PDA

View Full Version : Is the k90 the best volleying frame ever?


guedoguedo
03-28-2008, 07:23 PM
Ive never hit with a racket that has instantly boosted my net game 100% as the k90 has. The stability, control, and feel is incredible. I will never pick up a pure drive again after hitting with the k90. In fact I am disgusted with myself for using one for the last 9 or so months.

Back to volleying, the 2nd best frame i used in this area was the n95, but it has absolutely no feel compared to the 90. Ive never hit the 85 but im guessing some will say the 85 is the best :twisted:

I was hitting volleys behind the service line without even thinking about it. You should have seen how giddy i was!

chiru
03-28-2008, 07:40 PM
yah 85 wins for me. never played the k90 tho. but yah, ick to the pure drive at net.

PrestigeClassic
03-28-2008, 07:52 PM
The best volleying frame ever was probably made in a time when people did that. That said, since then, Wilson has made a few frames that are pretty good at net, and since they are larger than 85inē, they play well with gut/poly hybrids.

BreakPtSi
03-28-2008, 08:30 PM
I only demoed it, but the k90 was just plain fun to volley with.

crawl4
03-28-2008, 08:54 PM
anyone no what the kblade tour is like volleying?
yeh the six-one tour is AMAZING!

luv2volley
03-28-2008, 11:33 PM
K90 is great but PS85 is still the king for net play.

skraggle
03-28-2008, 11:35 PM
Yeah, sweet frame at net. But VE mid and PK type C are in the mix, too...

m1stuhxsp4rk5
03-28-2008, 11:42 PM
the k90 is awesome love it at the net but the ps85 is so nimble and quick its just that small head kills you sometimes but another great volley stick is the prestige classic 600

movdqa
03-29-2008, 04:00 AM
I'd say that the Redondo is better in the feel department at the net.

leonardtay
03-29-2008, 05:58 AM
For competition play, I would go with the K90 for volleying... but for sheer jaw drop factor, the racquet that I have been able to draw the most gasps of admiration with is the Dunlop MAX200G... but the racquet has to be strung right. However, because of the smaller head size, you have to be on your game in order not to mis-volley. K90 a little more forgiving and a little more punch as well... hence I would use that in a competitive match. In fact, the K90 does, for me better at match play volleying than the PS85 and the MAX200G better at showboating than even the Redondo Mid... just my thoughts having played with all of them.

bcast66
03-29-2008, 06:00 AM
anyone no what the kblade tour is like volleying?
yeh the six-one tour is AMAZING!

the kblade tour is by far the best volley frame ever made. k90 and prestige mid dont even come close compared to kblade tour.

leonardtay
03-29-2008, 06:08 AM
the kblade tour is by far the best volley frame ever made. k90 and prestige mid dont even come close compared to kblade tour.

Could you be more specific on what makes it so great? Have you played much with the K90 and the Prestige Mid?

bcast66
03-29-2008, 06:10 AM
yea played with the k90 for 1 month and have played with prestige for 6 years+.

played with kblade tour for 5 days it was amazing at volleys but everything else was not so good. so i stick with my prestiges.

leonardtay
03-29-2008, 06:16 AM
yea played with the k90 for 1 month and have played with prestige for 6 years+.

played with kblade tour for 5 days it was amazing at volleys but everything else was not so good. so i stick with my prestiges.

What is good about the volleys with the kblade... could you elaborate please?

bcast66
03-29-2008, 09:15 AM
lol well basically if you put your racquet on the ball you have a chance to win a point at net with the kblade tour. i cant really explain it but it was perfection at net low ball high ball you name it jumping drop shot. it was just special at net. everything else was mediocre.

movdqa
03-29-2008, 09:22 AM
lol well basically if you put your racquet on the ball you have a chance to win a point at net with the kblade tour. i cant really explain it but it was perfection at net low ball high ball you name it jumping drop shot. it was just special at net. everything else was mediocre.

Subjective feel is hard to go by as that subjective feel is something that only you may find. Perhaps you could read reviews by others to get a feeling for how to describe your experiences to others.

Noisy Ninja
03-29-2008, 09:56 AM
I'm currently playing with the K90's and although it's quite good at the net...I wouldn't say it's the "best volleying frame" I've had ample playing experience with.
It's all subjective but IMHO, strong consideration for "best volley stick" has got to go to the Wilson 6.1 Classic. 95 head allowed for a bit more forgiveness, combination of high mass and head-light balance resulted in quickness at net with sacrificing stability/power, substantial stiffness made for considerable feel and punch on volleys. Paired with the right string (preferably natural gut strung at high tension)...the 6.1 Classic is a monster at the net.
The K90 is pretty good in its own right but is more a "jack of all trades" kinda stick that does everything well but has limitations; the 6.1 Classic specs made it particularly adept for the serve 'n volley game. Just rock solid at the net with no surprises about where your volleys will land once it leaves the racquet.

Azzurri
03-29-2008, 10:00 AM
Ive never hit with a racket that has instantly boosted my net game 100% as the k90 has. The stability, control, and feel is incredible. I will never pick up a pure drive again after hitting with the k90. In fact I am disgusted with myself for using one for the last 9 or so months.

Back to volleying, the 2nd best frame i used in this area was the n95, but it has absolutely no feel compared to the 90. Ive never hit the 85 but im guessing some will say the 85 is the best :twisted:

I was hitting volleys behind the service line without even thinking about it. You should have seen how giddy i was!

You answered your own question.

master_stringer_mitchy
03-29-2008, 11:09 AM
i thought it was nice, put prefferd the 95 as it felt abit more solid, thicked beam with that head size and weight was just right.

guedoguedo
03-29-2008, 11:41 AM
You answered your own question.

I shared MY experiences, but wanted to get the perspective of others who have used other frames, have varying skill levels etc.

Speedygonzalez
03-29-2008, 11:48 AM
the racquet that I have been able to draw the most gasps of admiration with is the Dunlop MAX200G... but the racquet has to be strung right. However, because of the smaller head size, you have to be on your game in order not to mis-volley.

Very interesting! I still have a couple of them and recently pulled one out of my bag....I was pretty amazed how comfortable it felt but I had difficulty to control the amount of power. Normally I play the iprestige mid with full poly. What type of string do you use for the Max 200g and at which tension?

Bubba
03-29-2008, 11:57 AM
Ive never hit with a racket that has instantly boosted my net game 100% as the k90 has. The stability, control, and feel is incredible. I will never pick up a pure drive again after hitting with the k90. In fact I am disgusted with myself for using one for the last 9 or so months.

Back to volleying, the 2nd best frame i used in this area was the n95, but it has absolutely no feel compared to the 90. Ive never hit the 85 but im guessing some will say the 85 is the best :twisted:

I was hitting volleys behind the service line without even thinking about it. You should have seen how giddy i was!

The k90 is a great frame... but PS 85 best ever - esp. for volleys

hoosierbr
03-29-2008, 12:00 PM
Was partial to the N90 myself although I think the K90 is an improvement. Found it a bit too heavy and unwieldy at net for quick exchanges and reaction volleys.

Mick
03-29-2008, 12:24 PM
not for me because of the smaller headsize and extra weight. I definitely would volley better with a KTour or K95.

quest01
03-29-2008, 12:28 PM
I found the K90 to be good at the net but I tended to frame the ball a lot.

suppawat
03-29-2008, 06:20 PM
I have both K90 and KBlade Tour and found KBlade Tour providing better feel on volley. Give it a try.

2ndServe
03-29-2008, 08:39 PM
man you guys have to volley with the Prestige Classic 600 or the Original original Pro Staff 85 made in some euro country I think. There have been different models under the same name and made in different parts of the world but the true original Pro Staff made in euro is perhaps the best frame ever made. I doubt they could replicate it today. Course I've never played with the new rackets so I can't say with 100% accuracy.

morten
03-30-2008, 01:51 AM
ps 85 and Estusa pbb are greater.. oh, and Fischer vacum pro 90 is great too.

Josherer
03-30-2008, 02:43 AM
The K90 is the best frame, period.

vndesu
03-30-2008, 02:58 AM
The K90 is the best frame, period.

is that on your opinion?
are you only saying that bc federer uses it?
everyone has their on dominant frame.
its like me saying the fxp prestige mid is the all time best frame.

Anton
03-30-2008, 07:32 AM
I'd say that the Redondo is better in the feel department at the net.

Yea redondo has less power on POP, so if you can make your own pace on the volley well then it will allow you for easier volley placement control.

Redondo is also more mannueverable, but doesn't feel like a "WALL" the way k90 does...without a few grams of lead on the mid-high loop that is.

SO for me Redodndo takes the first, k90 close second.

P.S. redondo is also better at everything else then k90, except the slice maybe.

supermario343
03-30-2008, 07:33 AM
its the best volleying frame for me thus far! :)

movdqa
03-30-2008, 08:24 AM
Yea redondo has less power on POP, so if you can make your own pace on the volley well then it will allow you for easier volley placement control.

Redondo is also more mannueverable, but doesn't feel like a "WALL" the way k90 does...without a few grams of lead on the mid-high loop that is.

SO for me Redodndo takes the first, k90 close second.

P.S. redondo is also better at everything else then k90, except the slice maybe.

The K90 has way more power and spin capability than the Redondo. Better for a modern game. The Redondo is a better old-school racquet. I find the Redondo easier to use because it's so much lighter.

Jackie T. Stephens
03-30-2008, 08:25 AM
I'm currently using that racket and my volleys are pretty solid with it, you know where the ball is going as soon as you hit it.

Jonny S&V
03-30-2008, 08:32 AM
I agree that it's a good volleying stick, but it's nowhere near the likes of the PS 6.0 85 or the Max 200g, or even my M-fil 200.

Azzurri
03-30-2008, 05:06 PM
I shared MY experiences, but wanted to get the perspective of others who have used other frames, have varying skill levels etc.

still not sure what you mean. You asked if the K90 was the best volleying racquet and based on your post, you answered your own question. Maybe the Title is the issue with me.

You never played the PS 85, that is by far the greatest volley racquet ever (if you did a poll it would win hands down). I have played both and the PS 85 is a much better racquet at the net. So, NO the K90 is NOT the best.

Azzurri
03-30-2008, 05:08 PM
man you guys have to volley with the Prestige Classic 600 or the Original original Pro Staff 85 made in some euro country I think. There have been different models under the same name and made in different parts of the world but the true original Pro Staff made in euro is perhaps the best frame ever made. I doubt they could replicate it today. Course I've never played with the new rackets so I can't say with 100% accuracy.

what do you mean EURO Pro Staff?

goosala
03-30-2008, 05:26 PM
In my experience here are some good volleying frames:
Yonex RDX500 mid
Yonex RDS001 mid
Pro Kennex Redondo Mid
Pro Staff Mid 85

NicolasH
03-30-2008, 06:34 PM
It's the fiddler, not the fiddle.

I don't think there's a good "baseline racket" or good "volley racket".

If you can play you can play. People say that the Wilson Pro Staff 85 is a great Volley racket... well Jim Courier and Chris Evert did well with it from the baseline.
Sure, some net players have a preference for a smaller racket and some baseliners prefer a bigger frame, but then Lendl was a baseliner and his racket was small...

I don't think the racket has anything to do with it.
Rackets are a matter of preference.
Good volley skills are a matter of technique, hand and eye coordination and intuition.

Cheers,
n.

BreakPoint
03-30-2008, 07:00 PM
man you guys have to volley with the Prestige Classic 600 or the Original original Pro Staff 85 made in some euro country I think. There have been different models under the same name and made in different parts of the world but the true original Pro Staff made in euro is perhaps the best frame ever made. I doubt they could replicate it today. Course I've never played with the new rackets so I can't say with 100% accuracy.
The ProStaff 85 was never made in Europe, AFAIK.

samster
03-30-2008, 07:02 PM
In my experience here are some good volleying frames:
Yonex RDX500 mid
Yonex RDS001 mid
Pro Kennex Redondo Mid
Pro Staff Mid 85

Agreed with above.

Gmedlo
03-30-2008, 07:11 PM
It's the fiddler, not the fiddle.

I don't think there's a good "baseline racket" or good "volley racket".

If you can play you can play. People say that the Wilson Pro Staff 85 is a great Volley racket... well Jim Courier and Chris Evert did well with it from the baseline.
Sure, some net players have a preference for a smaller racket and some baseliners prefer a bigger frame, but then Lendl was a baseliner and his racket was small...

I don't think the racket has anything to do with it.
Rackets are a matter of preference.
Good volley skills are a matter of technique, hand and eye coordination and intuition.

Cheers,
n.

I agree completely. All this talk of placing racquets instead of players onto spots on the court is pish-posh.

Anton
03-30-2008, 08:47 PM
It's the fiddler, not the fiddle.

I don't think there's a good "baseline racket" or good "volley racket".

If you can play you can play. People say that the Wilson Pro Staff 85 is a great Volley racket... well Jim Courier and Chris Evert did well with it from the baseline.
Sure, some net players have a preference for a smaller racket and some baseliners prefer a bigger frame, but then Lendl was a baseliner and his racket was small...

I don't think the racket has anything to do with it.
Rackets are a matter of preference.
Good volley skills are a matter of technique, hand and eye coordination and intuition.

Cheers,
n.

Then why is no one playing with a wood rackets anymore?

Racket makes a difference, really. Just not as much as technique.

NicolasH
03-30-2008, 09:03 PM
Yes, the racket makes a difference if you compare a wooden racket to a modern racket. The poster didn't ask if he should go back to a wooden racket, I think he wanted to know which of the modern (current) rackets he should use. My answer still stands: If you're a good player, it doesn't matter which (current) racket you play.


Now, why aren't people playing with wood rackets anymore?

Because the newer technology gives you more room for error.
In 1997 Mark Philippoussis hit serves with his racket (I think it was a Dunlop) and a Dunlop Maxply wooden racket. The avg. speed for his racket was 124 mph, the average speed with the wooden racket was 122 mph.

So if you hit the perfect stroke it really doesn't matter what you hit it with.

The biggest advantage in the newer rackets is that you have more room for error, you don't need to hit the sweetspot all the time to get a decent hit.

Also, you can apply way more spin with a modern racket than a wooden racket.

Personally I think that the strings play a huge difference too, especially with the new hybrid strings etc.

Cheers,
n.

Azzurri
03-31-2008, 04:32 AM
It's the fiddler, not the fiddle.

I don't think there's a good "baseline racket" or good "volley racket".

If you can play you can play. People say that the Wilson Pro Staff 85 is a great Volley racket... well Jim Courier and Chris Evert did well with it from the baseline.
Sure, some net players have a preference for a smaller racket and some baseliners prefer a bigger frame, but then Lendl was a baseliner and his racket was small...

I don't think the racket has anything to do with it.
Rackets are a matter of preference.
Good volley skills are a matter of technique, hand and eye coordination and intuition.

Cheers,
n.

I disagree...it has something to do with it. There were baseliners that used small headed racquets (remember we are talking about 15-25 years ago) but were considered mid-size at this time. But how many S&V players used 100 inch or bigger? Not one that I can recall. So its seems that a baseliner does not necessarily need a large headed racquet, but a S&V does.

morten
03-31-2008, 04:52 AM
You are right Slappano, except Chris something, played John MacEnroe at wimbledon one year using a big Prince racket, and Natalie Tauziat, some big Pro Kennex i think. Both s&v players, atleast Natalie..

NicolasH
03-31-2008, 08:08 AM
Chris Lewis got to the Wimbledon Finals in 1984.

Cheers,
n.

Azzurri
03-31-2008, 10:05 AM
oh yea, forgot he even existed...ok so one.

bmakel
03-31-2008, 11:16 AM
I have not tried the k90 but did try the Ksix-one (12 oz one). I play with a pure drive and I could not believe how good the volleying were with the heavier wilson. It was almost like I couild just stick the racquet out and the thing would do all the work. People coudl pound you adn the racquet would place the ball righ over the net. I had pretty good placement with the Pd but is is night and day volleyngwith this thing. The baseline returns were incerediable also. I do not know if it is wilson or the fact that the racquet weighs so much more than my PD. I will say the radical pro was good too but nothing like K6.1

NicolasH
03-31-2008, 11:17 AM
The question was how many serve and volley players use a frame 100 sq. or bigger?

I think we have to include doubles players as well. Serve and volley is a big part of doubles:
Here are a few:
Jeff Coetzee (#7 doubles player in the world with Dunlop 500)
Jaime Murray (#8 doubles player in the world with Dunlop 500)
Ratiwatana Bros (#9 doubles team in the world with Dunlop 500)
Leander Paes (Babolat)


I just don't believe that there's a particular racket for particular stroke. It's silly to suggest that you can't hit good volleys with a bigger frame. If anything it comes down to preferences, I agree volley players tend to prefer smaller frames. I'm a serve and volley player and I play a smaller frame. I've played with the same frame since 1989 (except for 2 seasons where I played with a bigger frame).

Cheers,
n.

Azzurri
04-01-2008, 05:49 AM
The question was how many serve and volley players use a frame 100 sq. or bigger?

I think we have to include doubles players as well. Serve and volley is a big part of doubles:
Here are a few:
Jeff Coetzee (#7 doubles player in the world with Dunlop 500)
Jaime Murray (#8 doubles player in the world with Dunlop 500)
Ratiwatana Bros (#9 doubles team in the world with Dunlop 500)
Leander Paes (Babolat)


I just don't believe that there's a particular racket for particular stroke. It's silly to suggest that you can't hit good volleys with a bigger frame. If anything it comes down to preferences, I agree volley players tend to prefer smaller frames. I'm a serve and volley player and I play a smaller frame. I've played with the same frame since 1989 (except for 2 seasons where I played with a bigger frame).

Cheers,
n.

right and so do 99% of the S&V players since 1983 (using that year as a yar the wood racquet really began to decline, maybe earlier, but just for refrence). Smaller racquets are better at the net. Never said you can't volley with a Babolat. But why would you?

rocket
04-01-2008, 06:08 AM
I have not tried the k90 but did try the Ksix-one (12 oz one). I play with a pure drive and I could not believe how good the volleying were with the heavier wilson. It was almost like I couild just stick the racquet out and the thing would do all the work. People coudl pound you adn the racquet would place the ball righ over the net. I had pretty good placement with the Pd but is is night and day volleyngwith this thing. The baseline returns were incerediable also. I do not know if it is wilson or the fact that the racquet weighs so much more than my PD. I will say the radical pro was good too but nothing like K6.1

I think there're 2 types of S&V games: singles & doubles. In singles, the serve has to be powerful enough to force a weak return that facilitates the put-away volley, so your stick has to have some heft to inflict damage. In doubles, the serve is more about placement & consistency, and there're more rapid volley exchanges, so your stick has to be light enough for those ping-pong moments.

There're exceptions to the rules, of course.

nickb
04-01-2008, 06:14 AM
right and so do 99% of the S&V players since 1983 (using that year as a yar the wood racquet really began to decline, maybe earlier, but just for refrence). Smaller racquets are better at the net. Never said you can't volley with a Babolat. But why would you?

Thats just your opinion....the bryan brothers dont seem to like small rackets at net do they?

I think 95+ rackets are better at net....just goes to show that its personal preference...

If a player volleys best with a babolat why wouldnt they use it?!

Azzurri
04-01-2008, 09:04 AM
Thats just your opinion....the bryan brothers dont seem to like small rackets at net do they?

I think 95+ rackets are better at net....just goes to show that its personal preference...

If a player volleys best with a babolat why wouldnt they use it?!

You may have missed my point.:) There are no true S&V players left..some do S&V a bit more than most other pure baseliners, but the S&V game is pretty much dead. In its heyday with graphite racquets (1983-2001) most players (IMO 90% or more. I don't have exact figures) used 90 in or smaller. I never said 95 was not a good S&V racquet, I was talking about 100 + head racquets. But anyway, smaller sized racquets are just better and my opinion is based on the numbers and S&V players I grew up watching. Honestly, I am not even talking personal prefrence, I am talking about what I see used during the S&V days. This is really not an opinion, so not sure why you are making it one. The fact is smaller headed racquets were the norm for the S&V player and larger headed racquets (100+) were not, however, small headed racquets were also used by many baseline players. Not an opinion, but a fact.:)

NicolasH
04-01-2008, 10:27 AM
I agree, s&v players are a dying breed.
I think it's a shame because I like to watch them play.

I think there are several factors why they're not around anymore:

- There's really only one grass court Tournament left (Wimbledon). And Wimbledon used to have 1 support tournament (the warm up tournament at Queens and then Halle came along).
There was a time when 3 of the 4 Grand Slam Tournaments were played on grass.

- There's more pressure to be a good junior player. S&V takes a fair amount of athelticism and some juniors just aren't strong/tall enough to do it yet. So if they want to win at an early age they have to play a game that suits their body.

- It's not taught anymore. How many coaches teach s&v? There are tons of schools like the Bollettieri Academy that are basically forehand schools. When I was at Saddlebrook at the Hopmann Academy I was one of two s&v players there.

Personally I think the s&v player has a statistical advantage (by coming to the net you force the opponent to hit a lower percentage shot). Especially on the local tournament level you can beat so many players because they simply do not know how to play against a player who comes to net on first and second serve and charges the opponents second serve. I've won so many matches just because I was the s&v player and not because I was the 'better' player.

I think part of the reason the Sampras is able to hang with Federer is because he mainly plays a s&v game now. I never considered Sampras to be a true s&v player, in my mind he was an all court player like Federer. Granted Fed and Sampras have been playing on really quick courts but I don't think a baseliner who's been retired for 6 years could hang with Federer.

Cheers,
n.

Azzurri
04-01-2008, 11:04 AM
I agree, s&v players are a dying breed.
I think it's a shame because I like to watch them play.

I think there are several factors why they're not around anymore:

- There's really only one grass court Tournament left (Wimbledon). And Wimbledon used to have 1 support tournament (the warm up tournament at Queens and then Halle came along).
There was a time when 3 of the 4 Grand Slam Tournaments were played on grass.

- There's more pressure to be a good junior player. S&V takes a fair amount of athelticism and some juniors just aren't strong/tall enough to do it yet. So if they want to win at an early age they have to play a game that suits their body.

- It's not taught anymore. How many coaches teach s&v? There are tons of schools like the Bollettieri Academy that are basically forehand schools. When I was at Saddlebrook at the Hopmann Academy I was one of two s&v players there.

Personally I think the s&v player has a statistical advantage (by coming to the net you force the opponent to hit a lower percentage shot). Especially on the local tournament level you can beat so many players because they simply do not know how to play against a player who comes to net on first and second serve and charges the opponents second serve. I've won so many matches just because I was the s&v player and not because I was the 'better' player.

I think part of the reason the Sampras is able to hang with Federer is because he mainly plays a s&v game now. I never considered Sampras to be a true s&v player, in my mind he was an all court player like Federer. Granted Fed and Sampras have been playing on really quick courts but I don't think a baseliner who's been retired for 6 years could hang with Federer.

Cheers,
n.

Good points. But I sorta disagree with the Sampras comment. He was never an "all-couter" like Fed. He charged pretty much every 1st serve. He did not stay back much, but after 1996-97 he went to net much more often and basically became a more "true" S&V if I remember correctly. Now in his return game, yes he was an all-court player.

pmerk34
04-01-2008, 11:17 AM
I agree, s&v players are a dying breed.
I think it's a shame because I like to watch them play.

I think there are several factors why they're not around anymore:

- There's really only one grass court Tournament left (Wimbledon). And Wimbledon used to have 1 support tournament (the warm up tournament at Queens and then Halle came along).
There was a time when 3 of the 4 Grand Slam Tournaments were played on grass.

- There's more pressure to be a good junior player. S&V takes a fair amount of athelticism and some juniors just aren't strong/tall enough to do it yet. So if they want to win at an early age they have to play a game that suits their body.

- It's not taught anymore. How many coaches teach s&v? There are tons of schools like the Bollettieri Academy that are basically forehand schools. When I was at Saddlebrook at the Hopmann Academy I was one of two s&v players there.

Personally I think the s&v player has a statistical advantage (by coming to the net you force the opponent to hit a lower percentage shot). Especially on the local tournament level you can beat so many players because they simply do not know how to play against a player who comes to net on first and second serve and charges the opponents second serve. I've won so many matches just because I was the s&v player and not because I was the 'better' player.

I think part of the reason the Sampras is able to hang with Federer is because he mainly plays a s&v game now. I never considered Sampras to be a true s&v player, in my mind he was an all court player like Federer. Granted Fed and Sampras have been playing on really quick courts but I don't think a baseliner who's been retired for 6 years could hang with Federer.

Cheers,
n.

Serve and volley isn't used now at the pro level becuase it does not work nearly as well as it used to:

1) Luxilon strings produce enormous spin. Pat Rafter has a few quotes on how difficult it became for him to volley his last few seasons as luxilon and other spin happy strings coupled with the lighter open faced frames made that first volley drop at his shoetops instead of his waist. I see these extrmeme angled dipping passing shots and service returns that I used to see almost never back in the day.

2)The balls have been depressured. Pick up a new container of balls. You can squeeze the plastic in easily. It used to hardly squeeze at all.

3) Almost every surface including the grass courts have Wimbledon have been made slower. The way Winbledon played this past summer it looked like there would have been almost no advantage S & V'ing. The U.S. Open is slower too. "like playing in a sandbox" as Andy Roddick suggested.

The game right now is about spin, spin, spin and more spin. They slowed everything down becuase in the good old days of serve and volley (which is the style I too play btw) there were an awful lot of boring ace-a-thon matches featuring 2 stroke rallies. IMHO they need to try and bring back some balance to make it so players at a younger age see they can win and even dominate playing this way. It gets kind of boring never seeing this style anymore.

NicolasH
04-01-2008, 11:57 AM
I guess it depends on your definition of a true s&v player. To me a s&v is someone who comes to net on his first and second serve no matter what surface he's on. Sampras didn't really do that. On grass yes, on hardcourt he didn't always come in on his 2nd serve. Guys like Cash, Edberg, McEnroe, Rafter, Curren etc. came to net on each serve. Even Becker didn't come to net on every serve.

Even if you want to call Sampras a s&v player and not an all courter, I still believe that his success against Fed is due to his coming to the net a lot.

Cheers,
n.

DJG
04-01-2008, 12:05 PM
- There's really only one grass court Tournament left (Wimbledon). And Wimbledon used to have 1 support tournament (the warm up tournament at Queens and then Halle came along).


Queens is now the Stella Artois. Roddick won it last year, beating Mahut in the final. (One of the few left of this dying breed.)

Ryoma Kun
04-01-2008, 12:13 PM
the k90 is a great volleying stick, but you need to be in good form to play against a strong player with it. Sure, a 3.0 could volley with it because the balls not really moving that fast, but in collegiate tennis we need to be a bit more reasonable when the balls come a lot faster with a lot more spin. The K90 is a bit too slow through the air for me and i can maneuver the 85 a lot easier.

My vote goes to... PS85, prince TT warrior, prince diablo, and slazenger probraid.
Don't get me wrong, the k90 is a great racquet, just a bit too slow and not enough feel for a finesse shots

nickb
04-01-2008, 02:34 PM
You may have missed my point.:) There are no true S&V players left..some do S&V a bit more than most other pure baseliners, but the S&V game is pretty much dead. In its heyday with graphite racquets (1983-2001) most players (IMO 90% or more. I don't have exact figures) used 90 in or smaller. I never said 95 was not a good S&V racquet, I was talking about 100 + head racquets. But anyway, smaller sized racquets are just better and my opinion is based on the numbers and S&V players I grew up watching. Honestly, I am not even talking personal prefrence, I am talking about what I see used during the S&V days. This is really not an opinion, so not sure why you are making it one. The fact is smaller headed racquets were the norm for the S&V player and larger headed racquets (100+) were not, however, small headed racquets were also used by many baseline players. Not an opinion, but a fact.:)

Everybody back then used small headed rackets...duh.

We are talking about the K90 (which is a modern racket)...

The game has changed...why make things harder for yourself with a small headed, unforgiving racket??

I think for TODAYS game bigger headed rackets work better for volleying.

Nick

NicolasH
04-01-2008, 02:37 PM
the k90 is a great volleying stick, but you need to be in good form to play against a strong player with it. Sure, a 3.0 could volley with it because the balls not really moving that fast, but in collegiate tennis we need to be a bit more reasonable when the balls come a lot faster with a lot more spin. The K90 is a bit too slow through the air for me and i can maneuver the 85 a lot easier.

My vote goes to... PS85, prince TT warrior, prince diablo, and slazenger probraid.
Don't get me wrong, the k90 is a great racquet, just a bit too slow and not enough feel for a finesse shots

Mate, 5 sq. is a ridiculous small difference, on a 85 sq. racket.
5 sq. is less than 6%... I doubt that it would make a difference. Fed and Sampras seem to be able to hit their volleys just fine with it and they face bigger cuts than in collegiate tennis.

Also, the TT Warrior is 97sq... and you think it's more maneuverable than the k90?

Don't get me wrong, I still play the 85 St. Vincent model, I've been playing with this frame since 1989. I've tried the k90 and n90, I felt both rackets were too light for me. Yeah I could make them heavier etc. but I don't get my rackets for free anymore and the difference isn't that big that it would warrant a change. Plus the biggest change has really been in the strings lately. Until a frame comes along that is really better and would make me a better player, I'm sticking with my old racket.

Cheers,
n.

Azzurri
04-02-2008, 04:08 AM
Everybody back then used small headed rackets...duh.

We are talking about the K90 (which is a modern racket)...

The game has changed...why make things harder for yourself with a small headed, unforgiving racket??

I think for TODAYS game bigger headed rackets work better for volleying.

Nick

Nick, are you brain dead? The OP asked a question and EVERYONE is comparing the K90 with other racquets. This is not a discussion about the K90, but what compares to it.

Did you not see the dates I listed? TWICE! I am not talking about TODAY. There are NO S&V players left (true S&V and sorry, I don't count doubles). So WTF would I talk about today when there are NO S&V players? Seriously!:confused:

K90 a modern racquet? Why? Cause it has Ncode or Karophite or a flashy paintjob. Give me a break. You are reaching and I am clueless as to what you are argueing about. There are no S&V players TODAY...so what are we even talking about? Again, the poster asked a question, I stated the PS 85 is a better volley/net racquet. I based my OPINION on the fact that in the HEYDAY of S&V tennis, 99% of S&V players used small headed racquets. Your mention of "everybody used small headed racquets" is duh..stupid. By the way, smart*****, I said the ear of the S&V was till 2001, you tellin me most people used a small headed racquet? NO! They did not. The larger headed, baseline player took over and many players used 98+ inch racquets.

Honestly, you are argueing facts, not an opinion. If a large headed racquet was just as good as a small headed racquet at the net, then why weren't more players using the larger racquet? They had large racquets in the 80's and certainly the 90's.

Today's game? You mean all those doubles teams and their 100 inch racquets? If that is your idea of S&V tennis, good luck, but the S&V game is DEAD. It was my generation and I know all about it. Using the Bryan brothers as an example is a joke.

I was trying to be be friendly, but you stepped over the line with your idiotness. Go have some tea.:mad:

Azzurri
04-02-2008, 04:13 AM
Mate, 5 sq. is a ridiculous small difference, on a 85 sq. racket.
5 sq. is less than 6%... I doubt that it would make a difference. Fed and Sampras seem to be able to hit their volleys just fine with it and they face bigger cuts than in collegiate tennis.

Also, the TT Warrior is 97sq... and you think it's more maneuverable than the k90?

Don't get me wrong, I still play the 85 St. Vincent model, I've been playing with this frame since 1989. I've tried the k90 and n90, I felt both rackets were too light for me. Yeah I could make them heavier etc. but I don't get my rackets for free anymore and the difference isn't that big that it would warrant a change. Plus the biggest change has really been in the strings lately. Until a frame comes along that is really better and would make me a better player, I'm sticking with my old racket.

Cheers,
n.

I don't get this post. You play the PS 85, you obviously like it better than the N or K 90..yes? The PS 85 is easier to swing, that may be the reason people like it better than the N or K 90's at the net.

Watch yourself, according to Nickb, headsize don't matter. No reason a TT can't be just as good at the net as a PS 85.

nickb
04-02-2008, 05:49 AM
Nick, are you brain dead? The OP asked a question and EVERYONE is comparing the K90 with other racquets. This is not a discussion about the K90, but what compares to it.

Did you not see the dates I listed? TWICE! I am not talking about TODAY. There are NO S&V players left (true S&V and sorry, I don't count doubles). So WTF would I talk about today when there are NO S&V players? Seriously!:confused:

K90 a modern racquet? Why? Cause it has Ncode or Karophite or a flashy paintjob. Give me a break. You are reaching and I am clueless as to what you are argueing about. There are no S&V players TODAY...so what are we even talking about? Again, the poster asked a question, I stated the PS 85 is a better volley/net racquet. I based my OPINION on the fact that in the HEYDAY of S&V tennis, 99% of S&V players used small headed racquets. Your mention of "everybody used small headed racquets" is duh..stupid. By the way, smart*****, I said the ear of the S&V was till 2001, you tellin me most people used a small headed racquet? NO! They did not. The larger headed, baseline player took over and many players used 98+ inch racquets.

Honestly, you are argueing facts, not an opinion. If a large headed racquet was just as good as a small headed racquet at the net, then why weren't more players using the larger racquet? They had large racquets in the 80's and certainly the 90's.

Today's game? You mean all those doubles teams and their 100 inch racquets? If that is your idea of S&V tennis, good luck, but the S&V game is DEAD. It was my generation and I know all about it. Using the Bryan brothers as an example is a joke.

I was trying to be be friendly, but you stepped over the line with your idiotness. Go have some tea.:mad:

Wow....

Sorry...I did not mean to wreck your life with my post :roll:

Why wouldnt you count doubles as S and V?...thats just stupid!

The K90 IS a modern racket...it got a flashy paintjob, claims to use fancy technology and was made in 2007 (duh).

I'm 100% sure that the bryan brothers have better volleys than you :oops:

Your the one using sad insults...

Looks like your just another Fed fanboy 2.0 player...

nickb
04-02-2008, 06:30 AM
I don't get this post. You play the PS 85, you obviously like it better than the N or K 90..yes? The PS 85 is easier to swing, that may be the reason people like it better than the N or K 90's at the net.

Watch yourself, according to Nickb, headsize don't matter. No reason a TT can't be just as good at the net as a PS 85.

Yes your correct...its the person using the racket thats good at net.

I play a S and V game...I have solid volleys.

I use a 98 sqin racket with poly/kevlar hybrids...its the player not the racket.

Azzurri
04-02-2008, 06:37 AM
Wow....

Sorry...I did not mean to wreck your life with my post :roll:

Why wouldnt you count doubles as S and V?...thats just stupid!

The K90 IS a modern racket...it got a flashy paintjob, claims to use fancy technology and was made in 2007 (duh).

I'm 100% sure that the bryan brothers have better volleys than you :oops:

Your the one using sad insults...

Looks like your just another Fed fanboy 2.0 player...

ok, ok. Lets not argue. I think you are good guy on the boards and we seem to get along just fine. Sorry.

I don't count doubles because its not true S&V. You only worry about haf the court. Believe me, I am a better S&V player in doubles than singles. That would most likely be tru for most people. The Bryan Bros. are good doubles players, but not very competitive in singles. I saw them each play a few times and they are not S&V players like in doubles. Doubles is a different kind of S&V anyway. Hope you understand why I don't consider doubles like singles in the S&V game. Its just different.

I was talking about racquets from 1983-2001, so the K90 would be out of the equation. Also, there are little S&V players today, so the only way I could justify my "opinion" is to look at the S&V era (for me) and everyone of them (except Lewis) used a smaller racquet (max 95). There were plenty of large headed racquets being used, but not by the S&V players, hence the smaller headed racquets are better for this type of game. I still never understood why you argued this point?

I am honestly not a fan of any tennis player out there. Really, I'm not. When I was a kid I loved Mac, I mean I wanted to be him. I used to get upset when he lost and was overjoyed when he won. Then it was Agassi...really liked his game and flair. He was so different for a baseliner. The guy just hit out all the time and I really lied him. I was a big fan and was really upset when he lost to Pete in 90. I actually hated Sampras until 92 when he lost to Edberg. I felt sorry for him. Slowly but surely I began to admire Pete. Mostly because I started to mature and he was the epitomy of class (at least tht is what I saw). Not saying these guys are great people off the court (everyone has their faults, some more tan other-Britney Spears), but I admored their game and attitude on the court. After Sampras won the 93 W, I was hooked. This was when he really got good. I was addicted to watching him play (and Agassi). It was hard to root for one or the other when they played, but I usually rooted for Pete.

Federer..I wanted to really root for him. I respect him greatly, but when he loses I could care less. I find his game to be incredible, but the rest of the field is so bland, that the game itself bores me for the most part. I try to watch tennis, but unless its the majors, I really only watch the semi or finals. Believe me, I use the K90 because I like the feel of the racquet. I have bought and played at least 25 racquets over the past 3 years and I always went back to this one. Nothing, nothing to do with Federer. Now I hear Pete is hitting a prototype..I will be all over that racquets and yes, because its Pete. Also because I pray its more like the PS 85 (especially the swing weight). So calling me a Fed fanboy is way off. I just dislike most players game of today and find Fed's more like the one I grew up watching. I really wish I could find a player I liked and root for him, but Fed is the closest thing right now. If he wins great, if he loses, oh well.

rocket
04-02-2008, 06:53 AM
Believe me, I use the K90 because I like the feel of the racquet. I have bought and played at least 25 racquets over the past 3 years and I always went back to this one. Nothing, nothing to do with Federer. Now I hear Pete is hitting a prototype..I will be all over that racquets and yes, because its Pete. Also because I pray its more like the PS 85 (especially the swing weight).

Ditto, if I could have my K90 in black, plain black, I would. Love the solid feel of the PS85, but need a tad more sq.in. The Sampras proto looks really, really appealing. I don't even want it to have his name on, but if it's there, then whatever. The K90 is flashy, some ppl think I'm a Fed wannabe, but hey, what-evah.

Azzurri
04-02-2008, 07:27 AM
Ditto, if I could have my K90 in black, plain black, I would. Love the solid feel of the PS85, but need a tad more sq.in. The Sampras proto looks really, really appealing. I don't even want it to have his name on, but if it's there, then whatever. The K90 is flashy, some ppl think I'm a Fed wannabe, but hey, what-evah.

I know what you mean. That extra .5 sq in makes a difference in my serve and backhand. My volleys are better with the PS 85 and a bit better on FH, but I get more juice on the serve and better slice and topspin on the BH with the K90 (Asian by the way). I have hit with these racquets and all were pretty much junk or just did not have the all around game I needed in a racquet:

N90
AN90
POG
Dunlop M-Fil 200
Dunlop M-Fil 300
Dunlop Maxply Mac
Head Radical Twin Tube
PC 600
Fischer Pro...
LM Radical
LM Prestige
Flexpoint Prestige
iPrestige 98
PK Redondo MP
Yonex RDS 001 MP
K90
K95
K95 Team
PS 95
Wilson Ultra 2
Dunlop Mac Comp 2
Boris Becker 11
and a few others I forget.

These are the ones I kept:
PS 85 (SV, TW and new China)
Max 200g
Head Radical TT
Ak90's

NicolasH
04-02-2008, 08:15 AM
I don't get this post. You play the PS 85, you obviously like it better than the N or K 90..yes? The PS 85 is easier to swing, that may be the reason people like it better than the N or K 90's at the net.

Watch yourself, according to Nickb, headsize don't matter. No reason a TT can't be just as good at the net as a PS 85.


Yes I play the PS 85. I like the 85 better because I'm used to it. I would be just as good a player with a Dunlop 98 sq. or what have you, it would just take me a while to get used to it.
I've tried the n90 and k90 and I didn't feel that I would be a better player with those rackets, so why change?

Why do I have to watch myself? I just questioned someone who claimed that a racket that was 6% bigger than a PS 85 was unwieldy and then said that the Warrior TT was better as well (even though the Warrior TT is 97sq.)

Cheers,
n.

morten
04-02-2008, 12:25 PM
same here NicolasH... and i also use the 85 because i like it the best. ..

morten
04-02-2008, 12:42 PM
Are you guys sure about the Sampras 90? ps, tour 90 is very underrated IMO, more like the 85 than most rackets i have tried... but not like the 85 ;)

stormholloway
04-02-2008, 12:50 PM
I think the PS Tour 90 is way underrated as well. It's by far the closest to the 85 in terms of overall weight distribution. It just seemed to be a lot heavier than the 85 and less scalpel-like.

The 85 is surely a better volleying stick than the K90. To me, the K90 is superior from the baseline as it feels to have more heft and stiffness in the hoop.

I have high hopes that the new Pro Staff is the one.

morten
04-02-2008, 01:14 PM
when do you think the new pro staff will come stormholloway?

string70
04-02-2008, 01:26 PM
Is the k90 the best volleying frame ever?

No

Ryoma Kun
04-02-2008, 05:31 PM
Is the k90 the best volleying frame ever?

No

End of Discussion

drakulie
04-02-2008, 05:35 PM
The K90 is a PS85 on roids at the net. It is awesome.

Azzurri
04-03-2008, 04:23 AM
The K90 is a PS85 on roids at the net. It is awesome.

I assume you mean the power...but how about the handling? I found the PS85 to be easier to maneuver at the net. Hard to really explain, but I am able to handle shots at the net better with the PS than the AK90. Did you notice any difference between the AK90 and the K90 at net?

maggam24
04-13-2008, 07:49 PM
For me, the Dunlop max 200g, is the best frame for volleying I have ever hit with. I can understand why people would say the PS 6.0 85 is the best because it is like hitting with a board and you have phenomenal control. But what makes the max 200g so unique is the flex. It has a flex rating of 47. Which means unparalleled 'dwell time.' Also if you string low to make up for the lack of power, you get even more dwell time. I'm 26 so I have no excuse to use this racquet but I picked up 2 of the Pro III models (the last in production) and was using one in a doubles match today. I had forgotten how amazing the max 200g is at the net and for approach shots. I have never hit with a racquet with a more satisfying sweet spot. Not great for topspin, but you can hit out with it without much fear of it sailing long. Anyway, the reason for me why this is the best volley racquet is the dwell time. So much feel and control.

m1stuhxsp4rk5
04-13-2008, 08:33 PM
^^^
i agree with you there about how great the max 200g is but only if the head was a little bigger but still i hit better with that racket then i did with the ps85 but not as good at my prestige. to bad the prestige doesnt have that kind of flex i would love it not sure about others though

Gmedlo
04-13-2008, 08:51 PM
I volley better with my feel-less, technoliginated/holey, flexy, relatively medium-weighted, over-size, full poly-nated racquet than I do with a ps85 with full gut.

morten
04-13-2008, 11:38 PM
strange Gmeldo.....

prosealster
04-14-2008, 03:35 AM
iprestige feels the best for me....although I agree, k90 is pretty good

In D Zone
04-14-2008, 07:48 AM
To me the best volley rest on the skill of the volleyer ... not the racquet. I have played guys with great control on their volleys that you cannot tell whether they are hitting long, short, dropshots or angles. And surprisingly some play with os sized racquets. Volleying SKILL encompass - footwork, anticipation, court presence and focus.

I think if you were to categorized great racquets for volley - you got to rate which racquet is good (not great) for doubles vs singles (s&V and all around play).

Be Cool
05-17-2008, 12:03 AM
Kblade felt a bit more forgiving, but the KFac feels more solid at the net.