opening their minds (although I bet they are in the minority of mid sized users).

BounceHitBounceHit
10-21-2007, 05:06 PM
BTW, yes, if I switched to a much more powerful racquet I would probably win a lot more matches because I could just blow people off of the court. But for me, it's not all about winning. It's about the feel.


BP,

Do you really think this is true, or are you just kidding around? ;)

I ask because I HAVE tried playing w/ both MP and OS frames and I actually LOSE more often.

I've said it before, it comes down to game style and to an oft neglected (and IMHO, very important) degree, biomechanics.

Best,

CC

BreakPoint
10-21-2007, 05:15 PM
BP,

Do you really think this is true, or are you just kidding around? ;)

I ask because I HAVE tried playing w/ both MP and OS frames and I actually LOSE more often.

I've said it before, it comes down to game style and to an oft neglected (and IMHO, very important) degree, biomechanics.

Best,

CC
Usually, when I use a more powerful racquet, I can hit more winners and aces, etc. and keep myself in a lot more points, but I don't enjoy doing it. I know that it's the racquet that's helping me do these things and not really me that's doing it. I also don't get much feel from the racquet. So while for some people the end justifies the means, for me, it's more about the process, the addictive feel I get when I strike the ball. That's what keeps me playing the game - to get that fix which is that feel. Winning is nice but it's not paramount since I don't need to win tennis matches to make a living like a pro does. My An90 is so low powered that it really feels pretty close to playing with a wood racquet, so I know it's me that hit that great shot and not my racquet. I get a greater feeling of accomplishment this way. Anyway, that's just me. ;)

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-21-2007, 05:16 PM
Mojo,

Here's a legitimate question, no flame intended. Do you think it's possible for some people to play better with a mid sized frame than with a larger frame?

BMG
10-21-2007, 05:27 PM
BP,

Do you really think this is true, or are you just kidding around? ;)

I ask because I HAVE tried playing w/ both MP and OS frames and I actually LOSE more often.

I've said it before, it comes down to game style and to an oft neglected (and IMHO, very important) degree, biomechanics.

Best,

CC

I agree and think that quite a few players, due to their style, experiences, and mechanics play better with mid frames. I'm not one of them but a hitting buddy of mine switched from a Volkl DNX 10 Midplus to a K90 and his game and on court success improved dramatically. He's hitting a very heavy ball and is serving with much more pop and spin. Of course I realize that it isn't just the racquet but I do believe that this argument goes both ways depending on the player. Frankly, I do not even see a debate on racquet head size......there are arguments and experiences that support both sides of the issue.

BounceHitBounceHit
10-21-2007, 05:28 PM
Just FYI: I am pretty much a flat-strokes guy too but I (thankfully) found a midplus racquet that compliments my game. True, most mids favour flat strokes but Dunlop has helped us old-school guys find a nice midplus filled with feel. Try one if you get a chance - you don't have to convert but atleast you'll know what's out there.

What MP did you find that suited your game so well? How old are you and what is your playing style? Do you have a rating? Thanks!! CC

bertrevert
10-21-2007, 05:32 PM
In my experience, I don't experience any more consistency with a mid sized or oversized stick than I do with my mid sized head, and I don't lack any power. I believe that many mid sized users experience this phenomenon. It doesn't make sense to defect from something that works for you.

On the other hand, I am sure that there are some people out there who stubbornly hold onto their small headed sticks even though they don't get results...

Extra marks to you for being able to adjust. However there are these two sorts of racquets, or rather two sorts at opposite ends of a spectrum for a reason. And bringing consistency then power to your game is what it's about. I would definitely query whether you reckon you can win lengthy matches with just either as if it didn't matter to you. I know there are a lot of other variables in winning real matches but I'd say that after a while you would find that one or the other works statistically for you. So yeah you'd want the one that works.

Because it's something we can influence (by buying a racquet) I hate to see people out there losing due to equipment choice. On the flipside I do see people winning for the very same reason. Similarly I hate so see people propound racquet recommendations based upon some myth that MIDs make you a better player. Middling the ball one more time than your opponent does.

The Pros know this and they don't much use MIDs. Just the supposed "connoussiers" here.

Now if your objective is feel and the feelgood factor then use MIDs all you like.

vkartikv
10-21-2007, 05:33 PM
What MP did you find that suited your game so well? How old are you and what is your playing style? Do you have a rating? Thanks!! CC

Closing in on 30 :( The entire 200G series suits my game. I started with the Revs., used the MW and HM alternately for a while and am sticking with the HM now. Don't have a rating but I'd say 4-4.5. Getting better with time like wine :) As for playing style, I'd say 90% flat strokes and 10%topspin. I like to S&V but I don't mind staying back and slicing the ball back from the BH side and driving it down the line on the FH side to setup the volley. Edberg, Becker and Paes have been the greatest influences.

NoBadMojo
10-21-2007, 05:38 PM
Mojo,

Here's a legitimate question, no flame intended. Do you think it's possible for some people to play better with a mid sized frame than with a larger frame?

of course, but not very many people and it obviously depends on the racquet....and the player. i rarely recommend them, and dont see how they are necessary with so many other choices out there...Rick Macci never recommends a midsize. The last fully stocked pro shoppes at clubs I've taught at didnt even have a midsized demo to try so even if i wanted to recomend one, i couldnt offer one for them to hit....many of the manufacturers dont even make a midsized and the ones that do mostly make only ONE and some are like the dnx10Mid with a 93 headsize and jumbo sweetzone

Manufacturers say these frames are for advanced players, TW says these racquets are for advanced players, Quality teaching pros all say these are for advanced players, but we're all wrong and the TW midsized zealots are right as they inflict these long obsolete racquets on beginners and 3.0's

bertrevert
10-21-2007, 05:46 PM
So while for some people the end justifies the means, for me, it's more about the process, the addictive feel I get when I strike the ball. That's what keeps me playing the game - to get that fix which is that feel. Winning is nice but it's not paramount since I don't need to win tennis matches to make a living like a pro does.

Fair enough, and this well describes the sheer fun of slotting balls in the zone.

I for one like competing. Dealing with the unfolding game. Dealing with the self. Then shaking the hand of the opponent.

I certainly tweak the tools and the gear to reach these ends. But I certainly aim to win and I take account of what the game is and how to win it - not how I "want" to play.

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-21-2007, 05:47 PM
Extra marks to you for being able to adjust. However there are these two sorts of racquets, or rather two sorts at opposite ends of a spectrum for a reason. And bringing consistency then power to your game is what it's about. I would definitely query whether you reckon you can win lengthy matches with just either as if it didn't matter to you. I know there are a lot of other variables in winning real matches but I'd say that after a while you would find that one or the other works statistically for you. So yeah you'd want the one that works.

Because it's something we can influence (by buying a racquet) I hate to see people out there losing due to equipment choice. On the flipside I do see people winning for the very same reason. Similarly I hate so see people propound racquet recommendations based upon some myth that MIDs make you a better player. Middling the ball one more time than your opponent does.

The Pros know this and they don't much use MIDs. Just the supposed "connoussiers" here.

Now if your objective is feel and the feelgood factor then use MIDs all you like.

The reason I posted is because I own a few oversized sticks, and a mid sized stick, but I get my best results using the mid sized Prestige.

As to whether or not I can win long matches using the Prestige mid, I really only play best 2 out of 3 set matches, and have no problem keeping up with the frame. I am actually a strength and conditioning junkie, so I usually have energy to spare after my opponents have cashed in their chips ;)

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-21-2007, 05:50 PM
of course, but not very many people and it obviously depends on the racquet....and the player. i rarely recommend them, and dont see how they are necessary with so many other choices out there...Rick Macci never recommends a midsize. The last fully stocked pro shoppes at clubs I've taught at didnt even have a midsized demo to try so even if i wanted to recomend one, i couldnt offer one for them to hit....many of the manufacturers dont even make a midsized and the ones that do mostly make only ONE and some are like the dnx10Mid with a 93 headsize and jumbo sweetzone

Manufacturers say these frames are for advanced players, TW says these racquets are for advanced players, Quality teaching pros all say these are for advanced players, but we're all wrong and the TW midsized zealots are right as they inflict these long obsolete racquets on beginners and 3.0's

I appreciate your candor. I ask the question because sometimes it sounds as though some people believe that anyone who uses a mid must be an insincere, delusional posuer. I'm glad that's not the case with you.

BreakPoint
10-21-2007, 05:50 PM
Fair enough, and this well describes the sheer fun of slotting balls in the zone.

I for one like competing. Dealing with the unfolding game. Dealing with the self. Then shaking the hand of the opponent.

I certainly tweak the tools and the gear to reach these ends. But I certainly aim to win and I take account of what the game is and how to win it - not how I "want" to play.
Don't get me wrong, I like to compete, too. But I'm not going to hate playing tennis just so I can win a tennis match. To me, that's just not a lot of fun.

BounceHitBounceHit
10-21-2007, 06:10 PM
Usually, when I use a more powerful racquet, I can hit more winners and aces, etc. and keep myself in a lot more points, but I don't enjoy doing it. I know that it's the racquet that's helping me do these things and not really me that's doing it. I also don't get much feel from the racquet. So while for some people the end justifies the means, for me, it's more about the process, the addictive feel I get when I strike the ball. That's what keeps me playing the game - to get that fix which is that feel. Winning is nice but it's not paramount since I don't need to win tennis matches to make a living like a pro does. My An90 is so low powered that it really feels pretty close to playing with a wood racquet, so I know it's me that hit that great shot and not my racquet. I get a greater feeling of accomplishment this way. Anyway, that's just me. ;)

Just yesterday I was playing my regular Saturday match with Bill. Bill is a former DI player and very tough. He's a triathlete who is supremely conditioned and never tires, possessed of the kind of all court game that means you really have to work to beat him. I broke the string in my last K90 in the bag in the first five minutes of the warm up and had to go to a back up. The only thing even close was one of my old Euro HPS 6.0 95's I found in my locker. I pulled it out and went to work. What I found was interesting: I was serving bombs and when I did connect off the ground, watch out. ;) But I also made WAY more UE's. Would I adjust if I played with it everyday? Maybe. Maybe not. I stuck with some of Volkl 10 frames for several weeks at a time and never felt fully comfortable hitting out. Looks like I am sticking with the K90!! ;) CC

bertrevert
10-21-2007, 06:13 PM
Don't get me wrong, I like to compete, too. But I'm not going to hate playing tennis just so I can win a tennis match. To me, that's just not a lot of fun.

Yeah thats right you certainly cannot be an uncompetitive player from reading your posts I understand (or think I do).

(Here's my comparison: my brother in his mid-forties just loves to play and hit big. He uses Princes and Volkls and 200g. He doesn't compete. He is built and has huge fitness. I've hit forty, compete at my club and play all-comers. Am no bully, because those kids certainly love to stick it to me.)

Kaptain Karl
10-21-2007, 06:49 PM
Because it's something we can influence (by buying a racquet) I hate to see people out there losing due to equipment choice.I know this isn't "scientific" but I tell my HS boys racket choice will impact your game at the MOST about 15%. (For most players above 3.5 I think it's really no more than about 5%. But that 5% can be the difference in making it to the next round of your tournament.)

I had three JV boys this year who made dramatic improvements in their play by simply getting decent frames. For them, the frame choice WAS close to my 15% ceiling.

I also have one Varsity boy who will not accept that he cannot buy his way to more victories. We keep telling him to Stop farting around with buying "better" rackets. Stick with one good frame and get better yourself. I'm not holding my breath that he'll show up next season with the same frame (n6.1 95) he possessed at the end of this season....

- KK

bad_call
10-21-2007, 06:57 PM
why more 5.0s use midsize than pros?

cause we can...we can also hit with a mid+ or mid-. freedom to choose. however serious competition tends to bias racquet choice towards the goal of winning or at least putting up a good fight.

keithchircop
10-21-2007, 11:31 PM
Just FYI: I am pretty much a flat-strokes guy too but I (thankfully) found a midplus racquet that compliments my game. True, most mids favour flat strokes but Dunlop has helped us old-school guys find a nice midplus filled with feel. Try one if you get a chance - you don't have to convert but atleast you'll know what's out there.

But not the new ones, right?

In my experience, I don't experience any more consistency with a mid sized or oversized stick than I do with my mid sized head, and I don't lack any power. I believe that many mid sized users experience this phenomenon. It doesn't make sense to defect from something that works for you.

Exactly. Plus, I get more power out of my mid strung with NRG2 18g multi than most 100s strung with poly.

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-22-2007, 05:53 AM
I would definitely query whether you reckon you can win lengthy matches with just either as if it didn't matter to you.

Now if your objective is feel and the feelgood factor then use MIDs all you like.

If you are asking why I own oversized and mid plus racquets, the answer is that the oversize racquet is the one I learned on many moons ago. It is an old Donnay Pro one. The mid + racquet was a gift from my father. It's a Microgel Radical that plays great.

I use my Prestiges to win. Trust me, winning is priority number 1. If I could win more matches using oversized or mid+ sticks, I would make the switch in an instant.

What someone else said about feel being more important than results doesn't apply to me at all, and I doubt it applies to very many people.

ps60
10-22-2007, 06:48 AM
IMO, for those who grew up from woodies, mid size is nothing. The wt, sw and balance is more a matter of concern.

I am still suffering the wrist injury (from a sub-standard woodie) and don't dare to hit with light rackets. An OLD friend lended me a woodie sized composite with lot of wt. I hit with it so easily.

The size of K90 or n90 isn't a problem to us. But the SW and stiffness could sometimes be hard to overcome.

drakulie
10-22-2007, 12:26 PM
In my experience, I don't experience any more consistency with a mid sized or oversized stick than I do with my mid sized head, and I don't lack any power.

I can't hit with any power with my midsized frame. Big Bubba >> here I come! :)

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-22-2007, 12:32 PM
Big Bubba >> here I come! :)

Now there's a frame with no power at all. However, its lack of power is offset by its remarkable control ;)

jmverdugo
10-22-2007, 12:33 PM
IMO, for those who grew up from woodies, mid size is nothing. The wt, sw and balance is more a matter of concern.

I am still suffering the wrist injury (from a sub-standard woodie) and don't dare to hit with light rackets. An OLD friend lended me a woodie sized composite with lot of wt. I hit with it so easily.

The size of K90 or n90 isn't a problem to us. But the SW and stiffness could sometimes be hard to overcome.

i would thought that too, but i was wondering, how come most of the all pros that grew up and won tournaments and GS playing with wood rackets nowdays play with regular MP rackets? think about Vilas, Mcenroe, etc.

LafayetteHitter
10-22-2007, 12:34 PM
I think everyone should play with the Big Bubba. With a Kfactor T90 paintjob of course.

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-22-2007, 12:47 PM
i would thought that too, but i was wondering, how come most of the all pros that grew up and won tournaments and GS playing with wood rackets nowdays play with regular MP rackets? think about Vilas, Mcenroe, etc.

Great post.

I'd like to know what percentage of players who grew up playing with woodies switched to mid+ racquets during their careers. I don't know about Vilas, but I thought McEnroe won many of his slams using the Dunlop 200g which had a very small head (of course, I may be wrong).

drakulie
10-22-2007, 12:48 PM
I think everyone should play with the Big Bubba. With a Kfactor T90 paintjob of course.

Problem is, "coaches" on these boards (cough), would say that the paintjob of a big bubba with all those Kfactor colors would add to much weight to the frame, therefore making it a racquet for only "advanced" players (cough).

evw
10-22-2007, 01:30 PM
I'm a 5.0, out of the 20 5.0-5.5 guys at our club this is how rackets break down. 90% of them use mid-plus, 93-98 inch head rackets. There is one guy that plays with an N90 and one that plays with an oversize. From my experience I would say the breakdown at the 5.0 and above levels is consistenly 90% of players using mid-plus rackets.

keithchircop
10-22-2007, 01:54 PM
I'm a 5.0, out of the 20 5.0-5.5 guys at our club this is how rackets break down. 90% of them use mid-plus, 93-98 inch head rackets. There is one guy that plays with an N90 and one that plays with an oversize. From my experience I would say the breakdown at the 5.0 and above levels is consistenly 90% of players using mid-plus rackets.

Midplus racquets start from 95 or 96 sq inches not 93.

Offshore
10-22-2007, 02:27 PM
I'm a 5.0, out of the 20 5.0-5.5 guys at our club this is how rackets break down. 90% of them use mid-plus, 93-98 inch head rackets. There is one guy that plays with an N90 and one that plays with an oversize. From my experience I would say the breakdown at the 5.0 and above levels is consistenly 90% of players using mid-plus rackets.

Wow, twenty 5.0/5.5's at your club. That's pretty good...;)

We only have about five or six 5.5's and one uses a K90, one uses an nCode 95, one uses a Prestige mid, one uses an O Tour mid, and one uses a Fischer (not sure which one but I am pretty sure that it is a 98")).....my experience in the Northeast is that a good percentage of the 5.5 players use 95's (includes Head MP's) or less. But I guess that falls in to your category of midpluses to include 93 and 95 inch frames so I don't think things are much different around here.

Kaptain Karl
10-22-2007, 02:31 PM
Midplus racquets start from 95 or 96 sq inches not 93.Whoa!!! This is why I previously posted .....

... the "terminology" has been gradually changing over the years since the Prince aluminum was introduced. Both the definitions of "OS" and "Mid" -- and lately "MP" have been somewhat elastic.... Once some suppliers decide on "the rules" for the different categories ... they change. You cannot make a hard/fast rule that lasts.

(I remember when anything over 100 was an "OS" and "Mids" were up to 85. See what I mean?)

- KK

keithchircop
10-22-2007, 02:40 PM
... Once some suppliers decide on "the rules" for the different categories ... they change. You cannot make a hard/fast rule that lasts. (I remember when anything over 100 was an "OS" and "Mids" were up to 85. See what I mean?)

That's true. At the moment it seems suppliers agree that MP racquets end at 105 and OS begin at 106. I don't know where MPs start according to suppliers, but in webstores 93 sq in are considered mids, right now. According to Prince, a 95 is a mid for the O3 Tour but a MP for the TT Bandit :grin:

drakulie
10-22-2007, 03:03 PM
^^^ Yup, whatever puts money in their pockets.

sureshs
10-22-2007, 03:58 PM
Closing in on 30 :(

That is old

vkartikv
10-22-2007, 03:59 PM
That is old

^^ This coming from you :p

sureshs
10-22-2007, 04:00 PM
^^ This coming from you :p

I am getting younger every day

superstition
10-22-2007, 05:17 PM
This isn't really accurate, because the "terminology" has been gradually changing over the years since the Prince aluminum was introduced. Both the definitions of "OS" and "Mid" -- and lately "MP" have been somewhat elastic.
As far as I know, the Prince oversize models from the 70s and early 80s were 110 sq in. That's the standard oversize size, right? Some players used them, but most of the top pros used smaller racquets. If oversize racquets were a big advantage, pros wouldn't have used smaller racquets. Someone said the original Prince graphite came out in 1978, yet Agassi, who popularized oversize racquets, didn't come to the fore until much later and even then oversize models didn't become the most popular type among top pros. Like any design, they have drawbacks and benefits.

The Prince Graphite mid 93 of today is the same size as the 90 from the 80s, right? The difference is how the measurement is being done, not the size of the string bed. I have noticed creep upward in the designations, like "midplus" that's 102 sq in. That seems to stretch things. It does seem to me that, when compared with a standard frame, 100 sq in is oversize. But, it's really not, according to the tradition of 110 sq in racquets being oversize.

jmverdugo
10-22-2007, 05:54 PM
According to today standards the Midsize O3 tour is actually a midplus.

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-22-2007, 06:03 PM
According to today standards the Midsize O3 tour is actually a midplus.

Yea, I noticed that the mid-size O3 Tour's head measures 95 square inches. I guess they wanted to have to avoid using terms like "mid+", "mid++", and "oversize".

Anton
10-22-2007, 07:05 PM
I don't know what you guys are arguing about, I can play my best with a racket of any size between 85 and 110 and you can too - its just matter of getting used to - it comes down to preference.

jmverdugo
10-22-2007, 07:30 PM
^^ that is what i think too, but my guess is that people use what they first got when they started to play and of course they got use to it and basically they can play well with it, nowdays most people use MP or OS because that is what they learn with or is what they can get nowdays. However a good player can adapt to any racket, the problem is that takes time to do this and sometimes is not worth it, but i know that if for some reason one day a good player cant play with his usual racket and have to play with another completely different he will find his way to play his best with that racket.

Kaptain Karl
10-22-2007, 08:00 PM
As far as I know, the Prince oversize models from the 70s and early 80s were 110 sq in. That's the standard oversize size, right?"Standard?" The problem is there are no standards ... which is my point.

The difference is how the measurement is being done, not the size of the string bed.No.

In the mid-1980s the only three categories I remember were the "Standard" (65), OS (110+) and "Mid" (80-90). Then somewhere along the late '80s or early '90s someone came up with "Mid-Plus" as a category ... which I remember being from 90-110 at the time.

Both the categories -- and the dimensions which define them -- have been quite ... fluid.

- KK

ps60
10-22-2007, 11:04 PM
i would thought that too, but i was wondering, how come most of the all pros that grew up and won tournaments and GS playing with wood rackets nowdays play with regular MP rackets? think about Vilas, Mcenroe, etc.

it's a joy to play with small head sticks, which gives naturally a very precise control of direction and depth. But when yr opponent are using 107" modern stiff sticks, their balls come back much faster than you can handle with a heavy woodie, with less margin of error thanks to the ball sized SS. If U want to win, or to complete fairly, u would like to hold a Shark rather than a woodie. But if U want to enjoy tennis (and maybe serve yr ego), a small head can be a great help. (it's better if you can persuade everyone to use similar ones)

Having said that, i was refering to old woodies. the new mid sized rackets are much more forgiving and stable. Some of them very powerful !

About the old men, don't forget their speed, eyesights, muscles... grow older as indicated by the silver hair. U can't expect them to be the same form as in their teens/20s. Same for me ! :sad:

tennis_hand
10-22-2007, 11:53 PM
matter of fact, i see mroe 4.0-5.0 use the ncode 90 tour and kfactor 90 than pos, why is that?

simple,
because they don't play the level of game as high as the pros.

I even see a lot of 2.5-3.0s use many 90 rackets.

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-23-2007, 03:30 AM
simple,
because they don't play the level of game as high as the pros.

I even see a lot of 2.5-3.0s use many 90 rackets.

In order to play at the level of the pros, one cannot play with a mid sized frame?

Where do you live that you see so many low level players using mid sized frames?

ps60
10-23-2007, 07:04 AM
In order to play at the level of the pros, one cannot play with a mid sized frame?

Where do you live that you see so many low level players using mid sized frames?

In HK, many folks play with n90. kids, middle aged with little training... The reason is so simple.

i agree with tennis hand, U don't have to be so good just to fool around city courts. In tour, it's serious biz and ppl know what they need.

bertrevert
10-23-2007, 07:14 AM
Pretty rational. If you're bread on the table doesn't depend on winning tennis then play with whatever you like. If your tennis pays your way in life by heck you'll be using what works, or whatever cuts down on your UE.

goosala
10-23-2007, 07:41 AM
For me, the reason I use midsize frames is because that is what I learned to play with growing up. I like the feel of a midsize and the control it gives me. I have never had a problem with getting enough power so I never really needed anything larger. I tried larger head sizes like a 95 but since I hit pretty flat my shots were going long.

fastdunn
10-23-2007, 04:47 PM
I have difficulties in arguing on the OP simply because "5.0" is not clearly defined term.

If your question is 'Why more amateurs use midsize than pros?", I might but....

fastdunn
10-23-2007, 04:52 PM
That's true. At the moment it seems suppliers agree that MP racquets end at 105 and OS begin at 106. I don't know where MPs start according to suppliers, but in webstores 93 sq in are considered mids, right now. According to Prince, a 95 is a mid for the O3 Tour but a MP for the TT Bandit :grin:

By the way, some manufacturers are known to calculate head size including the frame itself.

for example, Head Prestige mid's 93 sq. in. is really 89-90 sq in (string bed only) and Mid Plus's 98 sq. in. is really 94-95 sq in, I heard.

I have Head FXP Prestige MidPlus, it looks visably smaller than other manufacturers' 98 sq in....

Sorry to add confusion.. :)

Cervantes
10-23-2007, 05:14 PM
I really like this racquet. 4.5 on a fair day, it accomodates my moderate to big swing, and the tight string pattern helps me hit flat. In this regard I'm getting closer to the power I want by adjusting strings.The control is pretty good.

I've never had an arm problem, so this don't play.

I used the older Prestige 600 for years and unless I strung it with gut, wouldn't get the power or playability I wanted unless the ball was struck perfectly. When this did happen I saw God.

I think one must demo many racquets and string combos to find what ultimately works for their game...there are too many factors that play.

Example, several player I know play with the FXP MP and try to hit top. The ball doesn't reach it's maximum possible action regardless of the swing, and the result is a shot that sits up very nicely, yes.



"Nobody's given their fair share. They all have to take it..."
Jack Nicholson, The Departed

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-23-2007, 07:44 PM
Example, several player I know play with the FXP MP and try to hit top. The ball doesn't reach it's maximum possible action regardless of the swing, and the result is a shot that sits up very nicely, yes.


So you're saying that you found the right racquet for your style, but that it doesn't translate to other styles. Correct?

I actually like dense string patterns because they tend to slightly flatten out my topspin.

Cervantes
10-23-2007, 09:47 PM
Well, yes...I found a racquet I like, and it seems alot of other players like. And correctly, like anything else in life, it's not for every playing style.

I basically saw several pros who had components in their game similar to mine, and sourced the equipment. Example, Nadal plays with extreme spin, and has the proper racquet for this style. Flat ball hitters would logically use a dense string pattern, therefore the Prestige Flex is a good choice for this style.

I also asked the pro at the club who plays with the MP about his string, and it happened to work well, with a bit of adjustment.

The setup is Kirschbaum Touch Multifiliment on the Mains & Technifiber Pro Blend on the Crosses at 60 & 58. Next time I'll loosen it up a bit for more pop.



"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..."
Hunter S. Thompson

Offshore
10-24-2007, 05:09 AM
Well, yes...I found a racquet I like, and it seems alot of other players like. And correctly, like anything else in life, it's not for every playing style.

I basically saw several pros who had components in their game similar to mine, and sourced the equipment. Example, Nadal plays with extreme spin, and has the proper racquet for this style. Flat ball hitters would logically use a dense string pattern, therefore the Prestige Flex is a good choice for this style.

I also asked the pro at the club who plays with the MP about his string, and it happened to work well, with a bit of adjustment.

The setup is Kirschbaum Touch Multifiliment on the Mains & Technifiber Pro Blend on the Crosses at 60 & 58. Next time I'll loosen it up a bit for more pop.



"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..."
Hunter S. Thompson

I also used this logic to an extent when choosing demo frames last year. I am more of a flat, control hitter and dense patterns seemed to work best. (Although, I certainly did not rule out trying some other frames just because of this). This thread brings up a lot of great personal feedback and experience and it is interesting to see the opinions of "racquet selection". I am from the school of thought that a mid can definitely work very well for certain players and definitely would not discount them completely. I have gravitated towards a midplus as I like the larger sweetspot for my return of serve especially (but I am not kidding myself...the FXP Prestige MP is really about a 95' stick and the sweetspot is relatively small for a midplus frame).

(BTW, Cervantes....did you mean Prince Pro Blend crosses? I don't think Tecnifibre makes a "pro blend".)

keithchircop
10-24-2007, 05:18 AM
I'm startled. How unusual for these boards to have people agreeing that different sticks suit different styles.

I'm used to people not looking at the big picture, thinking every single solitary player on the planet hits with a semi-western/western forehand, with massive topspin on slow hardcourt or clay.

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-24-2007, 05:43 AM
I'm startled. How unusual for these boards to have people agreeing that different sticks suit different styles.

I'm used to people not looking at the big picture, thinking every single solitary player on the planet hits with a semi-western/western forehand, with massive topspin on slow hardcourt or clay.

I'm a heavy topspin player who plays on slow hardcourts and clay courts and I use the exact same racquet that you do. F.U.N. times ;)

keithchircop
10-24-2007, 06:13 AM
I'm a heavy topspin player who plays on slow hardcourts and clay courts and I use the exact same racquet that you do. F.U.N. times ;)

Hey, use whatever works for you mate :)

Just make sure the racquets don't get confiscated by the Racquet Headsize Police.

fbone
10-24-2007, 08:09 AM
Interesting thread...I think pro's use (endorse) racquets that closely resemble (size) what they would prefer to use. If they happen to find their ultimate racquet, well, that's when paint jobs come into play.

We can pretty much agree that a pro can pick up a variety of different racquets and still perform at a high level.

If in fact 5.0's use more 'mids' than pro's...who cares? They do because they can!


I started playing in the era of 85 inch heads and have slowly gone up to as big as 98 inch (anything 100 and over and my game goes to hell! - Too much power, no feel, & fugly!)

I prefer the feel and control of a 'Mid' but perform better with a 'MP' - To each his own people...to each his own.

How I see the scale:

Mid - 85 to 93
MP - 95 to 98
OS - => 100

:-) Happing hitting with whatever the hell you use...we're all playing for fun and exercise right? :-)

Hipkat
10-24-2007, 08:46 AM
When I re-introduced myself to tennis 4 years ago I committed myself to learning, through the internet and lessons, how to play the modern game with CORRECT strokes. One of the things I felt helped me was re -learning with a pc600 with the reasoning that you HAVE to hit correctly, there is no way to cheat the ball over with the limited power or '"help" you get from the racket. As my strokes developed with both depth and spin I became more concerned with consistancy to become a better player. Still prefering thinner beam classic style rackets but looking for a lttile bit more racket I switched to the POG Longbody. Still a players racket, I have found I have less mishits and morespin potential without relying on the racket for the actual stroke. I play way more consistent with this racket. While I love the feel of the pc 600, I play much better over the course of a few hours on the court with the pog longbody without cheating my strokes. I am afraid my example is close to where the truth lies within this argument. Yes you have to have good strokes to play with the mids, yet with those good strokes, you will play better, longer with an appropriate(still players racket) larger head size.

regards

MrAWD
10-24-2007, 11:22 AM
Interesting thread!!

I just switched to the Mid this summer and I really like it!! The whole change took about a month or so to get used to things, but a lot of that was in my head!

I started playing a bit more tennis in the last several years and at the beginning of that time I was using some OS Prince (107-ish) which was way too powerful for my game. So, inspired by Agassi and good price of the i.Radical OS four years ago, I get one of those and that was the greatest thing I could do to my tennis game! Lots of control and little power to go with my game and the level went up almost over night!

So a year or so later, I started craving for a bit more power but same kind of control. After testing lots of things I ended up with the LM Radical MP (98 ) and even though I was a bit worried that head is gona be a bit too small I stick with it!

The result was good and I did get what I was looking for and things where fine for a while! That is until I read bunch of crap on the Redondo thread and how nice it is. I couldn't buy it a time so it was just a wish for a while. Then, TW got some of them and I ordered one of the Mids (93 that is) and started hitting with it.

Again I was worried about it being too small and that I am going to suffer because of that. Still I used for a few weeks and I was still fighting the racquet more then anything else especially the size of the head.

Then, I realized that the stick that bought back in '87 and one that I used for several years (without even know that they come in different sizes) was actually 90 (it was more like the 93, but that was the writing on it). So, if I could have played with that one for several years without even thinking it was too small for me, why wouldn't I be able to use it now when I play much better!! That was a turning point for me and since then I started to play with the Redondo Mid much better every time out and I still love it! I also realized that most of the issues that I originally had with the racquet where actually issues with me and once I started to correct them one at a time, things started to improve even more!

So, the bottom line is that I believe that the choice of the racquet comes from the type of the game you have and the style you play with. I get better "feel" when hitting with the Redondo Mid then any other racquet I have (one of them is also Redondo MP (98 that is)) and I could place to ball with much more accuracy with it then with anything else I've hit so far.

The racquet also doesn't let me to goof around much at all and forces me to be at the right place at the right time or I loose the point, which I like a lot and works well about me being lazy! That for sure cost me points here and there and if I would be competing a bit more, I would probably look into something bigger to help me to have easier time with those. I would still loose some of the "feel" which helps me win some other points too, so in my case I am sticking with the Mid for now. Once the arthritis and god knows what else kick in a bit harder I might switch to something else, but for now I am enjoying the game with the stick I use!

Fedja

bertrevert
10-24-2007, 03:45 PM
I started craving for a bit more power but same kind of control. After testing lots of things I ended up with the LM Radical MP (98 ) and even though I was a bit worried that head is gona be a bit too small I stick with it!
...
The result was good and I did get what I was looking for and things where fine for a while! That is until I read bunch of crap on the Redondo thread and how nice it is.
...
if I would be competing a bit more, I would probably look into something bigger to help me to have easier time with those. I would still loose some of the "feel" which helps me win some other points too, so in my case I am sticking with the Mid for now.

Yes and if you are competing all the time you gravitate to what wins you games, and you leave aside what you lose with. I know that's not scientific. And I know looking to the past (what you did or didn't win) is no way to predict the future (how well can I play before I plateau). But looking for feel from a racquet is just as much a feel thing too, certainly less than a science. You just inevitably know what you can and cannot win with.

I think the most objective way to look at it in tennis terms is to count your winners and UE.

I know with MIDs I leave a few too many short balls and my defense breaks down. Sure I hit better angles and can really finesse things. Nice when I'm up, not so nice when I'm down.

Nothing wrong with the LM Rad and don't let these message boards get to ya!

Good principles of racquet selection to be found in this sticky JollyRoger guide
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1826935&postcount=77

Cervantes
10-24-2007, 05:55 PM
Hey Offshore, Yes, ah, er, I meant Pro Mix, not Pro Blend...please don't crucify me. Or crucify me, if you like...

And FBone...some of us do play for fun and exercise. I do. But I also play for sex and a biscuit now and then...


"...la perra me mordio!!!"

MrAWD
10-24-2007, 06:56 PM
Yes and if you are competing all the time you gravitate to what wins you games, and you leave aside what you lose with. I know that's not scientific. And I know looking to the past (what you did or didn't win) is no way to predict the future (how well can I play before I plateau). But looking for feel from a racquet is just as much a feel thing too, certainly less than a science. You just inevitably know what you can and cannot win with.
Well, I heard more then a few times that I have a slight competitiveness issue, so I guaranty you that I wouldn't use Redondo Mid if I didn't think I can win with it!
One more thing is that I play tennis because I like it and enjoy hitting the ball with a good partner! I also like to win, of course, but don't stop short of enjoying the great game of the opponent when he/she delivers! When I switched to the Mid, that aspect of the game just got way better then before and I enjoy it even more!!

I think the most objective way to look at it in tennis terms is to count your winners and UE. Agree with it!

I know with MIDs I leave a few too many short balls and my defense breaks down. Sure I hit better angles and can really finesse things. Nice when I'm up, not so nice when I'm down. From where I stand, this is rarely a problem with the racquet selection but rather user error. That is why I mentioned that Mid forces me not to be lazy as much as my body would prefer!

Nothing wrong with the LM Rad and don't let these message boards get to ya! Don't take me wrong here, but after playing several months with the Redondo Mid I would not go back to that frame (LM Radical MP that is). It is a good stick and I could play well with it, but it allows me to do things that I shouldn't be doing in the first place (things like using too much of the wrist or weird angles with my arm, and so on) and as a result of that is me being in pain the night after that or even more days to follow. I did try to use LM Radical couple of months back just to see the difference from the Redondo and I definitely felt it that night too in both my shoulder and my wrist! The game was nice and I felt some of the things that MP Radical can do easier compare to the Redondo Mid, but down the line for me it is just the path I will try to avoid!
My believe is that this is cased by the weight (or lack of it to be more precise) of the racquet and with lighter frames you are able to do lot of things that should probably be part of the table tennis game only, which can and probably will hurt you down the line. With heavier frame, you can just guide the racquet where you want it to go and rely on its heft and its speed to deliver what you want from it!

Fedja

keithchircop
10-24-2007, 11:38 PM
Yes you have to have good strokes to play with the mids, yet with those good strokes, you will play better, longer with an appropriate(still players racket) larger head size.

If that were true everyone would use heavy OS racquets.

SoBad
10-24-2007, 11:54 PM
I think it's because pros go with racquet that wins them matches, whereas the posers on this forum who don't have game go with the racquet that supports their lame claim to the effect that "I am so skilled with so much power that I play with 20sqin racquet". That's all.

southpaw
10-25-2007, 03:52 AM
Don't forget weight.

Most pros play with racquets that are 12oz+, balanced head light to even, and have swingweights over 330. Plug those numbers into racquet finder, and the majority of retail racquets that match those specs are 95" or lower. This is gradually changing, with many of the newer mid plus racquets having higher stock weights. But currently, unless you are skilled at racquet customization, your best choices in "off the shelf" are midsize (95" or lower).

keithchircop
10-25-2007, 04:49 AM
That's very true. 80% of uber stable racquets are mids.

Kaptain Karl
10-25-2007, 06:05 AM
Don't forget weight.

Most pros play with racquets that are 12oz+, balanced head light to even, and have swingweights over 330. Plug those numbers into racquet finder, and the majority of retail racquets that match those specs are 95" or lower. Curious about this, I plugged your criteria into the Racquet Finder. You were just right. Of the 25 frames that came up, 12 of them were over 95 sq in. And since 13 is a clear majority, I guess you're correct.

- KK

southpaw
10-25-2007, 06:53 AM
Curious about this, I plugged your criteria into the Racquet Finder. You were just right. Of the 25 frames that came up, 12 of them were over 95 sq in. And since 13 is a clear majority, I guess you're correct.

- KK

Well at first I was going to say 52%, but that seemed too clinical. Majority does imply overwhelming, which it is not, and that wasn't my intention.

But of those 12, if you throw out the aero dogs, the extended length racquets, and the sand filled pk's, there isn't much over 95". The POG and Pure Control are all that's left standing.

Kaptain Karl
10-25-2007, 07:07 AM
Well at first I was going to say 52%, but that seemed too clinical.Funny!


But of those 12, if you throw out the aero dogs, the extended length racquets, and the sand filled pk's, there isn't much over 95". The POG and Pure Control are all that's left standing.Hey! Hey!!!

I happen to play with one of "the sand filled PKs" (7G, a really fine frame. I didn't have to do much to it to bring it up to 12.2 oz.)

Watch it there, buddy!

- KK

alb1
10-25-2007, 08:00 AM
matter of fact, i see mroe 4.0-5.0 use the ncode 90 tour and kfactor 90 than pos, why is that?

Because the more talented the player is, the less limited they are in what head size they can use effectively.

WChiang
10-25-2007, 08:08 AM
I think it's because pros go with racquet that wins them matches, whereas the posers on this forum who don't have game go with the racquet that supports their lame claim to the effect that "I am so skilled with so much power that I play with 20sqin racquet". That's all.

The amount that a player is a "poser" IMO is an inverse relationship to their complaining about users of mid size frames.

0d1n
10-25-2007, 09:10 AM
That's very true. 80% of uber stable racquets are mids.

No ! 80 percent of the "uber stable" rackets are heavy (er). It just happens that most of the mids are also pretty heavy which in turn makes them pretty stable. Small head sizes don't "add to the stability".

keithchircop
10-25-2007, 12:30 PM
No ! 80 percent of the "uber stable" rackets are heavy (er). It just happens that most of the mids are also pretty heavy which in turn makes them pretty stable. Small head sizes don't "add to the stability".

That's what I meant. Uber stability comes with 12oz+ static weight.

drakulie
10-25-2007, 12:53 PM
I think it's because pros go with racquet that wins them matches, whereas the posers on this forum who don't have game go with the racquet that supports their lame claim to the effect that "I am so skilled with so much power that I play with 20sqin racquet". That's all.

Interesting that more "posers on this forum" use Babolats (used by Roddick and Nadal), and other brands used by top 10 pros than they do mids.

Kaptain Karl
10-25-2007, 01:29 PM
drakulie - You have *way* too much time on your hands if you actually researched that by all the TT-ers' Profiles...!

- KK

drakulie
10-25-2007, 01:33 PM
^^ I have an inventory of every TT-er which includes their frame, how many times they have switched, string preferences, grip size, NTRP level, and what style of grip they use on all strokes. :)

Kaptain Karl
10-25-2007, 02:37 PM
Okay ... *Quick!* What FH grips do I use and in what general proportion?

- KK

drakulie
10-25-2007, 02:44 PM
^^^ I don't track what the mods use. :)

Stephencl
10-25-2007, 02:53 PM
Wow, great thread. I am new to the forum, and this thread is one of the more fascinating I have seen. I played in High School, had a chance to play division II tennis in college on scholarship, but chose instead to be an assistant on a Div I womens team and played at the 5.0 level until about 9 years ago.

I just picked the game back up because my teenage son is really starting to play well and will go out for the highschool tennis team in the spring.

A good analogy to this discussion is the difference in Golf between playing blades and playing cavity backed cast irons. There is no question that hitting a cavity back is easier. It has been scientifically proven -- I am sure the same could be said for MP and OS rackets.

Personally in my recent "comeback" I tried my sons oversize. I can't hit the flippin thing to save my life. Sure, I can hit huge loopy western forehands that ping off the face like a fighter jet off a catapult, but that is NOT what tennis is all about.

But give me an old head graphite pro or my newly found LM prestiges, and I can carve beautiful slice backhand approaches, hit precision first serves and stunning half volleys. These shots require feel and finesse that I cant find in an OS racket.

Just some opinions from someone that missed the last ten years of racket evolution..... candidly, not sure I missed much.

vkartikv
10-25-2007, 02:56 PM
Wow, great thread. I am new to the forum, and this thread is one of the more fascinating I have seen. I played in High School, had a chance to play division II tennis in college on scholarship, but chose instead to be an assistant on a Div I womens team and played at the 5.0 level until about 9 years ago.

I just picked the game back up because my teenage son is really starting to play well and will go out for the highschool tennis team in the spring.

A good analogy to this discussion is the difference in Golf between playing blades and playing cavity backed cast irons. There is no question that hitting a cavity back is easier. It has been scientifically proven -- I am sure the same could be said for MP and OS rackets.

Personally in my recent "comeback" I tried my sons oversize. I can't hit the flippin thing to save my life. Sure, I can hit huge loopy western forehands that ping off the face like a fighter jet off a catapult, but that is NOT what tennis is all about.

But give me an old head graphite pro or my newly found LM prestiges, and I can carve beautiful slice backhand approaches, hit precision first serves and stunning half volleys. These shots require feel and finesse that I cant find in an OS racket.

Just some opinions from someone that missed the last ten years of racket evolution..... candidly, not sure I missed much.


You missed only one development in tennis: The Dunlop Muscle Weave 200G

couch
10-25-2007, 04:04 PM
Wow, great thread. I am new to the forum, and this thread is one of the more fascinating I have seen. I played in High School, had a chance to play division II tennis in college on scholarship, but chose instead to be an assistant on a Div I womens team and played at the 5.0 level until about 9 years ago.

I just picked the game back up because my teenage son is really starting to play well and will go out for the highschool tennis team in the spring.

A good analogy to this discussion is the difference in Golf between playing blades and playing cavity backed cast irons. There is no question that hitting a cavity back is easier. It has been scientifically proven -- I am sure the same could be said for MP and OS rackets.

Personally in my recent "comeback" I tried my sons oversize. I can't hit the flippin thing to save my life. Sure, I can hit huge loopy western forehands that ping off the face like a fighter jet off a catapult, but that is NOT what tennis is all about.

But give me an old head graphite pro or my newly found LM prestiges, and I can carve beautiful slice backhand approaches, hit precision first serves and stunning half volleys. These shots require feel and finesse that I cant find in an OS racket.

Just some opinions from someone that missed the last ten years of racket evolution..... candidly, not sure I missed much.

You ain't seen nothing yet. ;) Just hang around a little and you'll see what I'm talkin' about.

sureshs
10-25-2007, 04:46 PM
Just some opinions from someone that missed the last ten years of racket evolution..... candidly, not sure I missed much.

You missed a lot of manufacturer gimmicks.

SoBad
10-25-2007, 08:32 PM
Interesting that more "posers on this forum" use Babolats (used by Roddick and Nadal), and other brands used by top 10 pros than they do mids.

Groundless claim. Also, it seems that the so-called "top pro" du jour uses a wilson mid, so however unintentially, your comment actually supports my original statement about the posers.

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-25-2007, 08:44 PM
I think it's because pros go with racquet that wins them matches, whereas the posers on this forum who don't have game go with the racquet that supports their lame claim to the effect that "I am so skilled with so much power that I play with 20sqin racquet". That's all.

Why would you make such a statement about people you don't know and haven't seen play?

SoBad
10-25-2007, 08:55 PM
Why would you make such a statement about people you don't know and haven't seen play?

The opinion I have stated is based on my observations in real life as well as on this forum. My statement was clearly a generalisation, and therefore there would certainly be exceptions. In particular, there are plenty of older good players (at least in real life, not too sure about this forum) who stick with mids because thatís what they learned and played their best tennis with in the past. However, I stand behind my comment, as applicable to the vast majority of mid supporters who are vocal about the size issue on this forum.

keithchircop
10-25-2007, 10:50 PM
There are people of about my skill level that can beat me with their midplus or their OS. How does the mid make me a poseur?

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-26-2007, 05:35 AM
The opinion I have stated is based on my observations in real life as well as on this forum. My statement was clearly a generalisation, and therefore there would certainly be exceptions. In particular, there are plenty of older good players (at least in real life, not too sure about this forum) who stick with mids because thatís what they learned and played their best tennis with in the past. However, I stand behind my comment, as applicable to the vast majority of mid supporters who are vocal about the size issue on this forum.

Do you know a lot of members from this forum? Have you seen them hit? Is it possible for a younger person to prefer a mid sized racquet to a larger frame?

I ask these questions because it sounds unnecessarily harsh to ridicule a group of people you don't know. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt? This is a sport we all play for fun, let's check the vitriol at the door.

BMG
10-26-2007, 05:53 AM
For what its worth, I rarely see a "poser" on the courts that is using a mid-size racquet - pretty much all of them that use the mids play well with the sticks. Not many players use them though. At the 4.0-5.5 level where I play anyone posing with a mid (can't handle it/ trying to look "cool" or like Fed, etc.) is quickly exposed. Basically its the law of the jungle:)

jetlee2k
10-26-2007, 06:49 AM
a 5.0 PLAYER should have a decent technical strokes already so a MID size racket would help them to maneuvering the racket faster.. I've tried to play with a bigger head size 95, 98, 100 but somehow I play alot better with the K90 still.. My racket head swing much faster then the others as well as I feel the stability of the racket.. The larger headsize felt like it's shaking after I hit the ball..

rletizia
10-26-2007, 07:37 AM
Exactamundo.

That's why it is possible to improve your game AND be competitive with a mid especially at 4.0 and under. At those levels, how often will you meet someone whose balls will bounce heavy, penetrate ten feet till your shoulder height on hard-courts? At 3.5 and below, you'll meet players with late preparation, swinging off their back leg - no wonder they need 10oz sticks to generate some power and hit the ball over the net. And so many people on these boards believe you're doomed to be a 2.5 forever unless you use an OS.


Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for the validation of what I keep saying over and over again. On the other hand, no thanks for revealing our secrets! Let those fools continue to think a light racquet rather than technique is the best way to improve their game. No one needs a good, heavier control racquet than a 3.0 - 4.0 player. I mean, come on ... How many people (especially guys) really need more power and especially at this level?? If that is the case, go lift some weights.

rletizia
10-26-2007, 07:40 AM
The larger headsize felt like it's shaking after I hit the ball..

It literally is. Think how much more torque is produced even on just slightly off-center shots.

Cup8489
10-26-2007, 09:27 AM
I thought i might throw in my two cents here.

I started competitive tennis in freshman year of high school with a prince thundercloud OS, and i probably went from around a 2.5 player (bottom third of the team) to top 8 with that racquet, largely because it was an oversize that was light, but didnt have too much power, rather enough to develop strokes with. i then made a radical decision to buy a Prince NXG Graphite Midsize, a huge difference in frame type, but the power level was at least relatively comparable. i was immediately noticing an improvement in my game, rising from a 3.0 level to probably about a 5.0 in the space of six months. I then decided that i wanted to try out one of the then new O3 tour midplus's, and my game went immediately down to a 4.0 because i was not used to the much larger sweetspot and spin potential, and was often hitting many shots out, or they had so much spin that my shots produced low lobs rather than penetrating groundstrokes.

so yeah, the headsize makes a diference, but at the level of play that most pro's are, the difference is not very great to them. they can usually hit a groundstroke right on the sweetspot, the only problem people have, Safin for say, is that the dense string pattern forces them to swing with a more looped motion, which with a midsize frame is more difficult to accomplish and still get the spin.

the POG Mid is much easier to play shoulder height balls with than the NXG Mid, though i would say the similarities between both racquets are almost the same, except for the more open string pattern of the POG

so it really is people's preference. i myself can't even play with the POG OS, because the headsize is too BIG for me, even though it is still all about control. i just PREFER mids to mid+ and OS.

keithchircop
10-26-2007, 09:30 AM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2079/1762209702_81c094160a.jpg

You just can't hit a ball with a mid...

couch
10-26-2007, 10:34 AM
Not to get too off-topic but it doesn't matter what racquet a player uses....you either got it, or you don't. ;)

When I watch lower-level guys play I usually don't pay attention to what racquet they are using, instead, I pay attention to how athletic and coordinated they are. Athleticism and coordination usually translates to the ability to learn and improve easier and faster (especially if they are well-coached) than players that are uncoordinated and lack athletic ability.

BreakPoint
10-26-2007, 11:38 AM
i was immediately noticing an improvement in my game, rising from a 3.0 level to probably about a 5.0 in the space of six months.
I'd hate to burst your bubble but I highly doubt that happened. Six years? Maybe. Six months? Definitely not.

No racquet change nor even amount of training can get someone from a 3.0 to a 5.0 within 6 months. In fact, it's highly unlikely ANY racquet change can move you up even a half level. You may just improve but still stay within your current rated level. I'm assuming you don't have a USTA computer rating?

drakulie
10-26-2007, 01:47 PM
Groundless claim.

The only groundless claim is yours, which you will never be able to prove:

I think it's because pros go with racquet that wins them matches, whereas the posers on this forum who don't have game go with the racquet that supports their lame claim to the effect that "I am so skilled with so much power that I play with 20sqin racquet". That's all.

Fact remains, there are way more mid plus, and OS users than there are mids users. This is easily proven by checking racquet sales. Therefore, there are more "posers" using these frames (also used by pros), than there are mid-user posers.

sargeinaz
10-26-2007, 05:32 PM
I'd hate to burst your bubble but I highly doubt that happened. Six years? Maybe. Six months? Definitely not.


Lol I was thinking the same thing. 6 months? Damn I wish that was possible.
________
BMW 3/15 HISTORY (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_3/15)

Kaptain Karl
10-26-2007, 05:40 PM
Geez, guys! Ease up.

He doesn't have a working understanding of the NTRP. Give him a break....

- KK

BounceHitBounceHit
10-28-2007, 08:35 AM
For what its worth, I rarely see a "poser" on the courts that is using a mid-size racquet - pretty much all of them that use the mids play well with the sticks. Not many players use them though. At the 4.0-5.5 level where I play anyone posing with a mid (can't handle it/ trying to look "cool" or like Fed, etc.) is quickly exposed. Basically its the law of the jungle:)

I wish I'd seen this post sooner, because it is exactly right. Tennis is an uber competitive sport. If you step out on the court to play a 5.0-5.5 match you had better bring some game with you or your work out will be SHORT. ;) Honestly I never even pay attention to what frame the other guy is using. I'm too busy 'scouting' their grips, tendencies, and looking for a weakness during the warm up to care what equipment they've chosen. ;) CC

Anton
10-28-2007, 08:53 AM
I used the older Prestige 600 for years and unless I strung it with gut, wouldn't get the power or playability I wanted unless the ball was struck perfectly...

Sounds like you need to try iPrestige - it is just a tad stiffer and a tad lighter on the swing with more power, but still very comfortable feel unlike later versions so far.

Anton
10-28-2007, 08:56 AM
a 5.0 PLAYER should have a decent technical strokes already so a MID size racket would help them to maneuvering the racket faster.. I've tried to play with a bigger head size 95, 98, 100 but somehow I play alot better with the K90 still.. My racket head swing much faster then the others as well as I feel the stability of the racket.. The larger headsize felt like it's shaking after I hit the ball..

? swing speed does not depend on frame size - though stability does

BreakPoint
10-28-2007, 11:13 AM
? swing speed does not depend on frame size - though stability does
I disagree. Given comparable swingweights, I always find the smaller headed racquet to swing faster and free-er and more maneuverable. I just find I can "whip" the head of smaller racquet easier and I find them to be much less obstructive. I think the smaller head also makes them more aerodynamic and easier to swing which is not factored into the swingweight measurement because they don't swing it fast enough on the RDC machine.

BMG
10-28-2007, 12:01 PM
I wish I'd seen this post sooner, because it is exactly right. Tennis is an uber competitive sport. If you step out on the court to play a 5.0-5.5 match you had better bring some game with you or your work out will be SHORT. ;) Honestly I never even pay attention to what frame the other guy is using. I'm too busy 'scouting' their grips, tendencies, and looking for a weakness during the warm up to care what equipment they've chosen. ;) CC

Yeah, sometimes I never even remember what frame my opponent used in a match. Good point (and one that I really have not used, yet;) ) re: checking out your opponent's grip. I watch their style of play, etc. but I am also going to start checking grips on their different strokes to help when devising a gameplan.

BounceHitBounceHit
10-28-2007, 01:59 PM
Yeah, sometimes I never even remember what frame my opponent used in a match. Good point (and one that I really have not used, yet;) ) re: checking out your opponent's grip. I watch their style of play, etc. but I am also going to start checking grips on their different strokes to help when devising a gameplan.


It's not unusual to see some unusual grips and peculiar swing paths right up to (and sometimes including) the 5.0 level. These are the things that may work well in the first set, but when fatigue, pressure, and a few forcing shots come into play, well.................. ;) CC

Anton
10-28-2007, 06:39 PM
I disagree. Given comparable swingweights, I always find the smaller headed racquet to swing faster and free-er and more maneuverable. I just find I can "whip" the head of smaller racquet easier and I find them to be much less obstructive. I think the smaller head also makes them more aerodynamic and easier to swing which is not factored into the swingweight measurement because they don't swing it fast enough on the RDC machine.

The swingweight is comparable, but what about balance? a heavier, more headlight racket with same swingweight as the lighter frame will feel easier to whip.

Anton
10-28-2007, 06:44 PM
I disagree. Given comparable swingweights, I always find the smaller headed racquet to swing faster and free-er and more maneuverable. I just find I can "whip" the head of smaller racquet easier and I find them to be much less obstructive. I think the smaller head also makes them more aerodynamic and easier to swing which is not factored into the swingweight measurement because they don't swing it fast enough on the RDC machine.

The swingweight is comparable, but what about balance? a heavier, more headlight racket with same swingweight as the lighter frame will feel easier to whip.

Also, when you say "free-er" do you mean it is actually easier to accelerate the racket or keeping it in desired swing path once it is already moving? ;)

Mick
10-28-2007, 09:09 PM
This guy used to play with an 80 sq in racquet (GTX Pro-T). His new racquet is a whole lot bigger now (looks like 95 sq in)

http://i23.tinypic.com/2uzs4rb.jpg

BreakPoint
10-29-2007, 12:55 AM
The swingweight is comparable, but what about balance? a heavier, more headlight racket with same swingweight as the lighter frame will feel easier to whip.
But that should be accounted for in the swingweight. The reason why a heavier racquet would have a comparable swingweight as a lighter racquet is because the heavier racquet is more headlight. What might make a difference in the way two racquets with comparable swingweights swing is the weight distribution, which is not the same thing as balance.

Also, when you say "free-er" do you mean it is actually easier to accelerate the racket or keeping it in desired swing path once it is already moving? ;)
What I mean by "free-er" is that I can swing it around as much and as fast as I want without feeling like I might hit something, someone, or myself. You can also call it freedom of movement when swinging or the feeling that I can do whatever I want with the head of the racquet. If you watch Federer take his full, fast swings at the ball, that's what I'm referring to.

Klatu Verata Necktie
10-29-2007, 03:35 AM
This guy used to play with an 80 sq in racquet (GTX Pro-T). His new racquet is a whole lot bigger now (looks like 95 sq in)

http://i23.tinypic.com/2uzs4rb.jpg

I did a google search hoping to find some information on Trion Z. I thought it would be a golf equipment company that was branching out into tennis racquets, but was surprised to see that it produces magnetic bracelets.

Are these magnetic bracelets nothing more than new age hokum? What are they supposed to do?

keithchircop
10-29-2007, 03:59 AM
This guy used to play with an 80 sq in racquet (GTX Pro-T). His new racquet is a whole lot bigger now (looks like 95 sq in)

http://i23.tinypic.com/2uzs4rb.jpg

Lendl doesn't use a 95 sq in racquet now. Lendl doesn't use a racquet, period.

Check this out: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=131352

He's just posing in that picture with an unbranded racquet to get some money from Trion.