PDA

View Full Version : Is there any benefit of using mid size frame?


mishin900
06-10-2008, 09:12 AM
I've always been using mid plus sized frames, but I wonder why people use mid sized frame. Is there any benefit of using mid sized frame? I tried prestige mid's and k90 and didn't really have any problems hitting. So is it better to use smaller head sizes if you can handle it? I'm seeing many people saying that mid plus size fits better with modern tennis because of the power and topspin.

bossass
06-10-2008, 09:26 AM
It's all about your game style. Some people find mids better for them, some don't. If you liked the way they changed your game, then switch. If you couldn't generate the spin you really like to, then don't.

I hit fairly flat and hit hard, so mids work out great for me.

quest01
06-10-2008, 09:38 AM
If you find mid plus racquets easier to use like you have said then its probably better to stick with them.

Abriano
06-10-2008, 09:38 AM
a more predictable stringbed

2nd_Serve
06-10-2008, 07:15 PM
Well, I found more spin with mid sized frames. And more control. Pretty much only two benefits. Really lets your swing out and still keep the ball in. With LUxilon, you have the ultimate control racket.

Djokovicfan4life
06-10-2008, 08:57 PM
Mid sized frames are also more maneuverable at net.

superstition
06-10-2008, 09:03 PM
A mid or smaller makes hitting flat shots and volleys more predictable in my experience. But, small heads make returning heavy topspin serves more difficult.

pow
06-10-2008, 09:07 PM
I like the control I'm getting, it is dependent on play style and grip style. I prefer the feel and I don't know if it resists twisting but my Redondo Mid is as solid as a rock.

Mick
06-10-2008, 09:15 PM
for me, the benefits do not compensate for the drawbacks.

xsuper
06-10-2008, 09:25 PM
a more predictable stringbed

yup, I second that.

Ryoma Kun
06-10-2008, 09:36 PM
more predictable/consistent string bed, less string needed to string, more maneuverable (assuming weigh and balance equal, looks better

mdjenders
06-10-2008, 09:40 PM
the smaller head is more maneuverable and easier to swing through the air, imo

herosol
06-10-2008, 09:45 PM
for me, the benefits do not compensate for the drawbacks.

exactly.

the mid-size is good off the ground no doubt, but trying to great deep shots is just very hard.

my two favorite parts though:

1)Serve: Solid Solid Solid. Fast. Pin-Point
2)Volleys: Exactly like the serve

And it is why those two attributes were favorable when the mids dominated the game ya know?

ogruskie
06-10-2008, 10:54 PM
Dunno what you guys are talking about, my strokes can be quite devastating with my KBT. And I'm an aggressive baseline hitter...

Deuce
06-10-2008, 11:05 PM
Most of the posts here are very vague generalizations - and therefore not worth much.

The bottom line is that you can't generalize.
Selecting a racquet based on its headsize is a mistake.
Hit with whatever racquets interest you, and choose the best one. That's the only way to do it.

BreakPoint
06-11-2008, 03:05 AM
Dunno what you guys are talking about, my strokes can be quite devastating with my KBT. And I'm an aggressive baseline hitter...
But I hardly consider the K-Blade Tour a "Mid". It's 93 sq. in. I consider Mids to be 90 sq. in. or less.

nickb
06-11-2008, 03:09 AM
But I hardly consider the K-Blade Tour a "Mid". It's 93 sq. in. I consider Mids to be 90 sq. in. or less.

I dont think people really care...

BreakPoint
06-11-2008, 03:20 AM
I dont think people really care...
Correction: YOU don't care. OTHER people do care.

You can't say you get more power out of your 93 than a 90 and then say that the headsize is irrelevant.

Pro Staff Pete
06-11-2008, 03:47 AM
more predictable/consistent string bed, less string needed to string, more maneuverable (assuming weigh and balance equal, looks better

Less string needed to string? That shouldn't be a factor when getting a new frame, unless you care about those 1 or 2 extra rackets you could do with a reel.

Looks better? That's each to their own.

Automatix
06-11-2008, 03:55 AM
It's 93 sq. in. I consider Mids to be 90 sq. in. or less.

Yeah... I agree... 93 sq. inch racquets are really close to Midplus frames... not only that but Prince has the nerve to call their 95 sq. inch racquets Midsize frames...

K90, RDS 001 90, Head Prestige Mids (89,9 was it?), Dunlop 100s those are true mids to just name a few.

bertrevert
06-11-2008, 04:18 AM
Yes the benefits might be adding some new dimensions to your game, ones you didn't have before, or that complement your style of play.

Now the proviso here is that you want to make more gains in strokes than you might lose.

Typically, a MID will be great for s&v. It will give you pin point accuracy. You will get more feel and it will develop the foundations of the game (footwork, speed, early perception etc) because simply its more demanding thaat you be in position and hit out.

There may however be too many downsides which are too telling on your game and you'll have to go abck to mid+

A more subtle and nuanced game awaits you. Trouble is... you still have to win. Anyone, continually losing, would ultimately contemplate changing their equipment...

raiden031
06-11-2008, 04:24 AM
Most of the posts here are very vague generalizations - and therefore not worth much.

The bottom line is that you can't generalize.
Selecting a racquet based on its headsize is a mistake.
Hit with whatever racquets interest you, and choose the best one. That's the only way to do it.

I disagree. How else are people supposed to narrow down from the gazillion racquets out there without having some generalizations on what specs affect what aspect of hitting? I don't think it is "not worth much" to say that a smaller headsize is more likely to be control-oriented or maneuverable than say an OS.

nickb
06-11-2008, 04:24 AM
Correction: YOU don't care. OTHER people do care.

You can't say you get more power out of your 93 than a 90 and then say that the headsize is irrelevant.

Oh yeah im sure your comment has changed peoples lives on here...:shock:

Wilson label the frame a mid...they dont care what you say...

sciwriter
06-11-2008, 04:28 AM
Tennis Magazine has a little feature this issue on which strings to use for different categories of frames. The article says that a mid-size frame is up to 98 inches, and mid-plus starts at 100 inches. This surprised me -- it doesn't correspond to what I heard in the past.

MrAWD
06-11-2008, 06:50 AM
Typically, Mid size frames would offer better feel, more control, and lower power level then the bigger sticks. They are also a bit harder to play with and that is greatly dependent on the players playing style. They are less forgiving and they will highlight pretty clearly most of the bad parts of your game (foot work, timing, positioning, etc). Due to typically lower power levels those stick inherently have one has to swing them fast and long in order to use them successfully. If a player has slower and more compact swings it will be hard to generate enough pace with them even for the rallies! I guess, the fact that they produce exactly what you put in there (no more and no less) is a good and a bad thing depending on the player. So, if you can use it to your pleasure it is a great choice for a racquet!

Fedja

TenniseaWilliams
06-11-2008, 08:47 AM
The smaller the headsize, the stiffer the stringbed, and generally more flexible the frame. This gives mids a unique feel. Larger head sizes can be more stable on off-center hits at the same mass, and the hitting surface extends closer to the balance point.

The difference between 90 sq in and 100 is pretty minor in actual diameter, and aren't on-center hits all about the same rebound power? The basic feel and sound are very different though.

BreakPoint
06-11-2008, 09:36 AM
Oh yeah im sure your comment has changed peoples lives on here...:shock:

Wilson label the frame a mid...they dont care what you say...
And Prince labels their 95 sq. in. frames as "Mids". They can't both be right, can they?

What if another company starts labeling their 100 sq. in. frames as "Mids"? Do you think that would matter to people when they start talking about how a "Mid" plays?

Bottom line is it doesn't matter how the manufacturers label them. What matters is how the public perceives them.

raiden031
06-11-2008, 10:34 AM
Tennis Magazine has a little feature this issue on which strings to use for different categories of frames. The article says that a mid-size frame is up to 98 inches, and mid-plus starts at 100 inches. This surprised me -- it doesn't correspond to what I heard in the past.

I have two racquets that are 97" that say they are Mid+ on the frame themselves.

geesechops
06-11-2008, 10:46 AM
I like my racquet, which happens to be a mid, but I didn't go looking for a mid in particular. For me the benefits of this racquet out weigh the costs and I have tried many other mid - mid+ racquets out there. I would probably return more serves into play with a bigger head size, but the rest of my game would go down sufficiently. The #1 thing I love about it is the great maneuverability (scalpel) with a high static weight.

In D Zone
06-11-2008, 11:01 AM
To me it boils down to your personal preference and playing style. I do play 98, 97 and 95 head size racquets from time to time but it don't compare to the feel when I play mids.

I am beginning to enjoy playing mids with denser pattern. The only challenge I see is finding the right tension and string that will match with your playing style. So far I have been happy with all the mids I own.

MrAWD
06-11-2008, 01:03 PM
I have two racquets that are 97" that say they are Mid+ on the frame themselves.
And, what is so special about that?

Fedja

LafayetteHitter
06-11-2008, 01:11 PM
I find most mid sized frames with a great stringjob provide a certain sweetspot feel that I have yet to find in a midplus sized frame. That may be only my preference of a sweetspot feel and i'm sure there are other that find a larger head has a nicer feeling sweetspot. Most would admit that a precisely centered groundstroke on a Prestige Classic is quite a nice feeling.

nickb
06-11-2008, 01:14 PM
And Prince labels their 95 sq. in. frames as "Mids". They can't both be right, can they?

What if another company starts labeling their 100 sq. in. frames as "Mids"? Do you think that would matter to people when they start talking about how a "Mid" plays?

Bottom line is it doesn't matter how the manufacturers label them. What matters is how the public perceives them.

What are you talking about?

Prince, Wilson, Volkl, Head etc all label 93 as mids...and have done for a long time. END.

Murray_Maniac
06-11-2008, 01:17 PM
Yea, I hate that Prince now labels 95 as a mid. Oh well, the Tour Diablo mid, WHICH IS A MID, is the greastest prince racquet, and everything else of theirs thats newer is not as good. After 10 or 20 years of only 98-105 tour racquets, mids will burst back onto the scene.

h7hugo
06-11-2008, 02:00 PM
and one question, which is the best mid (ag100, mg prestige, k90, rds001 or kBT, BB11,..)?? and why??

bertrevert
06-11-2008, 02:25 PM
After 10 or 20 years of only 98-105 tour racquets, mids will burst back onto the scene.

quite a cool suggestion... the Fed effect will tqke 10 or so yearsas all of the juniors today mature and come through the ranks playing with what the best player today is winning with heh heh

soyizgood
06-11-2008, 04:31 PM
Yeah... I agree... 93 sq. inch racquets are really close to Midplus frames... not only that but Prince has the nerve to call their 95 sq. inch racquets Midsize frames...


Wilson did that for the nTour 95 and Gamma did the same for the G325, btw. I should know since I owned both of these racquet.

BullDogTennis
06-11-2008, 04:56 PM
and one question, which is the best mid (ag100, mg prestige, k90, rds001 or kBT, BB11,..)?? and why??


KBT-because its really the only one i've played with(hit with the k90, but dont consider myself to have really "played") its very manuevarable, and can gets lots of spin, and goood pinpoint flat serves--lacks a bit for me on getting kick with the 2nd tho.

BreakPoint
06-11-2008, 05:21 PM
What are you talking about?

Prince, Wilson, Volkl, Head etc all label 93 as mids...and have done for a long time. END.
So then Prince's 95 should be a Midplus, right?

Wilson also labels their 95's as Midplus. So how can both Wilson and Prince be correct?

Also, everyone knows that the Head Mids are only 89.5 sq. in., not 93 sq. in.

That's why what the manufactures label their racquets should be ignored. Experienced players and people who know anything about racquets know what they are playing with.

The size range for a Mid is already very large (71 sq. in. to 90 sq. in.) compared to the size range for a Midplus (91 sq. in. to 103 sq. in.). It would make no sense to further increase the size range for a Mid to 71 sq. in. to 95 sq. in., and thereby decreasing the size range for a Midplus to only 96 sq. in. to 103 sq. in. Frankly, I think anything over 100 sq. in. should definitely be called an Oversize.

bertrevert
06-11-2008, 05:39 PM
I think of a 95 as a mid+

Anything under that is surely a mid.

Anthing much over 102 to me is in Oversize territory...

geesechops
06-11-2008, 08:00 PM
and one question, which is the best mid (ag100, mg prestige, k90, rds001 or kBT, BB11,..)?? and why??

If I had to choose from those I would have to go with the AG100 because I haven't played with it yet, thus no disappointments ;) Although I had quite a solid hit fairly recently with the new Babolat Limited even though it was a 95. The balance on that one felt spot on and I felt like I could work the ball like my PS85. The worst to me was the KBT, I couldn't hit with that thing at all. The grip on the Prestige kills it and it felt to light (never had success with lead). The RDS001 is pretty nice, very unique feel thats worth a try, I think I would like it more if I had a two-handed backhand. The K90 was an upgrade in spin (from my PS85) and I actually played a year with it until I tried the AK90's which I liked more (because of the maneuverability), especially against touch/spin players, but not to long ago I picked up my old PS85 and it was love all over again. With my increased skill level I felt even more comfortable with what I think is the greatest mid, if not racquet of all time. I now own 7 of them. :mrgreen:

Deuce
06-11-2008, 08:25 PM
Who's on first?!

This entire thread is useless - it's full of people saying "Typically" and "Generally"... But the racquet to player match is anything but typical or general.

I disagree. How else are people supposed to narrow down from the gazillion racquets out there without having some generalizations on what specs affect what aspect of hitting?
Well, for one, narrowing racquets down based on weight would be more useful than by head size.
Because weight and balance are far more determining factors than is head size - especially between mids and MidPluses.
Flex is also important. Not the flex numbers that the RDC machines give you - they're essentially useless - but the real overall flex of the frames.

If you're used to a particular weight and balance and flex in a MidPlus, you'll be able to hit perfectly fine with a Mid that has the same weight and balance and flex. Or if you are used to a particular weight and balance and flex in a Mid, you'll have no problem switching to a MidPlus with the same weight, balance, and flex.
Consequently, if you are used to a certain weight, balance, and flex in a perticular MidPlus racquet, and you significantly alter the weight and balance on that very same frame, you'll have difficulty playing with it.
That's because weight and balance are the most significant and influenceable elements of a frame - not head size. (Strings and tension are also very significant, but we're discussing frames here.)

I don't think it is "not worth much" to say that a smaller headsize is more likely to be control-oriented or maneuverable than say an OS.
"More likely" for whom? Maybe for you, and not for me. Or the other way around.
That's why generalizing is wrong and is of no help at all in talking about frames - especially when we don't know the player involved.
Some people will get more control with the Mid, and others will be able to control the OverSize better.
Which brings us right back to the beginning.
How a person will play with any given racquet has more to do with the way their playing/swing style reacts to the weight and balance (and a little flex) than head size.

RoddickistheMan
06-11-2008, 08:48 PM
yes more [k]ontrol!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MrAWD
06-12-2008, 07:21 AM
KBT-because its really the only one i've played with(hit with the k90, but dont consider myself to have really "played") its very manuevarable, and can gets lots of spin, and goood pinpoint flat serves--lacks a bit for me on getting kick with the 2nd tho.

WOW!! You played with one single Mid racquet and you know for the fact that is the best one out there!! How deep!!

Fedja

MrAWD
06-12-2008, 07:32 AM
Well, for one, narrowing racquets down based on weight would be more useful than by head size.
Because weight and balance are far more determining factors than is head size - especially between mids and MidPluses.
Flex is also important. Not the flex numbers that the RDC machines give you - they're essentially useless - but the real overall flex of the frames.

If you're used to a particular weight and balance and flex in a MidPlus, you'll be able to hit perfectly fine with a Mid that has the same weight and balance and flex. Or if you are used to a particular weight and balance and flex in a Mid, you'll have no problem switching to a MidPlus with the same weight, balance, and flex.
I think you are missing important thing here and that is the feel that you get from the racquet! I was playing with Redondo MP for a while (which has pretty much identical numbers from your list to the Redondo Mid) and due to the lack of the feel, that I get from the Mid, I sold my MP and I am all Mid from that day!

Now, it is fact that Mid size frames "typically" have better feel then the larger racquets, so one could use that one as one of the selectors when choosing the playing stick! But, I agree with you that all of the things should be taken into account when choosing a new frame!

Fedja

nickb
06-12-2008, 08:51 AM
I think you are missing important thing here and that is the feel that you get from the racquet! I was playing with Redondo MP for a while (which has pretty much identical numbers from your list to the Redondo Mid) and due to the lack of the feel, that I get from the Mid, I sold my MP and I am all Mid from that day!

Now, it is fact that Mid size frames "typically" have better feel then the larger racquets, so one could use that one as one of the selectors when choosing the playing stick! But, I agree with you that all of the things should be taken into account when choosing a new frame!

Fedja

Feel is the most important thing to look for in a frame?

Tell that to all the pro's using babolats that would kick your arse (and your feel) into touch.

BreakPoint
06-12-2008, 10:28 AM
Feel is the most important thing to look for in a frame?

Tell that to all the pro's using babolats that would kick your arse (and your feel) into touch.
And how many of us here depend on winning tennis matches to put food on the table?

Yes, to many of us non-ATP pros, feel is the most important thing in a tennis racquet.

Harry24
06-12-2008, 11:08 AM
if you are finding that the mid-seize racquets are just not giving u enough spin or power. I would suggest trying out the KSix-One 95 16x18(open string pattern),this racquets is great for serves and volleys like a mid size but I get plenty of depth and power from the open string patyern.

nickb
06-12-2008, 01:38 PM
And how many of us here depend on winning tennis matches to put food on the table?

Yes, to many of us non-ATP pros, feel is the most important thing in a tennis racquet.

Id rather win tennis matches than admire the feel of my racket while getting smacked off the court.

treblings
06-12-2008, 01:55 PM
Everybody here is constantly talking about the pros using paintjobs, so that they can still play with their old rackets, not the newest version.
Why do you think they would do that?
Obviously, the way a racket feels is important to them.

nickb
06-12-2008, 01:59 PM
Everybody here is constantly talking about the pros using paintjobs, so that they can still play with their old rackets, not the newest version.
Why do you think they would do that?
Obviously, the way a racket feels is important to them.

Feel is important yes but these guys are acting like you can pick up a racket with good feel and it will make you a better player. I can volley great, hit drop shots and touch volleys with a pure drive strung with full poly...OMG!

Technique is more important...

Mids do feel great yes but it does not make up for the lack of power, small sweetspot and often high SW's because the frames are so heavy.

Deuce
06-12-2008, 09:35 PM
I think you are missing important thing here and that is the feel that you get from the racquet! I was playing with Redondo MP for a while (which has pretty much identical numbers from your list to the Redondo Mid) and due to the lack of the feel, that I get from the Mid, I sold my MP and I am all Mid from that day!
Well... I did mention flex, which goes hand in hand with feel.
I know all about the importance of feel - believe me. I select my racquets based on feel - it's the most important element to me. I can alter other elements - like weight and balance. But I like frames with a certain feel.

Now, it is fact that Mid size frames "typically" have better feel then the larger racquets, so one could use that one as one of the selectors when choosing the playing stick!
That's certainly not a fact to me.
I've been playing for over 25 years - I've hit with many racquets in that time. I've played with Mids, MidPluses, and even Oversize - and they were all selected because of the feel.
Feel is such a subjective thing that no-one can legitimately say that Mids 'typically' have better feel. For whom? For 'Mr. Typical'? Who's that?
You can say that more flexible frames have more feel than stiff frames, and that would be a far less general comment.
But you can't generalize feel based on head size. The MidPlus Pro Tour 280 has loads more feel than many Midsize frames. So does the POG Oversize. No doubt, many more MidPluses and Oversized frames could be added to that list.

All that said, I myself prefer Midsize frames. Not because they offer "more spin", or "more control", or any of that BS - but simply because they are the size that is the smallest - and I believe that tennis should be played with smaller headed frames.
I quite often also hit with my 81 sq. in. Head Graphite Edges, and my standard size Head XRC and Wilson Kramer Pro Staff.

FreshStew
06-12-2008, 10:40 PM
More touch, spin, control.

If you can handle a 90 then go with it but few players can.

herosol
06-12-2008, 10:44 PM
why can't we just say

"to each his own!"

vwala.

treblings
06-13-2008, 02:33 AM
Feel is important yes but these guys are acting like you can pick up a racket with good feel and it will make you a better player. I can volley great, hit drop shots and touch volleys with a pure drive strung with full poly...OMG!

Technique is more important...

Mids do feel great yes but it does not make up for the lack of power, small sweetspot and often high SW's because the frames are so heavy.

Agreed that technique is more important
So a pro who hits with impeccable technique generates his own power, hits a small sweetspot every time and is able to handle a high sw.
He than looks for a racket that gives him a good feel. For me thats not so much about drop shots, but rather predictability in a racket. A racket that gives you the confidence to hit a ball and know exactly where it lands.

Might be we just mean different things, when we talk about feel.
By the way, i donīt need to be right. This should be a discussion, not a competition. Iīd rather learn a few things:)

nickb
06-13-2008, 02:44 AM
Agreed that technique is more important
So a pro who hits with impeccable technique generates his own power, hits a small sweetspot every time and is able to handle a high sw.
He than looks for a racket that gives him a good feel. For me thats not so much about drop shots, but rather predictability in a racket. A racket that gives you the confidence to hit a ball and know exactly where it lands.

Might be we just mean different things, when we talk about feel.
By the way, i donīt need to be right. This should be a discussion, not a competition. Iīd rather learn a few things:)

It has been discussed 1000 times on here anyway...so im not going to discuss the "mid size vs MP" thing further.

treblings
06-13-2008, 03:07 AM
It has been discussed 1000 times on here anyway...so im not going to discuss the "mid size vs MP" thing further.
Well that was the original reason for this thread. A discussion of mid vs midplus.
Maybe thatīs why there are so many personal insults. Because everything has been said before, and everybody knows everybody elses opinions anyway.

MrAWD
06-13-2008, 08:24 AM
Well... I did mention flex, which goes hand in hand with feel.
I know all about the importance of feel - believe me. I select my racquets based on feel - it's the most important element to me. I can alter other elements - like weight and balance. But I like frames with a certain feel.
I don't think I would mix flex with the feel! Flex is definitely something that gives you a "flexy feel" but that was not the fell that I was talking about. The "feel" I was referring to is the knowing of where the ball is going to go at the moment when is living the string bed! The more you know of where the ball is going to go more confidence you have in your strokes and better results you are producing - aka better tennis level of your play. The less of that knowing is out there you, are kind of hitting with the blinds ON and you start to loose confidence and your game goes down as well! And this gets extremely important when you start to go with a full load on the balls, without keeping anything back! That is the meaning of the "feel" for me and so far I was able to get that only from the Mid stick I play with right now.

And I never said that other racquets done have this "feel" I am talking about. They do!! But, I personally get the best feeling when playing with my stick.


I've been playing for over 25 years
WOW! When I first sow this part, I was thinking that you must be quite old to play for that long. But, then I checked when was that I started playing and it gets even longer. And I didn't even start until the high school!! :)

Fedja

BAMF
06-13-2008, 10:27 AM
it really doesnt matter. 3 square inches are only enough to make a small difference in play, no matter how much you pretend that it makes all the difference. Its all about getting used to a frame. Once you are comfortable with it, it shouldnt matter if it is technically a mid or mid+. strings are way more important than headsize. People dont give them enough credit.

pow
06-13-2008, 10:57 AM
I agree with the posters who prefer feel... it works out for me because it's not like my results were better with a racquet without feel.

I remember when I used to use a racquet without good feel (not going to name it, some people who use it will be offended) and tennis just got boring as I went along because I didn't feel as involved in the process when I hit winners. I can hit winners but I just didn't feel like I had the same confidence since merely feeling a "pop" on my stringbed was not ideal not to mention boring.
I tried the Redondo Mid and was blown away with the feel... from the first hit I became a believer and understood what many posters were talking about when they argued that "new technologies" in racquets were often full of gimmicks.

EDIT: I'd like to add that good feel has been hard to find but it's hard to generalize all the time to headsize or even stiffness.
I love the Redondo Mid's feel, 90 head 56flex (very flexy) and I also love the PS 85 for feel, those are the two best I've hit with for feel and the PS 85 85sq head and 66 flex which is not too flexy but the feel is awesome.

Purostaff
06-13-2008, 11:10 AM
racquet size inversely correlated with ego.

BAMF
06-13-2008, 11:16 AM
i have a moderate ego. so i go with the 95 sqin ag200. 200 fo life

pow
06-13-2008, 11:21 AM
racquet size inversely correlated with ego.

I think this is a common misconception that the mid is harder to use... I mean it may not suit some people's hitting styles but it's really not that bad when you start playing it and notice that the difference in hitting area isn't really different enough... If I would have framed a shot on my mid, it would be the edge of my stringbed anyways on a midplus which would not result in much of an ideal shot. If I'm trying to hit the sweetspot with mid and midplus, the part of the stringbed I want to use are the same.
My friend (a girl) who has always gravitated towards light 'Hammer'-like racquets, hit with my 12oz Redondo Mid and was surprise how much better she was able to play. She said "I really like the racquet but I'm afraid that the head size is too small!" I asked her "Did you notice more framing tonight or something?" Her response: "Hmm no".

MrAWD
06-13-2008, 11:41 AM
I completely agree with pow one this one! When I tested N90 couple of years ago while I was using 98 (and switched to it from the 107) I was under impression that I can't play with such a small head and not surprisingly at all I couldn't!!! Then several months later I decided to try my ancient Prince frame and I was pleasantly surprised that this was a Mid frame. That was the first serious stick that I start playing back in late 80s and used it for years. When I realized that I actually played with 90 sq-in frames before it was much easier to start to play with Redondo Mid. And the major difference in here was that I believed I can play with that size!

So, I firmly believe that lots of guys out there are just afraid to even try Mid sticks because they think it will be too hard for them to play with and that they couldn't do it!

The fact is that racquets should be selected by the type of the player and type of the strokes the player has. If the Mid is one that fits the formula and feels good one should play with it. Just don't let the fear to stop you from trying something that lot of people find very pleasant!!

Fedja

BAMF
06-13-2008, 12:22 PM
if you want a true midsize, play with a baseball bat

Deuce
06-13-2008, 09:38 PM
I don't think I would mix flex with the feel! Flex is definitely something that gives you a "flexy feel" but that was not the fell that I was talking about. The "feel" I was referring to is the knowing of where the ball is going to go at the moment when is living the string bed! The more you know of where the ball is going to go more confidence you have in your strokes and better results you are producing - aka better tennis level of your play.
And I never said that other racquets done have this "feel" I am talking about. They do!! But, I personally get the best feeling when playing with my stick.
When I speak of "flex", I don't necessarily mean flexible - I simply mean the amount of flex that a racquet has.
Some racquets have a lot of flex, and others have very little flex. This gives racquets with different feels.

MrAWD
06-16-2008, 08:58 AM
When I speak of "flex", I don't necessarily mean flexible - I simply mean the amount of flex that a racquet has.
Some racquets have a lot of flex, and others have very little flex. This gives racquets with different feels.

Hmm, I am trying to understand what did you write above, but I am failing...
If the "flex" is not a flexibility of the racquet, then what it is?
I mean, the "flex" is definitely something that you can "feel" when it is happening. But, the "feel" is much more then just the "flex" of the frame.

Fedja

Deuce
06-16-2008, 09:03 PM
Hmm, I am trying to understand what did you write above, but I am failing...
If the "flex" is not a flexibility of the racquet, then what it is?
I mean, the "flex" is definitely something that you can "feel" when it is happening. But, the "feel" is much more then just the "flex" of the frame.

Fedja
As I've already stated, 'flex' is simply the term used to describe the racquet's level of flexibility. When I write 'flex', I do not mean 'flexible'.
It's like the word 'weight' - it doesn't mean 'heavy', it is merely a word that describes how heavy or light something is.

You write that 'feel' is more than just the flex of the frame.
That's true - 'feel' also incorporates the ingredients of a frame, as well as, of course, the strings and tension.
But the amount and location of the flex of a frame is a big part of what determines its feel.

MrAWD
06-16-2008, 09:07 PM
Then I believe we understand each other at the end. You where just using the term "flex" a bit more looser then me... :)

Have a good one!

Fedja

tennisdad65
06-16-2008, 09:21 PM
racquet size inversely correlated with ego.

not true :twisted:
I would need to switch to a 70 sq in frame to satisfy your inverse correlation with ego :)

BreakPoint
06-16-2008, 10:05 PM
racquet size inversely correlated with ego.
Correction: Racquet size is inversely correlated with skill level.

NoBadMojo
06-17-2008, 05:18 AM
racquet size inversely correlated with ego.

true that....this forum is fully loaded w. people who define themselves as tennis players by the size of their racquet head rather than how well they play the game. or by how tight they string, how often they break strings, how heavy their racquet is, etc and etc

Vamz
06-17-2008, 06:15 AM
For me, it was the only racquet that my sponsor made, that didn't hurt my elbow. Mids tend to be heavier, more flexible, and standard length, all things that are typically arm friendly.

Clecwm
06-17-2008, 06:40 AM
So, I firmly believe that lots of guys out there are just afraid to even try Mid sticks because they think it will be too hard for them to play with and that they couldn't do it!

The fact is that racquets should be selected by the type of the player and type of the strokes the player has. If the Mid is one that fits the formula and feels good one should play with it. Just don't let the fear to stop you from trying something that lot of people find very pleasant!!

Fedja

Juz cant help but agree with u on this one. Ppl "fear" racquets like the K90 n wont even consider them due to their "low power/small face/high-lvl status". I believe ppl view the racquet as an "untouchable item" cuz pros like Fed uses it. They r afraid they cant perform "up to the mark". But with tt said, there r ppl who use mid racquets even though they arent technically sound yet. :-?

bertrevert
06-17-2008, 07:28 AM
heavier, more flexible, and standard length, all things that are typically arm friendly.

If you've ever experienced TE then these are absolutely huge considerations... and may indeed cancel out all others.

Put simply, if lightweight or large frames strung with arm-unfriendly string are giving you problems then you WON'T be playing UNLESS you get an elbow-friendly rig.

I don't know how it happens but MIDs tend to have those characteristics above and hence tend to be easier on the elbow. It's a make or break deal.

Though MPs come in a rainbow of shapes and sizes, it is often the MIDs which bed down a set of specs tried and true for arm-friendliness.

Plus, they're razors to serve with!

Are these benefits? If you want to keep playing they are...

nickb
06-17-2008, 07:49 AM
Correction: Racquet size is inversely correlated with skill level.

Wrong.

I'm sure you have been beaten by guys using OS, light, horrible stiff rackets right? The rackets you cant stand.

Its the player.

cakes
06-17-2008, 07:49 AM
Just thought I'd share my experience with switching from a MP frame to a mid.

So I was playing with an M-fil 300 after all the good things I heard about it on this forum, but found that I just couldn't get a good feel for the racquet. I Have recently been really trying to focus on improving my strokes and serve technique, and just wasn't finding the racquet at all rewarding. So I decided to switch to a heavier racquet with more "feel" and that would help develop and reward better strokes. I decided on the Diablo Tour and am so happy I did. I have only hit with it a couple of times, but have already found that feel I was looking for and been able to implement the fuller strokes I have been practicing with greater success and my serve has never been more accurate or powerful. I realize I will have to adjust to putting more oomph into my groundstrokes, but I believe that is something I can work on and that will come with time. Overall, I am finding the mid to not be nearly as heavy or powerless as everyone seems to make them out to be, and have only seen improvements in my game since making the switch. In fact, I beat a friend of mine who I had never, ever beaten before, and my other friends watching noted the improvement in my game just after one hitting session with the racquet. So as of right now I'm a convert to mids, but we'll see how it goes as time goes on. Bottom line, I definitely don't think mids are as demanding as everyone makes them out to be.

BreakPoint
06-17-2008, 11:14 AM
Wrong.

I'm sure you have been beaten by guys using OS, light, horrible stiff rackets right? The rackets you cant stand.

Its the player.
Yeah, sure, but I've also beaten guys with OS racquets using my Mid, so what the heck does that prove?

Take a random survey of 1,000 2.0 level players and 1,000 5.0 level players and see which group tends to use the smaller racquet on average. Willing to take a guess? :-?

sureshs
06-17-2008, 11:20 AM
this weight is once again re-reversed if I am playing south of the equator due to the Bournouilli <sp?> Principle


The hemisphere difference (direction of water down a toilet, direction of spin of hurricanes, etc) is actually due to the Coriolis effect.

Bengt
06-17-2008, 11:43 AM
Calm down folks. Using a larger faced racquet doesn't make one any less of a man.

moist
06-17-2008, 11:55 AM
The hemisphere difference (direction of water down a toilet, direction of spin of hurricanes, etc) is actually due to the Coriolis effect.

Actually, the Coriolis effect is quite small and does not effect the direction water drains. It does affect 'big' things (hurricanes).

Edit: it does have an effect, but it's orders of magnitude smaller than the other dominant factors.

Enlightened Coelacanth
06-17-2008, 12:04 PM
Correction: Racquet size is inversely correlated with skill level.
Out there in the world the only question is: can you play or not?
Whatever racquet you wield is purely incidental.
Only in a forum full of tennis nerds and neurotics would the matter of racquet size, or weight, be an issue.
Can you get the job done? That's all that matters.

sureshs
06-17-2008, 12:25 PM
Actually, the Coriolis effect is quite small and does not effect the direction water drains. It does affect 'big' things (hurricanes).

Edit: it does have an effect, but it's orders of magnitude smaller than the other dominant factors.

Yes, it is not even correctly obseved in a bathtub, as believed, but only in holes in the ocean floor.

Ultra2HolyGrail
06-18-2008, 03:13 AM
But I hardly consider the K-Blade Tour a "Mid". It's 93 sq. in. I consider Mids to be 90 sq. in. or less.



I consider them 95in or less. The prestige is not a mid? :roll:

pmerk34
06-18-2008, 05:44 AM
it really doesnt matter. 3 square inches are only enough to make a small difference in play, no matter how much you pretend that it makes all the difference. Its all about getting used to a frame. Once you are comfortable with it, it shouldnt matter if it is technically a mid or mid+. strings are way more important than headsize. People dont give them enough credit.

Strings are important, unfortunately with a mid I don't hit them enough to notice so I use a MP :)

pmerk34
06-18-2008, 06:10 AM
Calm down folks. Using a larger faced racquet doesn't make one any less of a man.


Agassi, Rafter and Chang were girly men. SO IS NADAL!!!!!!!!!

To be a real man you must use a 70 sq maxply.

pmerk34
06-18-2008, 06:17 AM
That is the funniest thing I've read on these boards in a long time, but I think a few posters are having some trouble realizing the sarcasm...

As far as the mid vs. mid-plus debate, it's all about personal preference. I love the feel of my Head Classic mid, and it's now what I'm most comfortable with on court.

A bad day is a bad day no matter what stick you're swinging.

Yes, the way I played last night no stick would've helped. It was the court ****it the court needs to be made bigger!

Dark_Angel85
06-18-2008, 06:37 AM
A lot of pros use a 100-105+ Frames.

Does it mean they can't provide their own power compared to other pros using a <90 sq inch frame?

It's personal preference. You play with the racquet and see how it feels for you and does it bring up your current game or makes your current game even worse. That's all. Telling me that federer hits powerful shots with his k90, nadal hits powerful shots with a 100 sq inch and isner with his 03 white also hitting powerful shots are all due to their racquets?

Player first. Racquet feel differs from one player to another. Anybody can hit the ball hard and powerful. But will that up your game?

MrAWD
06-18-2008, 06:54 AM
I'm calling BS.

No way!! Are you serious?? Did you really read everything above with great concentration to what you are reading? I can't believe this!!

Fedja

chess9
06-18-2008, 07:34 AM
Who's on first?!

This entire thread is useless - it's full of people saying "Typically" and "Generally"... But the racquet to player match is anything but typical or general.


Well, for one, narrowing racquets down based on weight would be more useful than by head size.
Because weight and balance are far more determining factors than is head size - especially between mids and MidPluses.
Flex is also important. Not the flex numbers that the RDC machines give you - they're essentially useless - but the real overall flex of the frames.

If you're used to a particular weight and balance and flex in a MidPlus, you'll be able to hit perfectly fine with a Mid that has the same weight and balance and flex. Or if you are used to a particular weight and balance and flex in a Mid, you'll have no problem switching to a MidPlus with the same weight, balance, and flex.
Consequently, if you are used to a certain weight, balance, and flex in a perticular MidPlus racquet, and you significantly alter the weight and balance on that very same frame, you'll have difficulty playing with it.
That's because weight and balance are the most significant and influenceable elements of a frame - not head size. (Strings and tension are also very significant, but we're discussing frames here.)


"More likely" for whom? Maybe for you, and not for me. Or the other way around.
That's why generalizing is wrong and is of no help at all in talking about frames - especially when we don't know the player involved.
Some people will get more control with the Mid, and others will be able to control the OverSize better.
Which brings us right back to the beginning.
How a person will play with any given racquet has more to do with the way their playing/swing style reacts to the weight and balance (and a little flex) than head size.

Yes, I agree, and particularly about head size. Guys go agog over larger head sizes, particularly your local player who is not a racquet fanatic (like us :) ). These guys ask me all the time how I can play with a 90 or my PS85, as though I have the eyes of an eagle and the timing of NASA. I do frame balls occasionally, but so do they! Everyone frames balls.

I like the mid size racquets for their surgical feel. Serves, volleys, drop shots, slices deep, lobs. BUT, that's MY game. The mids fit into my game style. I don't stand back and back all day and can't. :) I'm not RAFA, but wish I were!

So, know your game FIRST. Then find the racquet that fits your game.

-Robert

Jon Rudy
06-18-2008, 10:45 AM
That's absurd. I use a mid, and I don't have a big ego. I just happen to be a very, very good tennis player. Let's face it: people choose larger frames because they're not as confident in their ball-striking ability. I realized that much from an early age! When I was 6, someone gave me the 125-inch Pro Staff for Christmas. I used it at tennis camp for about two days, and it was utterly humiliating to run around with a frame that big. Thus, after the second day, my friends and I smashed against a rock, and it broke. I told my dad that someone had stolen it, and the next day we went to pick out a new frame. I wanted the 90-inch prince, but dad insisted on the 110.

I played with the 110 for that summer, and it was a joke. I must have lost two or three extra matches a week because the stringbed was a trampoline. The next winter, I bought my first 95 in preparation for tennis camp. All the other kids were running around with their 110s, hitting errant shots and otherwise making complete fools of themselves, and there I was, with my 95, slicing them to pieces and looking like a man among boys. But there was problem: the racquet was still just too damn big. My skills had improved so much that the extra stringbed on my 95 was useless; it served only to make the racquet less stable. I quickly switched to the Prince Graphite 90, which was a decent racquet but failed to give me the stability that I so desperately craved. Thus, at the age of 9, I switched to the PS 6.0 85, and it played like a dream. The next summer, I just salughtered people; it wasn't even funny. I was beating everyone: kids, adults, old men, etc. My summer record that year was 47-6.

But as my skills continued to develop, it became plain to everyone involved that the PS 85 stringbed was just too damn unstable for a kid with such developed strokes. Thus, I made the switch to Lendl's 80-inch Adidas racquet, and the improvement was immediate. Before long, the PS 85 became a punch line for my friends and me. Working with the Lendl racquet, I was able to paint the lines with relative ease and hit deep into both corners without fear of going long. After six months with the Lendl racquet, I was a nationall ranked junior in the in the under-16s.

The next year, I struggled mightily against the older kids in the under-18 group. One day, after I dropped a three-set match to an older kid, my coach called me aside and uttered the words that I will never froget, "What the hell are you doing out there?! Are you serious or not? Get a REAL racquet with a respectable head size." With that, I burst into tears, and we embraced. I threw the racquet on the ground with all my might, and we both began stomping on it, smashing it to splinters and screaming, "F*ckin' thing sucks!" The next day, we went to the Wilson Pro Room, and I bought an unused T-2000 with a 70-inch head. As soon as I picked it up, I knew why Lendl couldn't win Wimbledon: his racquet sucked. The T-2000 was my saving grace, and I ended by next season ranked #6 in the under-18s.

I decided against turning pro right away, believing that I needed to further refine my game. I moved to Florida to practice with Nick for a summer, and it soon became apparent to me that I would have to become sharper if I wanted a pro career. I played Agassi but lost in the third set because of an errant forehand. Nick walked over after the match and said, "Why are you playing a T-2000? Are you trying to prove a point? Quit with the ego and get something decent." The next day, he ordered 10 customized Dunlop Maxply sticks for me. Sixty-six-inch head. I had never had so much fun in my life as I did the rest of that summer! I was the second-ranked player in camp and would have passed Agassi had it not been for an injury!

I made my pro debut the next year at the Volvo. I wound up losing in three sets to Becker. We spoke after the match, and he told me that I would have won the match had I made him run a little more. But what was I to do? I just wasn't as accurate as I needed to be with my groundstrokes! I hired Jose Higueras as my coach, and he was very honest, telling me that the Maxply was simply too unstable. Deep down, I knew he was right: the racquet was an oversized piece of *****. Higueras suggested that I switch to a Slazenger squash racquet, and I did. It was 45 inches of rock-hard stability. I beat Chang at Open in 91 but plateaued soon thereafter at #35 in the world. In January of 1992, I met Sampras at a charity tournament, and he told me that I could win a grand slam if I tightened up my backhand. I had secretly felt the same way for many years but simply didn't know what else to do, so I decided to take a year off to fix my swing and get clean. I ran into Borg at a dryout clinic in Stockholm, and he suggested that I switch to a badminton racquet. By Jove, he was right! The squash racquet was a jumbo-sized joke. I needed some goddamn stability in the stringbed, and I got it with my 30-inch McGregor badminton stick. I went on to crack the top 30 and complete a very respectable 13-years career on the tour.

That is the funniest thing I've read on these boards in a long time, but I think a few posters are having some trouble realizing the sarcasm...

As far as the mid vs. mid-plus debate, it's all about personal preference. I love the feel of my Head Classic mid, and it's now what I'm most comfortable with on court.

A bad day is a bad day no matter what stick you're swinging.

soyizgood
06-18-2008, 11:21 AM
I consider them 95in or less. The prestige is not a mid? :roll:

95 is the new 90 anyway. Gamma and Wilson both released racquets labelling the 95 as a midsize (Wilson nTour, Gamma G325)

BreakPoint
06-18-2008, 11:39 AM
I consider them 95in or less. The prestige is not a mid? :roll:
Of course the Prestige is a Mid! :-?

I said I consider Mid's to be 90 sq. in. or less. Everyone knows the Prestige Mid is 89.5 sq. in. I know math is not your strong suit, but did you realize that 89.5 is less than 90? :oops:

Ultra2HolyGrail
06-19-2008, 12:27 AM
Of course the Prestige is a Mid! :-?

I said I consider Mid's to be 90 sq. in. or less. Everyone knows the Prestige Mid is 89.5 sq. in. I know math is not your strong suit, but did you realize that 89.5 is less than 90? :oops:


I figured you would come up with that. So you don't think the Prince Original graphite MID 93in is not a mid? Or the Rok?

BreakPoint
06-19-2008, 01:22 AM
I figured you would come up with that. So you don't think the Prince Original graphite MID 93in is not a mid? Or the Rok?
No, I do not consider the POG 93 to be a Mid and neither did Prince until they came out with the O3 Tour 95 and called that a "Mid". They couldn't have a 95 labeled a "Mid" but a 93 labeled a "MidPlus", could they? So they changed the POG 93 to be now called a "Mid".

Here: http://web.archive.org/web/20010617193058/www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpage.html?PCODE=GRO

The ROK was Wilson's attempt to copy the PC600, so draw your own conclusions.

Ultra2HolyGrail
06-19-2008, 01:59 AM
The ROK was Wilson's attempt to copy the PC600, so draw your own conclusions.


Exactly, if it's close to the prestige, and you consider the prestige a mid, than the Rok is a Mid also.

Josherer
06-19-2008, 09:42 AM
mid size frames are sexy...

that's all

sureshs
06-19-2008, 11:02 AM
Strings are important, unfortunately with a mid I don't hit them enough to notice so I use a MP :)

Reminds me of the guy in the club who keeps shanking and then making one of two jokes every time:

I paid for the frame, might as well use it

I use the frame because restringing is so expensive these days

BreakPoint
06-19-2008, 11:46 AM
Exactly, if it's close to the prestige, and you consider the prestige a mid, than the Rok is a Mid also.
No, what I mean is that if the ROK is a copy of the PC600 then it must be the same size as the PC600.

tennis_guy
06-19-2008, 11:59 AM
You people think too much about rackets.

sruckauf
06-19-2008, 01:29 PM
ManBearPig!!!