PDA

View Full Version : Are mid rackets disappearing?


mTm28
08-26-2009, 06:26 AM
I came back from nationals last week and i noticed i was practically the only one using a midsize racket. I mean i think i saw one other person with a prestige mid but that was it. Why are they disappearing? I personally think they are amazing, i use a k six one tour and have no quibbles with it(Eventhough the other month i was considering changing but thats only cos i lost my equipment).

MichaelChang
08-26-2009, 06:36 AM
how many in the current ATP top 10 using Mid? The day Federer retires, there will be a funeral for the K90:)

just kidding. but yes MIDs are disappearing.

skyzoo
08-26-2009, 06:36 AM
I came back from nationals last week and i noticed i was practically the only one using a midsize racket. I mean i think i saw one other person with a prestige mid but that was it. Why are they disappearing? I personally think they are amazing, i use a k six one tour and have no quibbles with it(Eventhough the other month i was considering changing but thats only cos i lost my equipment).
To be honest at my sectional two weeks back, the kid that won it used an 03 tour which is a 95 sq in i believe. The rest of the kids there used 98 plus with the exception of a k90 who lost in the first round. I would say that your theory of mid size racquets dissapearing is correct. I switched from a 92 to a 100 in a matter of two years and it got me way farther than i thought it would. it shows in the top 7 in the men's game. Fed is the only midsize left, unless you count delpo's 95 sq in as a mid. The game is changing bro and the mid is soon to be a relic like 60 in wood racquets. That's my take on the it right now.

dadozen
08-26-2009, 06:46 AM
I don't think they'll disappear, since most of them play like classical racquets and there will always be people looking for this kind of racquet, but today's game ask for more forgiving racquets, qith aprox. 100 sq. in. headsizes to be able to generate huge amount of power.

joe sch
08-26-2009, 06:56 AM
I don't think they'll disappear, since most of them play like classical racquets and there will always be people looking for this kind of racquet, but today's game ask for more forgiving racquets, qith aprox. 100 sq. in. headsizes to be able to generate huge amount of power.

Its not really the power, but the topspin ... there are soo few players today that hit flat blasts like Federer and Sampras. With eastern grips and more level swings, an 85..95 was plenty accurate. With the more extreme grips and topspin, the 100..110's really do offer an advantage with the larger sweetspots.

pmerk34
08-26-2009, 06:58 AM
Its not really the power, but the topspin ... there are soo few players today that hit flat blasts like Federer and Sampras. With eastern grips and more level swings, an 85..95 was plenty accurate. With the more extreme grips and topspin, the 100..110's really do offer an advantage with the larger sweetspots.

Federer's forehand has a ton of spin. He doesn't hit flat.

jwbarrientos
08-26-2009, 06:59 AM
how many in the current ATP top 10 using Mid? The day Federer retires, there will be a funeral for the K90:)

just kidding. but yes MIDs are disappearing.

I'd say ... seconds after!!!

Not sure what you see in your clubs, but around the smaller frame I see is around 98, mostly 100 and bigger.

pmerk34
08-26-2009, 06:59 AM
I came back from nationals last week and i noticed i was practically the only one using a midsize racket. I mean i think i saw one other person with a prestige mid but that was it. Why are they disappearing? I personally think they are amazing, i use a k six one tour and have no quibbles with it(Eventhough the other month i was considering changing but thats only cos i lost my equipment).

There will always be recreational players who prefer a mid because they may have grown up using them. As far as the pro tour it looks like mid plus is the dominant choice.

dadozen
08-26-2009, 07:10 AM
Its not really the power, but the topspin ... there are soo few players today that hit flat blasts like Federer and Sampras. With eastern grips and more level swings, an 85..95 was plenty accurate. With the more extreme grips and topspin, the 100..110's really do offer an advantage with the larger sweetspots.

Federer's forehand has a ton of spin. He doesn't hit flat.

So true. Even Sampras FH had top spin. They just use different grips than majority of players today, so smaller headsizes suit them better.

pmerk34
08-26-2009, 07:13 AM
So true. Even Sampras FH had top spin. They just use different grips than majority of players today, so smaller headsizes suit them better.

I hope they meant flat as in trajectory not as in flat with no spin.

sboo
08-26-2009, 07:14 AM
I'm pretty sure this topic has been beaten to death in countless other threads.

pmerk34
08-26-2009, 07:20 AM
I'm pretty sure this topic has been beaten to death in countless other threads.

Well it apparently hasn't quite died :)

GinoGinelli
08-26-2009, 07:36 AM
..........................

eagle
08-26-2009, 07:38 AM
Hmmm... if they "die", then I'd hoard new Tour Diablo Mids since they are my holy grail.

Maybe they'll be clearance priced so I can buy a number of them. :)

r,
eagle

pmerk34
08-26-2009, 07:39 AM
Just bought a mid (AG100) after using a 98" prestige mp for years. maybe I should should take some hard hats to protect everyone from my shanks next time I play? :-) :oops:

I find the frame way too much with 90 and 93 SQ mids.

Power Player
08-26-2009, 07:45 AM
I am not sure if mids will go away forever because they provide such a wonderful feel and accuracy that goes away with bigger heads. But there is no doubt that it is easier to play with a 100+ if you use a western grip. I use a 100 now, and I like it a lot.

dadozen
08-26-2009, 07:51 AM
for example, my current racquets are the AG 4D 300 Tour, which I love, but I really wanted to have one AG100 just because it has classical characteristics that we all love. The only bad aspect is that it wouldn't fit my game as good as the 300T does.

anirut
08-26-2009, 07:53 AM
Think I'd better stock up ...

sboo
08-26-2009, 08:59 AM
Yeah, hopefully everyone will see the light and toss their prestige mid's my way :razz:

mTm28
08-26-2009, 09:02 AM
I find the frame way too much with 90 and 93 SQ mids.

Yh that is the worst part of mid rackets, but i find 100sq inc rackets clumsy and without feel.

Rabbit
08-26-2009, 09:11 AM
OP, hold up a mid-plus against a mid and you won't see that much difference. When I hold a Volkl C10 up against a Dunlop AG100, there's definetly not 8 square inches difference. The number assigned to a frame is more heritage than anything else.
Next time you go to a proshop, hold a K90 up to a K95...there's just not that much difference.

eagle
08-26-2009, 09:14 AM
Agree. The difference is more pronounced between an 85, 90 or 93 vs. a 110.

r,
eagle

pmerk34
08-26-2009, 09:23 AM
OP, hold up a mid-plus against a mid and you won't see that much difference. When I hold a Volkl C10 up against a Dunlop AG100, there's definetly not 8 square inches difference. The number assigned to a frame is more heritage than anything else.
Next time you go to a proshop, hold a K90 up to a K95...there's just not that much difference.

They may not look different to me they play different.

Rabbit
08-26-2009, 09:30 AM
They may not look different to me they play different.

Right, my only point is headsize and the number assigned to it usually have no relevance to the actual headsize. It's more a heritage number assigned by the manufacturer.

Between the K90 and K95, there is very little head size difference....but...they have different weights, different stiffness, different layups, different balance points, and different string patterns. This is where the real differences are, not head size.

cellofaan
08-26-2009, 09:38 AM
OP, hold up a mid-plus against a mid and you won't see that much difference. When I hold a Volkl C10 up against a Dunlop AG100, there's definetly not 8 square inches difference. The number assigned to a frame is more heritage than anything else.
Next time you go to a proshop, hold a K90 up to a K95...there's just not that much difference.

The difference between 90 and 98 is almost 10 percent, which seems a lot. On a circle, the radiuses between 90 sqinch and 98 squinch would be less then a quarter inch. So while the difference may be 8 squinch, the dimensions don't really look that different. Between 90 and 95 squinch, the difference is little over an eighth of an inch.
Given the fact that a most rackets have slightly (or sometimes not so slightly) different headshapes, it can be very hard to guess the actual size.
And the factdifferent brands seem to use different ways of determining headsizes doesn't help either.

OT, I play with a mid-plus, 95 squinch, and I don't know anyone besides me that uses something smaller than a 100

JediMindTrick
08-26-2009, 09:45 AM
To be honest at my sectional two weeks back, the kid that won it used an 03 tour which is a 95 sq in i believe. The rest of the kids there used 98 plus with the exception of a k90 who lost in the first round. I would say that your theory of mid size racquets dissapearing is correct. I switched from a 92 to a 100 in a matter of two years and it got me way farther than i thought it would. it shows in the top 7 in the men's game. Fed is the only midsize left, unless you count delpo's 95 sq in as a mid. The game is changing bro and the mid is soon to be a relic like 60 in wood racquets. That's my take on the it right now.

It seems to me that you consider 95 sq in to be a mid size, which it isn't. But if 95 sq in is a mid size then there are 5 top 10 players who use a 95 sq in: Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro, Tsonga and Simon. I bet that half of the pro tour uses 95 sq in. So mid size racquets dominate the pro tour.

MichaelChang
08-26-2009, 09:50 AM
95 should not be considered a MID. Eg the PS6.0 has 85 and 95 and you not gonna say both are MIDs.

the biggest MID would be a 93 (POG Mid).

pmerk34
08-26-2009, 09:51 AM
Right, my only point is headsize and the number assigned to it usually have no relevance to the actual headsize. It's more a heritage number assigned by the manufacturer.

Between the K90 and K95, there is very little head size difference....but...they have different weights, different stiffness, different layups, different balance points, and different string patterns. This is where the real differences are, not head size.

But I hit the frame more and sweetspot less with a Kblade Tour 93 than a MG Prestige Pro 98

sureshs
08-26-2009, 10:01 AM
But I hit the frame more and sweetspot less with a Kblade Tour 93 than a MG Prestige Pro 98

That would be obvious to anyone other than those who just want to argue. A bigger head sweeps out a bigger volume as you swing, allowing for a margin of error somewhere in your swing. So, it is not just a matter of the little difference that you notice if you place the frames on top of each other. The difference gets amplified during a swing, and during bad ball bounces, wind, bad day, etc.

pmerk34
08-26-2009, 10:03 AM
That would be obvious to anyone other than those who just want to argue. A bigger head sweeps out a bigger volume as you swing, allowing for a margin of error somewhere in your swing. So, it is not just a matter of the little difference that you notice if you place the frames on top of each other. The difference gets amplified during a swing, and during bad ball bounces, wind, bad day, etc.

No doubt. 95-100 for me. 90 and 93 too demanding.

GinoGinelli
08-26-2009, 11:57 AM
......................

joe sch
08-26-2009, 12:18 PM
Federer's forehand has a ton of spin. He doesn't hit flat.

The topspin I was discussing is a combination of ball rotations and trajectory. Modern "Topspinners" usually have a more looping trajectory. Federer and Sampras have more rotations on thier hits than almost all other modern players but have flatter trajectories. This is the distinction that many modern players and fans do not seem to understand.

In D Zone
08-26-2009, 12:18 PM
Aside from Fed... Safin and Hewitt are among others who plays with mid. I know the two don't count since both clost to retirement. Djoker moved from 93 KBT to 100.

Once Fed retires, don't think there is any other pro's playing mid.

On the recreational / club level - mids are still quite popular especially K90 TOur and RDS001 Mid.

pmerk34
08-26-2009, 12:20 PM
The topspin I was discussing is a combination of ball rotations and trajectory. Modern "Topspinners" usually have a more looping trajectory. Federer and Sampras have more rotations on thier hits than almost all other modern players but have flatter trajectories. This is the distinction that many modern players and fans do not seem to understand.

I think we all understand that but when someone says "hits flat" it can be interpreted as hitting with no spin as well a la Jimmy Connors.

Wizard of id
08-26-2009, 12:23 PM
Once Fed retires, don't think there is any other pro's playing mid.

On the recreational / club level - mids are still quiet popular especially K90.

Federer effect :)

Once Fed retires, fewer people will even try out K90s for the first time and they will (slowly) die out. Probably out of production faster than out of the hands of players (like POG 4stripes, Prostaffs, etc.)

How many people play with anything smaller than the Prostaff 85?- for that matter, hardly any people play with a Prostaff 85.

Rabbit
08-26-2009, 12:28 PM
That would be obvious to anyone other than those who just want to argue. A bigger head sweeps out a bigger volume as you swing, allowing for a margin of error somewhere in your swing. So, it is not just a matter of the little difference that you notice if you place the frames on top of each other. The difference gets amplified during a swing, and during bad ball bounces, wind, bad day, etc.

Just for giggles, how exactly does the difference get 'amplified'? You mean to tell me that the 1/8 inch difference in circumference which is mostly down toward the throat of the frame is going to make a significant difference? When swinging the frame, do the physical properties of the frame somehow get 'amplified'? Does the frame stretch more when swinging a bigger frame?

And to pmerk, I can understand that. But, as another poster and I experienced, how do you explain that we both went out and framed more with a 300T at 98 sq in than with an AG100 at 90 sq in? Again, it's other differences in the frame that are more significant IMO.

SVP
08-26-2009, 12:33 PM
There will always be recreational players who prefer a mid because they may have grown up using them.

What happens when we leave the scene?

As a general question, what is the cut-off age for those who grew up using the mids and those who didn't?

In D Zone
08-26-2009, 12:34 PM
No doubt but it will take some time before you'll see the K90 disappear (but not fogotten_. As long as Fed's name is being circulated around the tennis world - the K90 interest will definitely be there.

Sampras is tied to PS85... now PS88,
Hewitt with Yonex SRD Tour 90.
POG 93 also has good following.
Head Prestige has a long history of great followers as well.

It is also about marketing.... once the market is flooded with MID+ and OS frame. I am sure the tennis manufacturers will find some other ways - to sponsor $$ some aspiring pro to use a mid size frame (just to stand out which translates to $$$ ).

lenderbender
08-26-2009, 01:05 PM
Aside from Fed... Safin and Hewitt are among others who plays with mid. I know the two don't count since both clost to retirement. Djoker moved from 93 KBT to 100.

Once Fed retires, don't think there is any other pro's playing mid.

On the recreational / club level - mids are still quite popular especially K90 TOur and RDS001 Mid.

thought djoker's blade was based on the radical mp hence about 95?

pmerk34
08-26-2009, 01:09 PM
Just for giggles, how exactly does the difference get 'amplified'? You mean to tell me that the 1/8 inch difference in circumference which is mostly down toward the throat of the frame is going to make a significant difference? When swinging the frame, do the physical properties of the frame somehow get 'amplified'? Does the frame stretch more when swinging a bigger frame?

And to pmerk, I can understand that. But, as another poster and I experienced, how do you explain that we both went out and framed more with a 300T at 98 sq in than with an AG100 at 90 sq in? Again, it's other differences in the frame that are more significant IMO.

I have no idea how you managed to frame more ball with a larger head size. Speaking for myself, and I would also assume for a large majority of those who tried and did not stay with a mid, I frame/mishit significantly more balls when the head size is below 95 sq

pmerk34
08-26-2009, 01:16 PM
What happens when we leave the scene?

As a general question, what is the cut-off age for those who grew up using the mids and those who didn't?

No idea. I suppose if sales drop to the point where making mids are not profitable they will go the way of wooden frames.

Wizard of id
08-26-2009, 01:18 PM
No doubt but it will take some time before you'll see the K90 disappear (but not fogotten_. As long as Fed's name is being circulated around the tennis world - the K90 interest will definitely be there.

Sampras is tied to PS85... now PS88,
Hewitt with Yonex SRD Tour 90.
POG 93 also has good following.
Head Prestige has a long history of great followers as well.

It is also about marketing.... once the market is flooded with MID+ and OS frame. I am sure the tennis manufacturers will find some other ways - to sponsor $$ some aspiring pro to use a mid size frame (just to stand out which translates to $$$ ).

Certainly - any guesses as to which one?
According to this thread (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=245265&mode=linear) Grigor Dimitrov uses a Head Prestige MG Mid 93. Maybe he can be persuaded to keep it :)

tarkowski
08-26-2009, 01:37 PM
Here's an interesting article that has been posted a few times here at TW:

http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/articles/2006/01/the_inch_that_changed_tennis_f.html

What's interesting to note is that the mids of today (K90, KPS88, etc) actually qualify as already having gained that 'extra inch'. (MP and OS would just give even more.)

If you measure the cross-length of a K90 and KTour (Henin), they are just about equal. The KTour gets an increase in sq inch by having longer mains.

I think the type of grip one uses on groundies may have some bearing on what racquet head size is preferred. I also think that it's the other attributes of the racquet (static weight, SW, balance) that will have a bigger impact on performance than head size.

sureshs
08-26-2009, 01:51 PM
and framed more with a 300T at 98 sq in than with an AG100 at 90 sq in?

That is a real shame.

Small head also means lower power and smaller sweetzone, unless the weight compensates for it. My K88 has a bigger sweetzone that most racquets an oz lighter than it. But that may not be true for other mids.

pmerk34
08-26-2009, 01:54 PM
That is a real shame.

Small head also means lower power and smaller sweetzone, unless the weight compensates for it. My K88 has a bigger sweetzone that most racquets an oz lighter than it. But that may not be true for other mids.

Isn't called "potential power" which you can only unlock with superior swingspeed?

pennc94
08-26-2009, 02:00 PM
Here's an interesting article that has been posted a few times here at TW:

http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/articles/2006/01/the_inch_that_changed_tennis_f.html

What's interesting to note is that the mids of today (K90, KPS88, etc) actually qualify as already having gained that 'extra inch'. (MP and OS would just give even more.)

If you measure the cross-length of a K90 and KTour (Henin), they are just about equal. The KTour gets an increase in sq inch by having longer mains.

I think the type of grip one uses on groundies may have some bearing on what racquet head size is preferred. I also think that it's the other attributes of the racquet (static weight, SW, balance) that will have a bigger impact on performance than head size.

Mid are already gone. When I was growing up, a mid was 80-89 sq. in. So, the 90s that exist now are not mids. That probably explains why K90 qualify as already having gained that 'extra inch'.

tarkowski
08-26-2009, 02:06 PM
Mid are already gone. When I was growing up, a mid was 80-89 sq. in. So, the 90s that exist now are not mids. That probably explains why K90 qualify as already having gained that 'extra inch'.

Understood - you'll get no argument from me.

I guess the question then becomes: Since that extra inch has been gained by 'todays' mids (mid-pluses) - will the K90, KPS88, Yonex, and other frames like them go the way of PS85? Or have we reached a minimum headsize that will always be with us - provided something else doesn't change, like the size of the court?

sureshs
08-26-2009, 02:22 PM
Isn't called "potential power" which you can only unlock with superior swingspeed?

Other way around. Weight is intrinsic power which dominates at low speeds.

FedererClone
08-26-2009, 02:46 PM
I think the type of grip one uses on groundies may have some bearing on what racquet head size is preferred. I also think that it's the other attributes of the racquet (static weight, SW, balance) that will have a bigger impact on performance than head size.

I think this is a great point; the weight, balance and feel through the swing determines just as much about a racquet as does its head size. I have Head TXE (81 sq in 80s frame), many Wilson 85 sq in, POG @ 93 and some 6.0 95's and 6.1 95s, and in every instance i still go back to either 85 or 81 sq in head. I agree anything else feels clumsy once you've found your stick and it happens to be a mid. 90 is as big as I have successfully gone. Even the POG feels clumsy... at the end of the day, if it ain't broke... I'd rather focus on the game with a stick I jive with than endless stick "updates" (even though I am guilty of uncovering classic frames to try out once in a while...)

pmerk34
08-26-2009, 03:33 PM
Other way around. Weight is intrinsic power which dominates at low speeds.


No I Thought you had to swing a heavy racquet fast to unlock the power. Light stiff racquets give you much easier power on half swings as well as slow swings and of course fast swings.


But if you can swing a K90 very fast will it no produce a powerful heavier ball than swinging say a Wilson Kfour at the same rate?

V6Jim
08-26-2009, 03:53 PM
Can I butt in here and ask some dumb questions?

Am I to gather that a Mid racket is 90" - 95". Mid plus is 96" - 100" and oversize 101" - 110"?

As a general rule the bigger the head the more powerful the racket?

Is it possible for an Eastern grip player to successfully use a Mid Plus?

Therefore, why would anybody ever want to play with a smaller headed racket? Better precision and feel?

Jimmy

dadozen
08-26-2009, 03:57 PM
Can I butt in here and ask some dumb questions?

Am I to gather that a Mid racket is 90" - 95". Mid plus is 96" - 100" and oversize 101" - 110"?

As a general rule the bigger the head the more powerful the racket?

Is it possible for an Eastern grip player to successfully use a Mid Plus?

Therefore, why would anybody ever want to play with a smaller headed racket? Better precision and feel?

Jimmy

Jimmy, actually mid racquets suit better eastern players. SW and W players like MP racquet better. Using a smaller headsize gives you better feel and control, but also gives you a smaller margin of error.

sureshs
08-26-2009, 03:58 PM
No I Thought you had to swing a heavy racquet fast to unlock the power. Light stiff racquets give you much easier power on half swings as well as slow swings and of course fast swings.


But if you can swing a K90 very fast will it no produce a powerful heavier ball than swinging say a Wilson Kfour at the same rate?

You can swing a heavier racquet slower and get the same result as swinging a lighter racquet faster. The momentum transfered to the ball is the same in the two cases, so goes the theory. In reality, the tangential way the ball is struck with topspin in the modern game probably favors the lighter racquet swung faster (within limits). Larger head also gives more margin of error during the swing, which is at an angle to the ball.

All this is only at impact. In reality, you first got to have the racquet prepared early and start the swing early, with topspin, to counteract the incoming topspin. You have to take this into account when deciding on the weight of a racquet. If you cannot get the strings to the ball at the right time, there is no gain with all the extra weight.

tarkowski
08-26-2009, 05:05 PM
Can I butt in here and ask some dumb questions?

Am I to gather that a Mid racket is 90" - 95". Mid plus is 96" - 100" and oversize 101" - 110"?

As a general rule the bigger the head the more powerful the racket?

Is it possible for an Eastern grip player to successfully use a Mid Plus?

Therefore, why would anybody ever want to play with a smaller headed racket? Better precision and feel?

Jimmy

Hey Jimmy,

I think you'll get different answers from different sources.

In the July 2008 edition of Tennis magazine, there was a good write-up on string choices. They divided string choices up based on the type of player and racquet size.

Here, they classified the racquet sizes as follows:

93-98 = mid
100-107 = midplus
110-120 = oversize

What would the K90 be in this classification?

I've also seen them classified this way, and tend to think of them this way myself:

85-93 mid
95-105 midplus
106+ oversize

Based on Pennc94 comments, we might classify them this way:

<90 = mid
90-105 = mid plus
105+ = oversize

tarkowski
08-26-2009, 05:12 PM
No I Thought you had to swing a heavy racquet fast to unlock the power. Light stiff racquets give you much easier power on half swings as well as slow swings and of course fast swings.


But if you can swing a K90 very fast will it no produce a powerful heavier ball than swinging say a Wilson Kfour at the same rate?

I find that a heavier racquet provides me with more dynamic range. I am able to hit both a softer ball as well as a stronger ball with a heavy racquet.

I do agree that it is easier to just 'get a ball back' when under pressure and\or out-of-position with a stiff light racquet. The frame provides a little more inherent power for these types of situations. When dictating though, I find these frames unsatisfying. That's just me... not stating an absolute. :-)

Aces09
08-26-2009, 05:51 PM
Unfortunately, Midsize racquets aren't compatible with todays hard hitting baseline game. Widebody's with open string pattern and polyester strings are more suitable, I, on the other hand, prefer the KPS 88 to any of my midplus or oversize sticks. I like getting to net so it's an obvious choice. It's just the way racquets have evolved, wood with tiny heads, graphite with midsize heads, now we have racquets made of god-knows-what and midplus heads. The sticks have evolved with the game.

VGP
08-26-2009, 09:05 PM
Unfortunately, Midsize racquets aren't compatible with todays hard hitting baseline game. Widebody's with open string pattern and polyester strings are more suitable, I, on the other hand, prefer the KPS 88 to any of my midplus or oversize sticks. I like getting to net so it's an obvious choice. It's just the way racquets have evolved, wood with tiny heads, graphite with midsize heads, now we have racquets made of god-knows-what and midplus heads. The sticks have evolved with the game.

IMO, the game's evolved with the sticks......and strings.

defrule
08-26-2009, 09:55 PM
I love how the n90 feels, the weight, the solidness, the impact.

If only I can find a midplus frame that feels the same.

OliverSimon
08-26-2009, 10:03 PM
We still have the guys that use the PC600 Mid

aimr75
08-26-2009, 10:07 PM
i think it will just be driven by demand.. if the racquet companies arent seeing enough return, then i think they will be phased out eventually..

cork_screw
08-26-2009, 10:11 PM
No, they're just getting grouped into larger headsizes. 95 is considered a midsize by some now, which is ********. I think it's a way to patronize those who don't have the skill to yield such a racquet so they humor those who buy into it thinking they're playing with one when they aren't otherwise capable of playing with yet. Also, what really annoys me is when manufacturers now group 100 sq/in as a "mid-plus" racquet. Now when I see 100 sq inches it's considered a tweener regardless if pros are using it. It's still a tweener in my book. 98-95 mid plus. and 93-85 is mid. Anything under 85 is Jedi.

pmerk34
08-27-2009, 05:23 AM
No, they're just getting grouped into larger headsizes. 95 is considered a midsize by some now, which is ********. I think it's a way to patronize those who don't have the skill to yield such a racquet so they humor those who buy into it thinking they're playing with one when they aren't otherwise capable of playing with yet. Also, what really annoys me is when manufacturers now group 100 sq/in as a "mid-plus" racquet. Now when I see 100 sq inches it's considered a tweener regardless if pros are using it. It's still a tweener in my book. 98-95 mid plus. and 93-85 is mid. Anything under 85 is Jedi.

There is nothing sold under 85 sq anymore. I don't see any new frames that are under 90 sq except for the Pros Staff 88.

Except for TW posters no one buying a racquet cares what grouping a manufacturer places a racquet. No one says oh this company 95 sq in inch frame is a mid plus but the other manufacturer calls it a a "mid" oh I will go with them to feel better about my game.

Except for TW no one cares about the headsize of a frame in relation to skill. Most of the best players on earth use Mid pluses now as they are best suited to the game they play.

stormholloway
08-27-2009, 05:32 AM
I just hope that Wilson's box beam design doesn't go away. I won't cry if they move their player's stick to 95 inches, but it's the makeup and design of the frame that are perhaps even more important.

I do find anything over 90 inches to be rather... unelegant. There is no racquet more fun to play with than the PS85 in my opinion.

Lefty78
08-27-2009, 10:39 AM
If you look at the ATP top 100, almost everyone is using a 95" frame, give or take a few square inches. For the pro's, oversize racquets are about as rare as midsize, none of which means midsize frames will disappear entirely.

In D Zone
08-27-2009, 01:03 PM
No, they're just getting grouped into larger headsizes. 95 is considered a midsize by some now, which is ********. I think it's a way to patronize those who don't have the skill to yield such a racquet so they humor those who buy into it thinking they're playing with one when they aren't otherwise capable of playing with yet. Also, what really annoys me is when manufacturers now group 100 sq/in as a "mid-plus" racquet. Now when I see 100 sq inches it's considered a tweener regardless if pros are using it. It's still a tweener in my book. 98-95 mid plus. and 93-85 is mid. Anything under 85 is Jedi.

I think Prince is promoter of labelling 95 as mid ; not mid+ like O3 Tour mid etc...

There are lot of pros who are playing with 95's.

cadfael_tex
08-27-2009, 01:24 PM
You know what they say. 95 is the new 82.

With what has been said about string area being necessary for the amount of topspin the ATP player puts on the ball today, is 85 just too small for today's pro? Wonder if any of the physics of tennis guys can answer that one...

pmerk34
08-27-2009, 01:27 PM
You know what they say. 95 is the new 82.

With what has been said about string area being necessary for the amount of topspin the ATP player puts on the ball today, is 85 just too small for today's pro? Wonder if any of the physics of tennis guys can answer that one...

You answered you question because no pros use them anymore.

dadozen
08-27-2009, 01:37 PM
No, they're just getting grouped into larger headsizes. 95 is considered a midsize by some now, which is ********. I think it's a way to patronize those who don't have the skill to yield such a racquet so they humor those who buy into it thinking they're playing with one when they aren't otherwise capable of playing with yet. Also, what really annoys me is when manufacturers now group 100 sq/in as a "mid-plus" racquet. Now when I see 100 sq inches it's considered a tweener regardless if pros are using it. It's still a tweener in my book. 98-95 mid plus. and 93-85 is mid. Anything under 85 is Jedi.

LMAO:lol: 10 char

cadfael_tex
08-27-2009, 01:42 PM
Wasn't necessarily asking for anectdotal evidence. Occassionally I see answers on here from physics types who like tennis to look at the mathmatics of it.

To reframe the question, if you looked at the topspin on the ball (RPM) from the average to 25 player in 1984 (firmly in the age of the graphite midsize racquet) to the same statistic now - what would be the difference? I wonder if that coefficient would be the same as the difference in size between a Pro Staff 85 and the average 95 inch pro frame now.

dadozen
08-27-2009, 01:42 PM
They was tennis is played nowadays ask for bigger headsizes. Especially because of the grips used( mainly SW FH ).

sboo
08-27-2009, 01:45 PM
I would most certainly think it would be different based on the prevalence of the Western grip and poly strings. I'm not sure what would be the best way to go about modeling it though besides a slowmotion camera, a marked distance, and a reference point on the ball:?

mTm28
08-27-2009, 01:54 PM
So mids have no place in today's game?

Zielmann
08-27-2009, 01:57 PM
85-93 mid
95-105 midplus
106+ oversize


If I were to tell somebody what the divisions were for head sizes, this is the scale I'd use. Maybe change mid to 93" or less, though. I mean, they could still up and make a frame that's got a 75" headsize. Not likely though.

Peronally, I'd like to see the scale changed up to this, or something similar:
90" or less = mid
93-100 = mp
over 100" = os

But I don't see why people dislike the smaller frames so much (yes, i do use a mp, not a mid, but i have found some mids i like). I tried out an old wooden Wilson Junior racquet that usually hangs on my wall. Head had to be somewhere between 65 and 75". Grip was maybe 4 1/4". While I had to think a little harder to be able to hit with it, I could use my normal grip/strokes. Actually got some pretty good topspin with it. Was pretty impressed overall.

But I have noticed that Prince seems to be stepping back to slightly smaller stuff with the EXO3 line. Their player's MP's are at 95" now, rather than the 98 or larger that they used to have. At least it's a step in the right direction...

pmerk34
08-27-2009, 01:59 PM
So mids have no place in today's game?

In today's game yes though no the majority...In Today's pro game apparently less and less.

There aren't a huge number of under 95" frames available anymore or new models coming out.

Mr.Brightside
08-27-2009, 04:53 PM
If I were to tell somebody what the divisions were for head sizes, this is the scale I'd use. Maybe change mid to 93" or less, though. I mean, they could still up and make a frame that's got a 75" headsize. Not likely though.

Peronally, I'd like to see the scale changed up to this, or something similar:
90" or less = mid
93-100 = mp
over 100" = os

But I don't see why people dislike the smaller frames so much (yes, i do use a mp, not a mid, but i have found some mids i like). I tried out an old wooden Wilson Junior racquet that usually hangs on my wall. Head had to be somewhere between 65 and 75". Grip was maybe 4 1/4". While I had to think a little harder to be able to hit with it, I could use my normal grip/strokes. Actually got some pretty good topspin with it. Was pretty impressed overall.

But I have noticed that Prince seems to be stepping back to slightly smaller stuff with the EXO3 line. Their player's MP's are at 95" now, rather than the 98 or larger that they used to have. At least it's a step in the right direction...

So then what's a 91 or 92 inch racquet?

baek57
08-27-2009, 05:00 PM
Maybe people should take a cue from Federer and switch to mids. No place for mids in today's game? 15 slams and counting tells me otherwise.

dadozen
08-27-2009, 05:33 PM
Maybe people should take a cue from Federer and switch to mids. No place for mids in today's game? 15 slams and counting tells me otherwise.

Yeah, I think I'll change my name to Roger, then the K90s would suit me better. LOL

It's not because the #1 plays with it that it's good for everybody else.

rfprse
08-27-2009, 09:34 PM
It doesn't seem mids are going away. Major manufacturers still keep introducing new mid size models.
Personally, I think something bigger than 95 loses the real sweet spot and feels rather clumsy, especially it gets to 100 and over. Demoing k 6.1 tour reminds me again what it is like to hit the sweet spot and how effortless to get the pace when you connect. Of course, those who never played below 100 would not understand what it means and, they are missing out what it is like to hit the ball well. 95 is more than enough for all those "modern strokes" per se, imho.

defrule
08-27-2009, 10:41 PM
My n90 feels like Katana, clean and precise, while my 6.1 lite at 100sq.in feels like a machete, blunt and brute force.

babolat15
08-27-2009, 11:01 PM
i feel that the 95-100 has pretty much all of the pros in it...i would say 95-98...but u have to think about all the babolats

Zielmann
08-28-2009, 07:33 AM
So then what's a 91 or 92 inch racquet?

I knew that would come up... Still a midplus. Should have put 91-100 I guess. But come on, when's the last time you saw a 91 or 92 inch racquet? (others who had posted stuff like this before me skipped from 90 to 93 and nobody said anything about that...)

eagle
08-28-2009, 07:57 AM
80, 85, 88, 90, 93, 95, 98, 100, 102, 105, 107, 110 .....

Does it really matter?

Does one play better or more importantly does one think he's better than others because he plays with a specific size racquet?

Heck, if you can play well with the big bubba 130 sq in racquet, then so be it. :)

If you play well with whatever legal head size racquet you use, then it is immaterial.

Just play the game and ignore what others say or play with.

r,
eagle