PDA

View Full Version : How to hit a "heavy" ball???


Jack2010
02-03-2012, 05:50 PM
Hey everybody,

I currently used a 117 sq inch frame, but I have been told that if I used a smaller frame (i.e. 100 sq inch), then I would be able to hit a "heavier" ball. I'm not sure I believe that. Anyone with thoughts on this? Thanks!!

Jack

The Dampener
02-03-2012, 06:00 PM
Jack, it's possible you could hit a heavier ball with a smaller frame, but it's not a certainty. It depends on a lot of variables—your size, your fitness level, your proficiency, etc.

In my opinion, great timing/technique, strength, and a heavier frame (not necessarily a smaller one) can often make hitting that heavy ball easier. But that's really generalizing. This discussion could also include your grip, string type, tension, and so on.

It all just depends on a combination of many things.

LeeD
02-03-2012, 06:03 PM
We went thru this.
A heavy ball. It's heavy to lesser opponents. It's a sitter to opponents much better than you. It's normal to your peers.
No matter how hard you can hit, someone thinks it's a sitter (until you reach 5.5+)
Your slowest ball is a "heavy" ball to a 3.0.
Power, spin, placement.

user92626
02-03-2012, 06:33 PM
Jack,

You should believe it. With all things equal, a smaller frame would have a more concentrated stringbed and mass, move through air better so therefore impact the ball with better power. Entertain your mind with exxaggeration and you'll easily see this. If you swing a 90 sq in racket vs a fan-out 120 one, which one would impact the ball better?

Of course the cost of 90sq racket is it's much easier to mishit. Look at pro's slo mo swing, you'll see they hit off the very center of racket a lot. Everyone needs as much margin for error as possible.

Bartelby
02-03-2012, 07:15 PM
You need a weightier racquet with a good amount of swingweight to hit a heavy ball, so a ki 5 at 325sw would suit this better.

cork_screw
02-03-2012, 08:09 PM
Just by using a smaller frame doesn't mean youre gonna hit a heavier ball. In fact word has spread that the new IG Radical Pro hits a very heavy ball and that's 98 sq/in (a racquet, i'm dying to try when it gets warmer). A heavy ball has a lot of movement and spin along with pace. Just pace alone doesn't cause a heavy ball. But mostly those three elements combined creates a heavy ball. Nadal hits heavy balls even though his balls aren't fast.

If you wanna know, the secret to getting most out of your stroke is really "turning over" on the ball. Once you feel you're making contact with the ball turn your semi-western and cup into it and turn it into an extreme western through pronation. The point where you pronate your forehand into the ball at the moment of contact is where I find I hit some really heavy balls. If I get a good one on someone I see that even though they made contact with it, it eats them up and the ball lands short on my court. Even if they manage to hit it in the sweet spot, the ball may still result in a lame return.

A buddy of mine was hitting with a ps85, and really hit a nice ball at me, not that much pace, I would say medium fast, I've seen faster. I returned it with my pro tour 630 which is a beast. Statically, it's heafty and weighted. It eats balls for dinner. I managed to hit it in the sweet spot, and the ball had so much weight and action/heavyness to it that my racquet twisted out of my hand and the ball didn't even get back on his side. That's the first time that has ever happened to me with that stick, especially since I was in position to hit it. If you get a good turn on a ball, you don't even need pace the ball action does everything.

stormholloway
02-03-2012, 08:12 PM
No matter how hard you can hit, someone thinks it's a sitter (until you reach 5.5+)

More downright silliness from LeeD. Why the hyperbole? Or do you actually believe the above?

cork_screw
02-03-2012, 08:19 PM
Totally agree with you.

More downright silliness from LeeD. Why the hyperbole? Or do you actually believe the above?

Xizel
02-03-2012, 08:38 PM
More downright silliness from LeeD. Why the hyperbole? Or do you actually believe the above?

Take a third.

Honestly, a high enough swingweight with a lot of spin. I find it hard to hit a heavy ball on a slow ball, and easier on a normal rally ball or even a forcing shot. It's easier to add more spin because there's more friction between the string bed and the ball (or something similar, like a falling ball on a kick serve).

stormholloway
02-03-2012, 08:57 PM
I don't even know what heavy means. You have velocity and ball rotation. Anything else is in people's heads.

Ducker
02-03-2012, 08:59 PM
I swear LeeD does not know how to comprehend what hes reading. The OP simply asked if a smaller frame would benefit him in hitting a heavy ball.

OP, the answer is yes and no. There are many variables that go into creating a heavy ball. One of the most prominate ones isnt the racquet but the physicality of the hitter themself and the degree to which that person uses their body weight in the shot. Since smaller racquets tend to be heavier, and 120sqinch frames tend to be lighter, I will say yes the smaller heavier frame will give you more weight on your ball (if you can swing it the same speed).

Bascially in order to work on getting a heavy ball you will want to use the heaviest frame you can that you can still swing fast and manuever. To safely and proficiently use a heavy racquet you will need to be in well enough shape and use the proper technique. Otherwise you will find things like a tender elbow, sore wrist, and other things happening to you.

If you post your age, wieght, height and relative physical attributes I am sure I or many others here would be able to make a recommendation as to a great racquet to get you on your way.

gindyo
02-03-2012, 10:36 PM
How about we first define what a "heavy" ball means.

For the sake of clarity I will define some terms:
weight of shot = WoS
head size = HS
weight of the racquet = WoR
racquet head speed = RHS
speed(pace) of ball = SB
spin(rotation) = RPM

There are three main variables that will define the "weight" of an incoming ball
1. The actual weight of the ball
2. SB
3. RPM
WoS = 1+2+3. That is the bottom line.

if we assume 1 is constant, to increase the "weight of shot" (WoS) you can only increase 2 or 3 or both. Now lets do some math.

it is a common knowledge that smaller head = less pace + more control (do we agree?) . Since control does not affect the WoS this equation will give us smaller head = less pace = less WoS. As regards to the WoR the equation is little different. With everything else being equal ( and fallowing the lows of a very smart guy named Newton F=mass x acceleration) Higher WoR = Slower RHS (it is harder to swing a heavier racquet) = roughly the same force(pace). When we add the equation for the spin with heavier racquet: Higher WoR = Slower RHS = Less Spin. As a total we get Less Spin + Same Force(Pace) = Less WoS

So after all this math I conclude that there is no way you will increase your WoS by switching to a smaller or heavier racquet or both. And if you think about it the opposite may hold true. The racquet is a small part of the total weight acting on the ball (TW), TW = WoR + the weight of your body, but a small decrease (relative to TW) in the WoR can cause substantial increase in RHS which in terms increases both pace AND spin.
The only sure way to increase your weight of shot is change in your technique and/or strength. Switching to a lighter racquet has the potential (note: a key word is potential) of increasing the WoS, but will decrease your ability to control the ball especially if your timing is not perfect.

Disclaimer: the above is just my logic I haven't proven it and I haven't seen anybody else prove it.

Bartelby
02-03-2012, 11:00 PM
The trouble with your logic is that if you're dealing with the racquet choice alone you've got to keep the other variables constant.

gindyo
02-03-2012, 11:05 PM
The trouble with your logic is that if you're dealing with the racquet choice alone you've got to keep the other variables constant.

So, by saying that there is a problem with my logic, you disagree that switching to a heavier or smaller head racquet will decrease the weight of shot? I don't understand your point, which other variables am I not keeping constant?

Bartelby
02-03-2012, 11:29 PM
One doesn't follow from the other.

You've got to assume he can keep things like rhs constant when advising on a racquet for weight of shot.

Whether his rhs is good/fast enough is an empirical issue.

heninfan99
02-04-2012, 02:02 AM
IMHO When you hit your forehand in the open stance really bend your knee down and use your leg to drive into the ball. Also a BLX 6.1 95 with polys wouldn't hurt. :-)

Chyeaah
02-04-2012, 02:16 AM
I don't even know what heavy means. You have velocity and ball rotation. Anything else is in people's heads.

+1. This is how I should think.

Bartelby
02-04-2012, 02:17 AM
Heavy means power and spin in tennis, or velocity and ball rotation, and its a good enough word to describe the sensation.

gindyo
02-04-2012, 03:21 AM
One doesn't follow from the other.

You've got to assume he can keep things like rhs constant when advising on a racquet for weight of shot.

Whether his rhs is good/fast enough is an empirical issue.

No, you must assume that he can't keep thinks like RHS (for the purpose of imparting spin on the ball) the same. He will not magically become stronger by buying a heavier racquet. If it was so easy to get the effect of increased weight of shot by simply increasing the weight of the racquet, the pros would be playing with 20oz+ racquets (I am sure they could handle it to hit flat) .
Adding weight to your racquet has potential of increasing the penetration/pace and control of your flat shots, but to the "weight" of your topspin shot it will add very little if anything (remember we are talking about "weight of shot" RPM is 50% of the equation). You can not convince me that any rec player can add weight to his racquet and maintain the same RHS (unless he was playing with 17" racquet to begin with)

Bartelby
02-04-2012, 03:28 AM
Its in the racquet section and he's wondering what sort of racquet he might need, so while what you say is true it's really an empirical matter as to how he plays and how he might play with a different racquet.

He's more likely to hit a heavy ball, or learn to hit one, with a ki 5 than his ki 30.

gindyo
02-04-2012, 03:57 AM
Its in the racquet section and he's wondering what sort of racquet he might need, so while what you say is true it's really an empirical matter as to how he plays and how he might play with a different racquet.

He's more likely to hit a heavy ball, or learn to hit one, with a ki 5 than his ki 30.

Well if he has the potential to up his strength then yes he can learn to hit a heavy ball, but then again the new weight of shot will not be the result of using a heavier racquet but the result of him getting stronger and/or improving his form (which does not contradict with my logic at all). And if I were to advise him to get a heavier racquet (which I am not), I would first advise him to hit the gim. The bottom line is the only way to add weight of shot is to put more effort into it.
Now if we are talking about improving one's game I would definitely recommend a smaller head because it will give him more control, (and of course there is a disclaimer here: I assume the OP is a 3+ player - he can consistently hit the centre of a smaller head ).
I once tried 117in racquet and I felt like I could not keep the ball inside the lines if my life depended on that. I would never recommend it to anyone unless they were over 60 and just starting to play tennis. it is great to dink the ball back and forth but that is all it is good for.

athiker
02-04-2012, 05:04 AM
Hey everybody,

I currently used a 117 sq inch frame, but I have been told that if I used a smaller frame (i.e. 100 sq inch), then I would be able to hit a "heavier" ball. I'm not sure I believe that. Anyone with thoughts on this? Thanks!!

Jack

I took a semester of "cultural physics" in college a few decades ago so I feel fully qualified to answer this question. :wink: The answer is no. So a heavy ball is due to speed of ball and spin (not just any spin, but topspin). Speed is obvious and spin b/c when the ball hits the ground it seems to "jump" forward and arrive on the opponent's racquet faster than expected. Spin also makes the ball feel heavy b/c its still has a lot of spin when it impacts the racquet face which can make the opponent's racquet twist some at impact...almost like its pulling the racquet down. At the very least it can disrupt an opponent's smooth swing path.

So unless a player can swing a smaller head size racquet faster for some unknown (to me) reason then it won't hit a heavier ball. In fact due to a likely denser string pattern it will likely be less heavy due less trampoline effect of the string bed and less spin due to a denser string pattern. This is assuming same string, tension, flex specs, beam shape, etc. in both racquets. There may be a positive trade-off in control however with a smaller head. I might also be convinced of a small aerodynamic component benefit of a smaller head size but it will take some convincing that its a significant factor, especially if the only racquet construction difference is head size.

Now that that's answered how about if OP switches to a heavier racquet can he hit a heavier ball? I submit that now it comes down to each person individually. Each is going to have an ideal weight to maximize their personal potential to hit their heaviest ball. Just like you may be able to out run me but I may be able to outrun someone else. Our maximum swing speed is different regardless of racquet weight and our ability to swing various weights of racquets at any given speed is different. I might be able to swing an 8 oz racquet the same speed as a 9 oz racquet, so I will hit a heavier ball with the 9 oz racquet, but at some point I'm going to start to swing an increasingly heavier racquet slower.

Courtesy of the infallible Wikipedia: In physics, a force is any influence that causes an object to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape. F = ma

So we want to impart the maximum amount of force on the ball in the ideal combination of forward and upward direction (vector?) to get the combination of pace and spin that makes the ball feel heaviest to our opponent. We need whatever tool lets us do that the best.

So the bottom line is with what raquet can I generate the maximum combination of mass and acceleration ? The maximum force put into the optimal combination of pace or spin. That starts getting very individual (but we could probably talk in generalizations for most people but I'll leave that for right now as that would be too practical). For me it might be that my swing speed actually slows a bit from a 9 oz racquet to a 13 oz racquet but the extra mass more than makes up for it. Maybe at 14 oz my swing speed just becomes to slow in maximize force on the ball. For someone else their swing speed might decrease too much for any added benefit at 11.5 oz. This is of course leaving aside the fact that a heavy ball isn't the only metric for playing good tennis. Do you get tired with a certain racquet over the course of a match? Do you consistently have time to prep the racquet to make a clean shot using your optimal heavy ball weight racquet?

I believe another variable is deceleration at impact. Fine we are whaling away at (in the direction of) the ball with our super fast optimal weight racquet for theoretical maximum force but at contact with the ball the racquet head slows and does not impart the full amount of force expected. The "collision is made longer" with a lighter weight racquet (usually spoken in terms of plowthrough on these forums) and more force is lost vs the same impact with a heavier racquet. This is a hard element to generalize b/c stroke technique and strength of players vary so much. Someone with a lot of strength and good form may be able to power a light racquet right through the ball with very little deceleration vs a weak player. Of course the strong player could probably do even better with a heavier racquet...and so it goes...

In my world where I play with a C10 Pro and PK Ki5 I keep reading how a C10 doesn't hit a heavy ball and I think there is some truth to that. When I recently went back to my Ki5 one of my regular opponents was mishitting and leaving more balls short than usual (he later adjusted). Then he commented, "The balls seem to be getting on me faster than they look". The C10 is heavy enough to hit a heavy ball vs my Ki5 and only a 2" headsize difference but side-to-side comparison the pattern is more dense in the C10. I don't think I hit much faster with the Ki5 (and I know I don't hit more accurately) but I definitely hit with more spin...I hit a heavier ball with a larger headsize. Its important to note though these racquets are different in more ways than just headsize.

Okay, I'm going to go try to find where I misplaced my real life now...:oops:

gindyo
02-04-2012, 05:17 AM
I took a semester of "cultural physics" in college a few decades ago so I feel fully qualified to answer this question. :wink: The answer is no. So a heavy ball is due to speed of ball and spin (not just any spin, but topspin). Speed is obvious and spin b/c when the ball hits the ground it seems to "jump" forward and arrive on the opponent's racquet faster than expected. Spin also makes the ball feel heavy b/c its still has a lot of spin when it impacts the racquet face which can make the opponent's racquet twist some at impact...almost like its pulling the racquet down. At the very least it can disrupt an opponent's smooth swing path.

So unless a player can swing a smaller head size racquet faster for some unknown (to me) reason then it won't hit a heavier ball. In fact due to a likely denser string pattern it will likely be less heavy due less trampoline effect of the string bed and less spin due to a denser string pattern. This is assuming same string, tension, flex specs, beam shape, etc. in both racquets. There may be a positive trade-off in control however with a smaller head. I might also be convinced of a small aerodynamic component benefit of a smaller head size but it will take some convincing that its a significant factor, especially if the only racquet construction difference is head size.

Now that that's answered how about if OP switches to a heavier racquet can he hit a heavier ball? I submit that now it comes down to each person individually. Each is going to have an ideal weight to maximize their personal potential to hit their heaviest ball. Just like you may be able to out run me but I may be able to outrun someone else. Our maximum swing speed is different regardless of racquet weight and our ability to swing various weights of racquets at any given speed is different. I might be able to swing an 8 oz racquet the same speed as a 9 oz racquet, so I will hit a heavier ball with the 9 oz racquet, but at some point I'm going to start to swing an increasingly heavier racquet slower.

Courtesy of the infallible Wikipedia: In physics, a force is any influence that causes an object to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape. F = ma

So we want to impart the maximum amount of force on the ball in the ideal combination of forward and upward direction (vector?) to get the combination of pace and spin that makes the ball feel heaviest to our opponent. We need whatever tool lets us do that the best.

So the bottom line is with what raquet can I generate the maximum combination of mass and acceleration ? The maximum force put into the optimal combination of pace or spin. That starts getting very individual (but we could probably talk in generalizations for most people but I'll leave that for right now as that would be too practical). For me it might be that my swing speed actually slows a bit from a 9 oz racquet to a 13 oz racquet but the extra mass more than makes up for it. Maybe at 14 oz my swing speed just becomes to slow in maximize force on the ball. For someone else their swing speed might decrease too much for any added benefit at 11.5 oz. This is of course leaving aside the fact that a heavy ball isn't the only metric for playing good tennis. Do you get tired with a certain racquet over the course of a match? Do you consistently have time to prep the racquet to make a clean shot using your optimal heavy ball weight racquet?

I believe another variable is deceleration at impact. Fine we are whaling away at (in the direction of) the ball with our super fast optimal weight racquet for theoretical maximum force but at contact with the ball the racquet head slows and does not impart the full amount of force expected. The "collision is made longer" with a lighter weight racquet (usually spoken in terms of plowthrough on these forums) and more force is lost vs the same impact with a heavier racquet. This is a hard element to generalize b/c stroke technique and strength of players vary so much. Someone with a lot of strength and good form may be able to power a light racquet right through the ball with very little deceleration vs a weak player. Of course the strong player could probably do even better with a heavier racquet...and so it goes...

In my world where I play with a C10 Pro and PK Ki5 I keep reading how a C10 doesn't hit a heavy ball and I think there is some truth to that. When I recently went back to my Ki5 one of my regular opponents was mishitting and leaving more balls short than usual (he later adjusted). Then he commented, "The balls seem to be getting on me faster than they look". The C10 is heavy enough to hit a heavy ball vs my Ki5 and only a 2" headsize difference but side-to-side comparison the pattern is more dense in the C10. I don't think I hit much faster with the Ki5 (and I know I don't hit more accurately) but I definitely hit with more spin...I hit a heavier ball with a larger headsize. Its important to note though these racquets are different in more ways than just headsize.

Okay, I'm going to go try to find where I misplaced my real life now...:oops:

This is exactly what I was trying to say in my posts, but you did it better :)

Bartelby
02-04-2012, 05:40 AM
One thing left out is the fact that for the average adult male a 9 1/2 ounce racquet is not going to overtax their rhs, whereas 12 1/2 may.

At what point it will overtax his rhs is an empirical question, so he needs another racquet to see how far he can train his stroke.

athiker
02-04-2012, 05:43 AM
This is exactly what I was trying to say in my posts, but you did it better :)

Aw shucks...thanks! And so succinctly too right? :-)

Even with all that I forgot my "practical" advice to the OP. If you feel like you might be holding back on your swing speed b/c of control issues with wielding a quite large headed and powerful racquet then yes, try a smaller headed racquet. It might allow you to actually swing faster while maintaining control and end up with a heavier ball. If that's the not the case then I don't see how just changing head size will give you a heavier ball.

If you don't feel like you have control issues but feel you can swing heavier racquet just as fast, or maybe even almost as fast, as your current one then just weight up your current racquet a bit and see what the result is. Good luck!

I'm really done now...promise.

Kevo
02-04-2012, 06:57 PM
Hey everybody,

I currently used a 117 sq inch frame, but I have been told that if I used a smaller frame (i.e. 100 sq inch), then I would be able to hit a "heavier" ball. I'm not sure I believe that. Anyone with thoughts on this? Thanks!!

Jack

I think the answer is probably not, but there are a ton of factors, and it has been stated that the answer is fairly individual. Having said that, you can just take a look at what a typical high level player uses and see that a 117 sq in frame is atypical for high level players. I have seen some 5.0s using large frames and they do quite well with them, but typically don't hit the heaviest of shots.

My question to you would be what are your goals for your game? If you want to hit a really heavy rally ball then switching to a smaller heavier frame is probably a good choice, but the switch will have other effects that you may not like. If you do consider switching, you might want to just demo a few smaller, heavier frames and then come back and ask some more questions before making a final decision.

Hong
02-04-2012, 08:31 PM
Force isn't quite the right. Force is what causes the "heaviness" of the ball. Heaviness is more accurately characterized as momentum (both linear and angular).

Linear momentum is a function of velocity (since mass is constant). This is easy to see - the faster the ball the heavier it seems.

Angular momentum is what we would all characterize as spin. The more spin the ball has, the more momentum it possesses. For top spin, it can also allow a ball to be hit with more linear velocity and have the ball drop into play whereas the same velocity on a flat ball would sail out of bounds.

An object with more momentum carries more energy and thus it would seem heavier (see Newton's 2nd and 3rd law). Since it's not hard to put enough velocity on a ball to make it go out of bounds, the real trick to hitting a heavy ball is spin.

Accordingly, pro players can translate all of their force as linear and angular momentum through proper technique (i.e. using legs and hips... etc) versus an amateur. It's a delicate balance to maximize momentum while keeping the ball in bounds. If that is your goal then you better work on your technique.

The Dampener
02-04-2012, 09:04 PM
Lordy, how a simple question can take on a life of its own.

Jack, I'm sure there all kinds of info here to work with, but if it's making you dizzy, you wouldn't be the only one. And despite everyone's best intentions, there's only sure fire answer you're going to get...

Try it out for yourself, and see.

10nisne1
02-04-2012, 09:55 PM
I think it's more important to understand the playing characteristics of the player (loopy strokes, flat strokes, etc) and the racket (spin potential, launch angle, string pattern, etc) than based purely on racket size.

However, with all things being equal with both rackets, a smaller racket could possibly help with hitting a more consistent "heavier ball".

This is because the center of mass is more concentrated on a smaller sized racket. If you are not consistently hitting the ball in the center of strings or the center of mass of the racket, you have a higher probability of having the racket "twist" in your hands, which in turn could rob you of power because the tennis ball as a larger area of leverage. This is why some people put lead only on one side of the racket to prevent rackets from twisting on slight mishits. Also, anyone hit a ball with a baseball bat (even a plastic whiffle ball bat using a tennis ball) and felt the bat really twist in their hands?

Having said that, I believe (my opinion based on my belief of what constitutes a heavy ball) the key to hitting a heavy ball is to hit with enough topspin while keeping the ball as deep as possible within the baseline while also keeping the ball as low as possible over the net. In physics, the term translational force or translational energy is used to describe the above.

The ball travels faster over air. Once the ball hits the court, friction will reduce the acceleration of the ball, which as someone pointed out earlier affects force (F=ma). It's important to hit with topspin because contrary to some beliefs, topspin actually causes the ball to bounce lower (as long as the launch angle is less than 45 degrees assuming hit from ground level. Less than 45 degrees in reality because normally you are hitting the ball about 2 feet above ground level).

I personally never hit with anyone who consistently hit their groundstrokes inside the service line and I thought "Wow! He hits the ball heavy" no matter how hard he/she might be hitting the ball. The ball just dies too quickly once it hits the court due to friction. Angle shots are of course different if hit with enough pace.

Good luck with your racket choice!

10

Jack2010
02-05-2012, 04:57 AM
Wow, thanks for all of the comments! Some of the comments asked for specifics, so here are some specifics. I'm 35yo, 5'7 and 175lb. I somewhat loopy heavy topspin forehand and mostly a slice one handed backhand. I play mostly doubles with other 3.5-4.0 guys and a lot of mixed doubles. I don't play singles all that much actually.

My personal inclination is that a smaller racket head would not result in a "heavier" ball unless somehow the air resistance of the racket allowed me to increase my racket head speed. Speaking of that, I hit a reasonably hard forehand, although I'm sure its not as hard some of you guys..and certainly not nearly as hard as the pros. I benefit from the extra pop of the Ki30 without much loss of control, I don't think. In fact, I used to use the Wilson Kzero (118 sq in) which got up to NTRP 4.0. I never really had control problems with it, but really benefited from its lightweightness for quick reflex volleys in doubles.

The KI30 has a much denser string bed than the Kzero, so I hit a bit less spin now, but my strings also last longer. The bigger difference between the two rackets is that the Ki30 is a bit headlight whereas the Kzero is a little headheavy. I think that a headlight racket feels lighter when I swing, so I probably get a bit more rackethead speed -> heavier ball?

Perhaps, if I switched to a racket which is even more headlight, then it could result in more rackethead speed and a heavier ball? I'm actually pretty happy with my racket right now...perhaps when I wear these rackets out, I'll go for a more headlight racket.

I've been eye-ing the Pro Kennex Q15...:)

Speaking of wearing out rackets, do you all believe that rackets lose pop after a certain number of re-stringings?

Jack

Jack2010
02-05-2012, 04:59 AM
Wow, thanks for all of the comments! Some of the comments asked for specifics, so here are some specifics. I'm 35yo, 5'7 and 175lb. I somewhat loopy heavy topspin forehand and mostly a slice one handed backhand. I play mostly doubles with other 3.5-4.0 guys and a lot of mixed doubles. I don't play singles all that much actually.

My personal inclination is that a smaller racket head would not result in a "heavier" ball unless somehow the air resistance of the racket allowed me to increase my racket head speed. Speaking of that, I hit a reasonably hard forehand, although I'm sure its not as hard some of you guys..and certainly not nearly as hard as the pros. I benefit from the extra pop of the Ki30 without much loss of control, I don't think. In fact, I used to use the Wilson Kzero (118 sq in) which got up to NTRP 4.0. I never really had control problems with it, but really benefited from its lightweightness for quick reflex volleys in doubles.

The KI30 has a much denser string bed than the Kzero, so I hit a bit less spin now, but my strings also last longer. The bigger difference between the two rackets is that the Ki30 is a bit headlight whereas the Kzero is a little headheavy. I think that a headlight racket feels lighter when I swing, so I probably get a bit more rackethead speed -> heavier ball?

Perhaps, if I switched to a racket which is even more headlight, then it could result in more rackethead speed and a heavier ball? I'm actually pretty happy with my racket right now...perhaps when I wear these rackets out, I'll go for a more headlight racket.

I've been eye-ing the Pro Kennex Q15...:)

Speaking of wearing out rackets, do you all believe that rackets lose pop after a certain number of re-stringings?

Jack
sorry for all the typos :)

Jack2010
02-05-2012, 05:06 AM
BTW, our local pro uses an oversized wilson hyper hammer 2.0 and is one of the best players in the world over age 50...

zoobears
02-05-2012, 08:20 AM
I think the heaviest balls I've received (and dished out) are the ones that fly fast, straight and low; but with tonnes of spin. It flies like a flat, but it's full of spin. Usually I achieve these shots when I really step into the ball and pound it.