PDA

View Full Version : Looking for a very low power racquet...


Shaolin_sword36
04-23-2008, 07:36 PM
Currently hitting with a Wilson Hammer Midplus 6.9 @ 58lbs. My strokes are long and flat with a continental forehand. I like to take the ball quite high rather than put a ton of topspin. My 6.9 gives me good depth control, but lacks mass on the serve and is flimsy on volleys. I'm looking for something around 95" with low power, mass, and above all something that will feel like my 6.9 on depth, but with more mass. Basically something with a stringbed that isn't very lively. Of course strings would play a huge role, but I can't exactly afford to hit each racquet with various string tensions. Most of the demos are strung at 60lbs.

I've recently hit with:

Dunlop AG200 - Great flat serve, pinpoint volleys. Very fluid racquet. As much as I wanted to like this racquet I felt I couldn't hit it as hard as I wanted to because this racquet was so lively. I didn't have the depth control that I wanted - a whole lot of long balls. Racquet was light as well.

Wilson K95 16x19 - Just the right amount of depth control, but it was not as manouverable as I would have liked. I could smoke balls and nothing would go long. Great court penetration.

Dunlop Hotmelt 300G - Good depth control, a tiny bit too much pop off the stringbed. Otherwise a good manouverable racquet.

I'm probably going to give the K95 another hit...I could hit a heavy, flat ball with a long swing and it gave me both control and I generated a good deal of racquet speed. My only gripe was that it was a chore to hit, and throughout the match it would definately get tiring. My only experiences are with Dunlops and Wilsons. I've been thinking of giving the K Blade 93/98 a hit. Anything else I should hit?

Shaolin_sword36
04-23-2008, 07:39 PM
EDIT - K95 16x18, non-team. Weight of 12.3oz.

anirut
04-23-2008, 07:45 PM
Try the Redondo mid plus. But the Redondo mid is much better. Give them both a demo. Don't let the word "mid" scare you.

lilxjohnyy
04-23-2008, 08:08 PM
well i used the k95 for a while... thought it had too much power. then i tried the prestige microgel mp. felt alot like k95 IMO.

lilxjohnyy
04-23-2008, 08:08 PM
Try the Redondo mid plus. But the Redondo mid is much better. Give them both a demo. Don't let the word "mid" scare you.
the word "mid" doesnt scare me... but the extremely low flex scares me

LanEvo
04-23-2008, 08:09 PM
the mfil 300 is pretty low powered

LanEvo
04-23-2008, 08:10 PM
also the rds 001 mid

Shaolin_sword36
04-23-2008, 08:16 PM
well i used the k95 for a while... thought it had too much power. then i tried the prestige microgel mp. felt alot like k95 IMO.

How lively is the stringbed on the MG? I thought with the mass and feel of the K95 I could cup the ball for a millisecond longer and really penetrate with a heavy ball.

charaseac
04-23-2008, 08:19 PM
K95 18 x 20? Since you don't do too much spin?

Gantz
04-23-2008, 08:27 PM
try the RQiS 1 and K90. the fischer M comp is also somewhat low powered.

Shaolin_sword36
04-23-2008, 08:35 PM
Read a couple reviews for the RQiS1...surprising low power is what I got. Exactly how I felt about the K95.

[d]ragon
04-23-2008, 08:47 PM
the most low powered frame i thought is the rds001 mid (some will argue with me). when i hit with it, it just didnt hav any juice at all. couldnt be the strings cuz the racquet felt comfy and all. it would hav been a good racquet if it were strung at a lower tension

vwfye
04-23-2008, 08:58 PM
Prince Pro 110 strung at 75lbs... or my T2000 strung at 60

Zachol82
04-23-2008, 09:20 PM
If you want a VERY low power racquet, go for the Yonex RQ iS 1 Tour:
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCYONEX-RQIS1T.html

This racquet has EVERYTHING, spins, control, and feel. The only thing it doesn't have is power =)

Blade0324
04-24-2008, 07:39 AM
I have to agree with the other that have said try the RQIS Tour 1. This is without question the lowest powerd racquet I have every played with. I have played with Prestige frames for some time and currently using MG Prestige but I will be switching to the RQIS very soon. If you can supply your own power then you will like this frame but if not you will find that balls land short due to the low power of this frame.

jorel
04-24-2008, 09:02 AM
Currently hitting with a Wilson Hammer Midplus 6.9 @ 58lbs. My strokes are long and flat with a continental forehand. I like to take the ball quite high rather than put a ton of topspin. My 6.9 gives me good depth control, but lacks mass on the serve and is flimsy on volleys. I'm looking for something around 95" with low power, mass, and above all something that will feel like my 6.9 on depth, but with more mass. Basically something with a stringbed that isn't very lively. Of course strings would play a huge role, but I can't exactly afford to hit each racquet with various string tensions. Most of the demos are strung at 60lbs.

I've recently hit with:

Dunlop AG200 - Great flat serve, pinpoint volleys. Very fluid racquet. As much as I wanted to like this racquet I felt I couldn't hit it as hard as I wanted to because this racquet was so lively. I didn't have the depth control that I wanted - a whole lot of long balls. Racquet was light as well.

Wilson K95 16x19 - Just the right amount of depth control, but it was not as manouverable as I would have liked. I could smoke balls and nothing would go long. Great court penetration.

Dunlop Hotmelt 300G - Good depth control, a tiny bit too much pop off the stringbed. Otherwise a good manouverable racquet.

I'm probably going to give the K95 another hit...I could hit a heavy, flat ball with a long swing and it gave me both control and I generated a good deal of racquet speed. My only gripe was that it was a chore to hit, and throughout the match it would definately get tiring. My only experiences are with Dunlops and Wilsons. I've been thinking of giving the K Blade 93/98 a hit. Anything else I should hit?

try the Kfactor 95 6.1 18x20

ericsson
04-24-2008, 09:44 AM
Donnay pro 1

Jhm37
04-24-2008, 10:30 AM
Ever use the racquet finder tool at the Tennis Magazine site?
http://www.tennis.com/yourgame/gear/index.aspx

That thing seems to get right the power ratings for all the racquets I own.

Redondo Mid, according to them, is one of the lowest powered racquets on the market, and it's certainly the lowest powered one that I own. Is it still on the market? Been a while since I last checked the status of Pro Kennex.

Nice racquet, great feel, but just a little too underpowered for me. Worth a demo though, at the very least, so that you can get a taste of just what an ultra-low powered racquet feels like.

TW Professor
04-24-2008, 10:49 AM
Your answer lies here:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/comparepower.cgi

jorel
04-24-2008, 10:57 AM
Your answer lies here:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/comparepower.cgi

i knew I shouldnt have believed people when they told me TW staff sit around all day and admire their own tans (a buttload of work must have went into that)

FH2FH
04-24-2008, 11:29 AM
Your answer lies here:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/comparepower.cgi

This does not answer the question. The percentages are nearly identical for an Aerogel 300 as the above Yonex, which says nothing about power.

Jhm37's post is a better gauge of power. Basically it multiplies headsize, swingweight, and stiffness. I've also found this site <racquettech? ...USRSA sources> provides more accurate swingweights and static weights.

Ever use the racquet finder tool at the Tennis Magazine site?
http://www.tennis.com/yourgame/gear/index.aspx

Shaolin_sword36
04-24-2008, 11:36 AM
Thanks fellas I'm pretty much looking for a stick that has some mass, not necessarily 13 oz, but something that I can take a full whack at and hit a heavy ball. I'm giving the Flexpoint Prestige a go.

jorel
04-24-2008, 11:38 AM
This does not answer the question. The percentages are nearly identical for an Aerogel 300 as the above Yonex, which says nothing about power.

Jhm37's post is a better gauge of power. Basically it multiplies headsize, swingweight, and stiffness. I've also found this site <racquettech? ...USRSA sources> provides more accurate swingweights and static weights.

it actually does... it tells you that the dunlop and yonex have similar power levels... it also tells you exactly where the power level lies on the face of the racquet.

babolat15
04-24-2008, 11:41 AM
haha TW PrOF.

jorel
04-24-2008, 11:42 AM
Your answer lies here:
http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/cgi-bin/comparepower.cgi

just a comment... do you think this format might be too technical for some.... it seems like you need some sort of technical degree, technical background or knowledge to be able to understand.. just a thought,... hard for me to say since i do work in a technical field... its hard for me to understand where a nontechnical person is coming from (like an English Prof. or someone coming from that way of thinking )

maybe a tutorial is needed

z-money
04-24-2008, 11:43 AM
Currently hitting with a Wilson Hammer Midplus 6.9 @ 58lbs. My strokes are long and flat with a continental forehand. I like to take the ball quite high rather than put a ton of topspin. My 6.9 gives me good depth control, but lacks mass on the serve and is flimsy on volleys. I'm looking for something around 95" with low power, mass, and above all something that will feel like my 6.9 on depth, but with more mass. Basically something with a stringbed that isn't very lively. Of course strings would play a huge role, but I can't exactly afford to hit each racquet with various string tensions. Most of the demos are strung at 60lbs.

I've recently hit with:

Dunlop AG200 - Great flat serve, pinpoint volleys. Very fluid racquet. As much as I wanted to like this racquet I felt I couldn't hit it as hard as I wanted to because this racquet was so lively. I didn't have the depth control that I wanted - a whole lot of long balls. Racquet was light as well.

Wilson K95 16x19 - Just the right amount of depth control, but it was not as manouverable as I would have liked. I could smoke balls and nothing would go long. Great court penetration.

Dunlop Hotmelt 300G - Good depth control, a tiny bit too much pop off the stringbed. Otherwise a good manouverable racquet.

I'm probably going to give the K95 another hit...I could hit a heavy, flat ball with a long swing and it gave me both control and I generated a good deal of racquet speed. My only gripe was that it was a chore to hit, and throughout the match it would definately get tiring. My only experiences are with Dunlops and Wilsons. I've been thinking of giving the K Blade 93/98 a hit. Anything else I should hit?

I have some classic prestiges That might be right up your ally myfriend!
zachl620@hotmial.com

FH2FH
04-24-2008, 11:48 AM
it actually does... it tells you that the dunlop and yonex have similar power levels... it also tells you exactly where the power level lies on the face of the racquet.

Uh... but they DON'T have simliar power levels. That's kind of the point in this thread, isn't it?

Obviously you have not played with these frames.

retrowagen
04-24-2008, 11:54 AM
Easy. Pick basically any racket you can think of, and string it at the maximum of its allowable string tension, or maybe even five pounds beyond that.

Power's gone. Control's better. Arm may never be the same.

jorel
04-24-2008, 11:57 AM
Uh... but they DON'T have simliar power levels. That's kind of the point in this thread, isn't it?

Obviously you have not played with these frames.

it also depends on string and tension... i trust TW's assesment and recommendation and knowledge and data a little more than most of the posters on these boards.

FH2FH
04-24-2008, 12:00 PM
The TW tool mentioned tells you where the power is on the face of a racquet. The poster is wanting to know some frames with inherently low power.

To the OP, you can use the USRSA calculated method which is the standard I believe. You should be able to find your racquet and compare it to available (not discontinued) frames. The only other things as important in determining the power of a racquet is the players swing speed, type of strings, and tension.

jorel
04-24-2008, 12:02 PM
The TW tool mentioned tells you where the power is on the face of a racquet. The poster is wanting to know some frames with inherently low power.

To the OP, you can use the USRSA calculated method which is the standard I believe. You should be able to find your racquet and compare it to available (not discontinued) frames. The only other things as important in determining the power of a racquet is the players swing speed, type of strings, and tension.

the tool is used to compare the power level of different racquets that you are comparing... so pick a handful of racquets that you are interested in and plug it into the tool and it will tell you the racquet with the least power (the lowest numbers)

JacKKyKung
04-24-2008, 12:04 PM
MG prestige Mid with 16 guage BB alu power rough @ 60 pounds.

Does it "low" enough?

HeadPrestige
04-24-2008, 12:04 PM
yonex rds 001 mid.

FH2FH
04-24-2008, 12:17 PM
the tool is used to compare the power level of different racquets that you are comparing... so pick a handful of racquets that you are interested in and plug it into the tool and it will tell you the racquet with the least power (the lowest numbers)

You're kidding right? Let's use my previous examples: Aerogel 300 and RQiS 1 Tour. The "power level" of the two differs by 0.1% in the center. One position up, where many advanced players hit the ball, the difference is 1.3%.

Now let's compare with the USRSA tool:
AG 300, power = 2000 (SW 324, 98in, 63 RDC)
RQiS 1 Tour, power = 1808 (SW 312, 95in, 61 RDC)

Now the difference = 9.6%. It does not say where this power difference occurs, but I don't think it matters; we strive to hit the ball in the same spot every time, right? I think most people will find a 9.6% difference more accurate, probably seeming even greater.

Notice that all factors normally associated with power level are lower for the "0.1-1.3% less powerful Yonex: lower swingweight, lower stiffness, and 3 sq/in smaller headsize.

Tell me that you honestly do not believe this is only a 0.1-1.3% difference. I'd bet 99% of every poster here would disagree with that. :-|

jorel
04-24-2008, 12:22 PM
You're kidding right? Let's use my previous examples: Aerogel 300 and RQiS 1 Tour. The "power level" of the two differs by 0.1% in the center. One position up, where many advanced players hit the ball, the difference is 1.3%.

Now let's compare with the USRSA tool:
AG 300, power = 2000 (SW 324, 98in, 63 RDC)
RQiS 1 Tour, power = 1808 (SW 312, 95in, 61 RDC)

Now the difference = 9.6%. It does not say where this power difference occurs, but I don't think it matters; we strive to hit the ball in the same spot every time, right? I think most people will find a 9.6% difference more accurate, probably seeming even greater.

Notice that all factors normally associated with power level are lower for the "0.1-1.3% less powerful Yonex: lower swingweight, lower stiffness, and 3 sq/in smaller headsize.

Tell me that you honestly do not believe this is only a 0.1-1.3% difference. I'd bet 99% of every poster here would disagree with that. :-|

since we dont have a calibration between the percentage points among the USRA and TW percentages, its hard for us to determine the relation between TW percent points and USRA percent points... i guess the moral of this situation is to use the two tools in conjuction and not against each other to determine the appropriate racquet for each individual.

FH2FH
04-24-2008, 12:32 PM
since we dont have a calibration between the percentage points among the USRA and TW percentages, its hard for us to determine the relation between TW percent points and USRA percent points... i guess the moral of this situation is to use the two tools in conjuction and not against each other to determine the appropriate racquet for each individual.

That's generally a good way to come to a conclusion, but I feel in this case the TW tool skews the results because it doesn't calculate power in the way the OP requested. I want the TW tools to be the best there are, but I realize this will not happen quickly and with complete accuracy. Guess I'll stick to the tried and true USRSA tools for now.

Non-member section is at the bottom:
http://www.racquettech.com/top/tools_toc.html

jorel
04-24-2008, 01:00 PM
i dont want to beat a dead horse but one thing the USRA info does not tell you is the power at different points on the racquet... for example... some racquets can have the same power level at the center of the racquet but at the tip of the racquet... one racquet might be more powerful than another racquet .... telling you if certain racquets have a drop in power as you move to the tip of the racquet whereas other racquets will have more power at the tip of the racquet. I personally want as much power at the tip of the racquet as possible
i do not want a drop off in power anywhere on the face of the racquet (if possible)

FH2FH
04-24-2008, 01:15 PM
i dont want to beat a dead horse but one thing the USRA info does not tell you is the power at different points on the racquet... for example... some racquets can have the same power level at the center of the racquet but at the tip of the racquet... one racquet might be more powerful than another racquet .... telling you if certain racquets have a drop in power as you move to the tip of the racquet whereas other racquets will have more power at the tip of the racquet. I personally want as much power at the tip of the racquet as possible
i do not want a drop off in power anywhere on the face of the racquet (if possible)

Right, and it is important. I think stiffness/beam width and balance are mostly responsible for that. You should probably use a stiff racquet, provided it doesn't hurt your arm, yada, yada. ;)

Warning! MISC rambling: I was under the impression a year or so ago that good on paper (for me) meant good playability. Unfortunately that's only part of the story. There are so many other things like is the hoop flexible or is the head? TW also lists beam widths which is handy. What material is used? (TW also lists this.) How is it made? How's the quality control? Etc, etc. All of these things are hard to quantify. Also, some good manufacturers produce junk from time to time, so the choices are not always easy. I don't believe the other site has as good of a forum either. So there are different tools as you said.

Shaolin_sword36
04-24-2008, 01:51 PM
Well I just hit the Flexpoint Prestige MP...great heft and control. The timing is a bit off due to it being a heavier racquet, but I can take a full swing and place it in the back. I guess Head suits me better than the Wilsons or Dunlops.

[d]ragon
04-24-2008, 03:46 PM
Read a couple reviews for the RQiS1...surprising low power is what I got. Exactly how I felt about the K95.

If you want a VERY low power racquet, go for the Yonex RQ iS 1 Tour:
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCYONEX-RQIS1T.html

This racquet has EVERYTHING, spins, control, and feel. The only thing it doesn't have is power =)

I have to agree with the other that have said try the RQIS Tour 1. This is without question the lowest powerd racquet I have every played with.

i dont get it. why does everyone think the rqis has very little power. when i demoed it, it had plenty of power

[d]ragon
04-24-2008, 04:12 PM
ok i just used the racquet finder on tennis.com to find the racquets that USRSA software rates as the lowest powered frames. here are the top 21 (racquet and power rating)

1. wilson nfury 2 midplus- 1566
2. babolat pure storm LTD- 1631
3. fischer pro1 x-lite- 1631
4. bancroft ace advantage- 1702
5. fischer mpro no.1 98 (SL)- 1712
6. gamma T7- 1717
7. gamma g325- 1721
8. yonex rdx500 mid- 1741
9. fischer mtour 100 (UL)- 1752
10. volkl c10 pro- 1762
11. fischer mtour 100 (SL)- 1764
12. head microgel extreme team OS- 1781
13. power-angle power 98- 1784
14. avery m3 control- 1808
15. yonext rqis tour 1- 1808
16. head microgel radical midplus- 1811
17. power-angle power 98/k- 1813
18. vantage vt001 black- 1820
19. vantage vt001 white- 1820
20. BB becker 11 lite- 1822
21. head fxp prestige team- 1822

for reference, the rds001 mid rated as 1872. personally i think some of these must be wrong or something but these are the results of the search.

jorel
04-25-2008, 04:09 AM
Right, and it is important. I think stiffness/beam width and balance are mostly responsible for that. You should probably use a stiff racquet, provided it doesn't hurt your arm, yada, yada. ;)

Warning! MISC rambling: I was under the impression a year or so ago that good on paper (for me) meant good playability. Unfortunately that's only part of the story. There are so many other things like is the hoop flexible or is the head? TW also lists beam widths which is handy. What material is used? (TW also lists this.) How is it made? How's the quality control? Etc, etc. All of these things are hard to quantify. Also, some good manufacturers produce junk from time to time, so the choices are not always easy. I don't believe the other site has as good of a forum either. So there are different tools as you said.

right and the racquet stiffness number tells you how stiff the entire racquet is and not exactly where the racquet stiffness is... ie(the upper hoop could be stiffer and the throat could be more flexible OR the upper hoop could be more flexible and the throat could be more stiff but both racquets would have the same stiffness flex rating/number) I would personally rather have the racquet with the stiffer upper hoop and flexible throat .... ala Fischer Pro Number 1

and the TW tool helps you more in that regard

FH2FH
04-25-2008, 05:24 AM
right and the racquet stiffness number tells you how stiff the entire racquet is and not exactly where the racquet stiffness is... ie(the upper hoop could be stiffer and the throat could be more flexible OR the upper hoop could be more flexible and the throat could be more stiff but both racquets would have the same stiffness flex rating/number) I would personally rather have the racquet with the stiffer upper hoop and flexible throat .... ala Fischer Pro Number 1

and the TW tool helps you more in that regard

Yeah, TW's beam is handy. I've tried several racquets with constant beams, some made by reputable mfrs, that turned out to have the opposite - stiff throat, flexible hoop. I think that's a horrible combination. I don't understand why anyone would want the hoop to change shape when contact is made; eg, flexpoint?? I don't know how much I believe that actually happens on that line of racquets though. Could be negligible. I'm not as familiar with Fischer racquets, but I think Yonex frames are said to have the flexible throat, stiff hoop attributes.

FH2FH
04-25-2008, 05:54 AM
The Pure Storm LTD (1631) is only the second racquet Babolat has made under a 2000 power rating isn't it? The other was the Pure Control Zylon 360 (1917). A 1631 rating is very low. Most of their racquets are stiff, mid-weight, and pack a good punch.

I think a good average is around 2000. That's a good blend of power and control. The weight usually isn't a burden either. Above that racquets get light and stiff. Below 2K the weight usually increases, balances drop, stiffness decreases, and headsizes get smaller. I think a healthy swingweight is good, but not when the static weight is low and the balance is high. Realisitically though, not everyone can use an "arm friendly" racquet that has a 320 SW and have sufficient racquet head speed. They end up being stiff, head heavy, or both.

[d]ragon, was the Yonex strung with a multi, gut, etc? Those would add a lot of power. If you didn't string it, the tension could have been or the strings could have been on the way out. I agree with you that many of these can seem to be wrong, but I feel these power ratings are pretty good guidelines. The reason I agree is that certain balances, constructions, beam widths, head shapes, certainly string, etc contribute to how the racquets play from person to person. How your day went, whether you were tired, energetic, working on your stroke, if there was wind blowing, condition of the balls, surface of the court, opponent, etc all have a lot to do with it as well. There is no perfect environment. I do think that swingweight, headsize, and stiffness (least accurate?) are the best gauges of how a racquet will play though.

tzinc
05-09-2008, 09:00 PM
pure storm limited looks like it would fit the bill

HeadPrestige
05-09-2008, 10:33 PM
i dont get the comments on the rqis tour 1 being low powered either.

I hit with it extensively and found it to have plenty of power... much more than the rds 001 mid, or 6.0 95

and to those who said k95... are you joking? that thing is powerful as hell.

stormholloway
05-09-2008, 10:57 PM
According to that TW University function, the K90 is more powerful than the Pure Drive.

THSBOI
05-09-2008, 11:03 PM
IMO is the Pro staff (discontinued unfortunately), RQ iS Tour 1, Rds 001, and k90, but it isnt just the racket it also depends on the tension of the string.

FH2FH
05-12-2008, 06:58 AM
According to that TW University function, the K90 is more powerful than the Pure Drive.

What? It isn't? lol

Somehow "numbers" are often more believable than the obvious. That's especially true here and the golf forum I go to.

Nellie
05-12-2008, 07:34 AM
From what I have read, the Wilson Fury is the lowest power racquet you can find (extremely flexible and light).

Surprisingly, heavy racquets like a k90 or prestige have a lot of power due to the weight.

Nellie
05-12-2008, 07:35 AM
According to that TW University function, the K90 is more powerful than the Pure Drive.

What is interesting is that the greater power is only in the center sweet spot, but drops off tremendously as you move away - therefore, K90 has a lot of power power but is unforgiving.

FH2FH
05-12-2008, 07:49 AM
most people can swing a pure drive faster than a k90, so the extra weight/power can't be utilized. weight is key for stability though.

the PD is also more forgiving in some ways because the entire stringbed is stiff/consistent; eg, hits at the top of the frame have closer power to ones just below the center.

JediMindTrick
05-12-2008, 08:50 AM
Try the KSixOne Team. That's the lowest powered racquet I ever played with.