PDA

View Full Version : Why I was wrong about the Fed 90


Mick3391
11-04-2012, 08:48 PM
I've talked much about how playing a smaller size head like the Fed racquet is much better than the oversize racquets.

I've been wrong. It's true that the 90 inch Fed is like an extension of your brain/arm, but only if you are a top pro.

I was in a brutal match, and I loved the 90 in normal play, but when you are REALLY BOOKING IT, that little, tiny difference makes a huge difference, running over for example to get a backhand that's way deep, the racquet just isn't there in nano-second time. With a K95, even though you aren't there totally, you at least can still get it back into play.

If I'm just hitting with someone good, I prefer the 90, it's just so accurate, but in real play 95, and remember I am going against what I have always said, its better.

The 95 has the accuracy, plough-through, of the 90, with the spin potential and forgiveness of a Bab or Head 100.

So yea I am learning things, strings and racquets are SUPER IMPORTANT for advanced players.

ramos77
11-04-2012, 09:53 PM
the 95 is no where near the 90 IMO.

no way does it have the plough through of the 90

2 totally different racquets, but that's just me

xFullCourtTenniSx
11-05-2012, 02:22 AM
2 completely different rackets.

Everything is different.

That extra 5 square inches won't save my shot.

A few shots that landed in with my 90 would've landed out with the 95.

Conversely, a few of my shots that landed short would've landed a little deeper with my 90 (though it hardly makes them any less attackable against a good player).

But of course, I've used the 90 for a while and have basically grooved all my shots for it.

Mick3391
11-05-2012, 11:26 AM
2 completely different rackets.

Everything is different.

That extra 5 square inches won't save my shot.

A few shots that landed in with my 90 would've landed out with the 95.

Conversely, a few of my shots that landed short would've landed a little deeper with my 90 (though it hardly makes them any less attackable against a good player).

But of course, I've used the 90 for a while and have basically grooved all my shots for it.

I guess to each their own, I would have wrote what you did a few months ago, for me anyways what I said stands up. Yea, the 90 of course has more plough through, but the 95 remember is .3 oz lighter, or course it's more head light, I'm just saying it seems to have the best of both worlds.

Notice Fed sometimes, especially lately, mishitting, you can see with just a little more surface he'd have it, that's what I do once in awhile, not with the 95, well that's all, the K-95 is the best racquet I've ever played with.

corners
11-05-2012, 02:43 PM
5 square inches isn't much. If you were talking the difference between 90 and 100 or 90 and 105 I'd buy what you're selling. But I think it's all in your head. The 95 might be better for you in match play, but I think you're making too big a deal out of it.

sunof tennis
11-05-2012, 02:47 PM
Actually, I believe the Fed 90 is more head light than the K95. The K95 also has a higher swingweight (obvious correlation with the 90 being more headlight). The K95 is also stiffer.
They play differently so it's all what you prefer.

sansaephanh
11-05-2012, 02:56 PM
i can feel the difference between a 90 and a 95 when I'm playing extremely solid tennis. Hasn't happened in a while, but its a pretty huge difference. I think 93 hits the sweetspot though.

zapvor
11-05-2012, 03:04 PM
I've talked much about how playing a smaller size head like the Fed racquet is much better than the oversize racquets.

I've been wrong. It's true that the 90 inch Fed is like an extension of your brain/arm, but only if you are a top pro.

I was in a brutal match, and I loved the 90 in normal play, but when you are REALLY BOOKING IT, that little, tiny difference makes a huge difference, running over for example to get a backhand that's way deep, the racquet just isn't there in nano-second time. With a K95, even though you aren't there totally, you at least can still get it back into play.

So yea I am learning things, strings and racquets are SUPER IMPORTANT for advanced players.
funny....because a lot of the really good players i hit with barely know what string they have

Mick3391
11-05-2012, 03:05 PM
5 square inches isn't much. If you were talking the difference between 90 and 100 or 90 and 105 I'd buy what you're selling. But I think it's all in your head. The 95 might be better for you in match play, but I think you're making too big a deal out of it.

It could be in my head, all Tennis is, but when I was really challenged, the 95 really helped, it was easier for my wrist to wip it around, and again look at the shots Fed misses, you can see they are just BARELY off.

Anyways to each their own, I love the 95, can do anything with it with no hindering.

I used to joke about TW experts saying "You have to be in perfect shape 5.5 player for it", but now I agree to an extent, so it's not only me. Even Sampras uses a larger head these days. Granville uses a K-95, when it comes down to absolute exacting play, for me the 95 is the clear winner. If someone is just "playing", it doesn't matter, but real competition you can see real quick the help you need:)

xFullCourtTenniSx
11-05-2012, 03:24 PM
I guess to each their own, I would have wrote what you did a few months ago, for me anyways what I said stands up. Yea, the 90 of course has more plough through, but the 95 remember is .3 oz lighter, or course it's more head light, I'm just saying it seems to have the best of both worlds.

Notice Fed sometimes, especially lately, mishitting, you can see with just a little more surface he'd have it, that's what I do once in awhile, not with the 95, well that's all, the K-95 is the best racquet I've ever played with.

Weight has nothing to do with the balance. You can't have the best of both worlds (otherwise everyone would use the same racket).

The K95 doesn't have nearly the same level of control as the K90. It has much more pop, and a much higher swingweight (345 vs 336). It doesn't generate nearly the same weight of shot.

Just because it is a medium between the K90 and a Pure Drive doesn't mean it gives you the best of both worlds. A Pure Drive will always have more pop and be easier to swing. The K90 will always be more stable and create a heavier and more controlled ball.

And that shanking excuse it literally the worst argument ever made. Give Federer a 95, he will still shank the ball. Give Federer a 100, he will STILL shank the ball (though not as severely). Give him an oversize, and MAYBE he will catch nothing but strings, but on many of those shanks, he will STILL shank the ball.

There's a cost to putting as much spin as Federer and Nadal do. You have to swing upwards pretty quickly, and even if you hit through the ball extremely well, there's a strong vertical component to your string. An extra inch or two (with an oversize) to hit with won't guarantee a clean shot. A 95 gives you about a half an inch of difference. A 100 gives about an inch or a little more.

And with Oversize rackets, not all of the extra surface area is given to the ability to hit with more spin. It gets bigger in every direction (most notably in the top of the frame, which is why a lot of modern oversize rackets are extended length). The extra length with which you can use to avoid hitting the frame is about 2 inches. 2 inches swinging as fast as Federer and Nadal do (usually catching the ball in the bottom of the frame, so HALF of that), will not make a significant difference.

That frame size crap when used with respect to a top professional like Federer and Nadal is utter ********.

If you're a rec player and you hit a primarily forward swing, then yes, a larger head of ~7 square inches could help you out. If you're a rec player, and you're swinging straight up the back of the ball, then I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter what size you use, you will still shank a lot of balls. If anything, the thinner frame of the 90 will give you as much extra margin as the extra surface area of an oversize with a thick frame.

klementine79
11-05-2012, 03:30 PM
Can't chalk up one bad game to the racquet... or give credit to it either when you win or play well.

Somedays, you're just off and somedays you're on. Tennis isn't easy.

I'm in agreement with the OP, the 90 is a difficult racquet to use. But in my opinion it has nothing to do with it's head-size, there are more user-friendly mids out there.

What makes the 90 difficult to use, for me, is the weight coupled with the stiffness. If you've ever hit an asian-spec90, you might have the same opinion.

xFullCourtTenniSx
11-05-2012, 03:32 PM
It could be in my head, all Tennis is, but when I was really challenged, the 95 really helped, it was easier for my wrist to wip it around, and again look at the shots Fed misses, you can see they are just BARELY off.

Anyways to each their own, I love the 95, can do anything with it with no hindering.

I used to joke about TW experts saying "You have to be in perfect shape 5.5 player for it", but now I agree to an extent, so it's not only me. Even Sampras uses a larger head these days. Granville uses a K-95, when it comes down to absolute exacting play, for me the 95 is the clear winner. If someone is just "playing", it doesn't matter, but real competition you can see real quick the help you need:)

They use the larger heads because it gives free pop that they don't have to swing for. Beginner rackets (and to an extent, tweener rackets) are designed to give players as much pop as possible for a small and slow swing. As you get older, your swing slows down. Obviously, if you play with the same racket all your life (starting from a young age), you notice your balls go deeper and deeper with more power. Then you hit your peak, and everything stays where it is. Then you get older, and balls get shorter and go slower. You can either deal with this, or switch to a racket that will compensate for the lost pop. It has nothing to do with mishitting the ball.

The 95 helps on on the full stretch because you're less likely to be able to take a full swing at the ball. And if you aren't young or in your prime, your ability to swing a heavier racket through the ball with just your wrist is far more difficult. With a lighter and larger racket (larger because it means the trampoline effect is larger, nothing to do with the actual amount of surface area you have to hit with), you can easily get the ball back with a weak flick of the wrist.

xFullCourtTenniSx
11-05-2012, 03:40 PM
Can't chalk up one bad game to the racquet... or give credit to it either when you win or play well.

Somedays, you're just off and somedays you're on. Tennis isn't easy.

I'm in agreement with the OP, the 90 is a difficult racquet to use. But in my opinion it has nothing to do with it's head-size, there are more user-friendly mids out there.

What makes the 90 difficult to use, for me, is the weight coupled with the stiffness. If you've ever hit an asian-spec90, you might have the same opinion.

I'll agree that the difference in weight is the largest factor. The headsize means next to nothing. If you had a 10 or 11 ounce 90 square inch racket, then you can flick all the balls back just as easily given all other factors equal except lowering the string tension to compensate for the inherent lack of bounce that the 90 has compared to an oversize.

As it is now, I prefer the lack of bounce on the 90, because I don't worry as much about my shots flying long on me like I would have to with the 95. Unless I changed the string pattern to something more closed like a 18x20, then some balls that would've dropped in would've flew long on me. But with the 18x20, I won't enjoy the same hop on my ball that I would get with a 16x19.

klementine79
11-05-2012, 03:51 PM
^Agreed. We shouldn't forget that your style of play plays a major role. If you're S&V'n and want to end points quickly, the 90 is a great racquet. If you like to grind out the points from the base-line and play defensive shots, trying to put pressure on your opponent to make errors, the 90 isn't the best option out there.

It also depends where that extra weight is.

The difference between the 95 and 90 is 9 or 10 grams, sometimes more due to QC standards, not much.

But the 90 truly feels like a woodie, in terms of lay-up and balance. There is quite a bit of weight in the throat-yoke area. While I've always felt the 95s more polarized in terms of weight distribution.

Everybody's got their 'thresholds'. I can play all day with a flexy, 350gr racquet and play fairly well. But add just 10 more grams to that frame and I'm not going to be as consistent in match play, over the course of 2-3 hours.

Mick3391
11-05-2012, 03:59 PM
Weight has nothing to do with the balance. You can't have the best of both worlds (otherwise everyone would use the same racket).

The K95 doesn't have nearly the same level of control as the K90. It has much more pop, and a much higher swingweight (345 vs 336). It doesn't generate nearly the same weight of shot.

Just because it is a medium between the K90 and a Pure Drive doesn't mean it gives you the best of both worlds. A Pure Drive will always have more pop and be easier to swing. The K90 will always be more stable and create a heavier and more controlled ball.

And that shanking excuse it literally the worst argument ever made. Give Federer a 95, he will still shank the ball. Give Federer a 100, he will STILL shank the ball (though not as severely). Give him an oversize, and MAYBE he will catch nothing but strings, but on many of those shanks, he will STILL shank the ball.

There's a cost to putting as much spin as Federer and Nadal do. You have to swing upwards pretty quickly, and even if you hit through the ball extremely well, there's a strong vertical component to your string. An extra inch or two (with an oversize) to hit with won't guarantee a clean shot. A 95 gives you about a half an inch of difference. A 100 gives about an inch or a little more.

And with Oversize rackets, not all of the extra surface area is given to the ability to hit with more spin. It gets bigger in every direction (most notably in the top of the frame, which is why a lot of modern oversize rackets are extended length). The extra length with which you can use to avoid hitting the frame is about 2 inches. 2 inches swinging as fast as Federer and Nadal do (usually catching the ball in the bottom of the frame, so HALF of that), will not make a significant difference.

That frame size crap when used with respect to a top professional like Federer and Nadal is utter ********.

If you're a rec player and you hit a primarily forward swing, then yes, a larger head of ~7 square inches could help you out. If you're a rec player, and you're swinging straight up the back of the ball, then I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter what size you use, you will still shank a lot of balls. If anything, the thinner frame of the 90 will give you as much extra margin as the extra surface area of an oversize with a thick frame.

You are preaching to a former choir, I used to think the same thing, I'm not trying to make a point or be dogmatic, all I can tell you is that the 95 is just awesome, forget the extra 5 sq inches, look at the blade 98, it is longer than the k-95 but has less space IN THE WAY I USE IT. Tennis is SO PARTICULAR, and I'm not even saying shanking, you are assuming that, I'm saying the difference between a clean shot and a not so clear shot, IT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE, at least for me.

There is so much more creativity available with the 95 over the 90, words really can't explain it.

I disagree absolutely with your assessment that if you are a rec player it makes a difference. The exact opposite is true, if you are booking it to get to a shot that you shouldn't be able to make, and you can wip that head around with what you admitted is more power it's better.

And what I said, so many don't actually read what I say, is that, well at least for me I can get the same accuracy, same plough through as a 90, with the same spin potential and forgiveness as a 100 Bab or Head.

Guys, to each their own, we all play differentely, I have been the biggest advocate of the 90, even the 85, but in real hard play that 95 is my racquet.

Xonemains
11-05-2012, 08:10 PM
I think you need to find some K Blade tours 93.

That will solve all your problems

Mick3391
11-05-2012, 09:39 PM
They use the larger heads because it gives free pop that they don't have to swing for. Beginner rackets (and to an extent, tweener rackets) are designed to give players as much pop as possible for a small and slow swing. As you get older, your swing slows down. Obviously, if you play with the same racket all your life (starting from a young age), you notice your balls go deeper and deeper with more power. Then you hit your peak, and everything stays where it is. Then you get older, and balls get shorter and go slower. You can either deal with this, or switch to a racket that will compensate for the lost pop. It has nothing to do with mishitting the ball.

The 95 helps on on the full stretch because you're less likely to be able to take a full swing at the ball. And if you aren't young or in your prime, your ability to swing a heavier racket through the ball with just your wrist is far more difficult. With a lighter and larger racket (larger because it means the trampoline effect is larger, nothing to do with the actual amount of surface area you have to hit with), you can easily get the ball back with a weak flick of the wrist.

I just re-read your post and you must be right. I don't like to think that I'm getting old, but I am.

I'm telling you though, when I'm on, and I mean it took me an hour, literally, with a bag in my face, hyperventallating, that the 90, I mean it's right next to my left foot as I write this, I just couldn't get it, it seemed even in a desperate shot with the 95 I could get it, yea maybe it's the tramboline effect, but I can kill it with the 95.

I'm actually trading in my 90 on this forum for a 95, so both my son and I have what I think is the best.

I am very secure with the 95, I can do anything with it, I am not so secure with the 90, and this from a guy who bragged about playing with a 75 inch wood

Red Sunset
11-06-2012, 03:28 AM
Mick, you're a fcking fckhead who has no idea what they're talking about. You mean after all the ***** we've had to listen to about larger headsizes being for "robot baseliners", you're now abandoning your 90.....for a bigger head size? You embarras yourself every time you post in, but now you have ZERO credibility left. What a fcking spaz.

Torres
11-06-2012, 03:32 AM
I think you need to find some K Blade tours 93.

That will solve all your problems

Not with a 18x20 pattern, it won't. It really needs an open pattern IMO.

look at the blade 98, it is longer than the k-95 but has less space IN THE WAY I USE IT.

I've no idea what you just said there. I don't think anyone else did either.

robbo1970
11-06-2012, 04:30 AM
Mick, you're a fcking fckhead who has no idea what they're talking about. You mean after all the ***** we've had to listen to about larger headsizes being for "robot baseliners", you're now abandoning your 90.....for a bigger head size? You embarras yourself every time you post in, but now you have ZERO credibility left. What a fcking spaz.

Ok, a bit extreme I think there. ^^

We have all tried different things and had to change our views, thats why there is a forum to discuss different ideas and opinions. Let's not crucify anyone for changing their mind.

Fair play to you Mick in admitting you got it slightly wrong. Why don't you try and demo a few different rackets and see how you get on. I remember when I was really set on a heavy 93 racket, but Ive since realised it didnt suit all aspects of my game and now the lighter 98 feels so much better and I do really notice the extra 5sq inches.

Try a few out so you get the racket that suits you. I have also come to admit that I am not as young physically as I am in my head, and so if I am a yard slower getting to a ball then I need to make allowances for that.

Good luck in your quest.

Red Sunset
11-06-2012, 10:58 AM
Ok, a bit extreme I think there. ^^

We have all tried different things and had to change our views, thats why there is a forum to discuss different ideas and opinions. Let's not crucify anyone for changing their mind.

Maybe the words are a bit extreme, but the sentiment is not. This guy openly insulted and belittled anybody who disagreed with him on this topic, and freely extols his wisdom (read "personal opinion") to all. After a while, it becomes evident he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He totally needs to learn his lesson and back off a bit with his "advice", but I don't think that's ever going to happen. What can I say, he irks me more than any other poster (whom I normally ignore) but I wanted to call "bull*****" on this one.

Torres
11-06-2012, 11:06 AM
What can I say, he irks me more than any other poster (whom I normally ignore) but I wanted to call "bull*****" on this one.

I agree. Looking at his posts (see the TonLars thread for example), he's pretty annoying, seems to have a tendancy to talk nonsense (or flip flops around), and nobody's really clear on what he's trying to say.

I mean, WTF is the nonsense below? Sounds like he's on drugs.

These true 7.0 players are off the charts, they create things. Knowledge is doing what it taught, creativity is CREATING KNOWLEGE, something humans have.
instead of hitting right to your opponents forehand, you hit it "barely off" to his forehand. Following?

Red Sunset
11-06-2012, 12:17 PM
This is my personal fav.

WRONG! Self proclaimed 6.0! Get your facts straight.

Get your modern "tech", and bring it! Bring your 110 inch "Helper racquet", let's play and see who can really play versus depending on a racquet.

The smaller head is like that one dude on TW says "An extention of your arm/mind", a large head, yea you can spin shots over all day long, but a real player will see this and eat your lunch.

I'm in WA state, so even if you aren't here you are $200.00 away, and if you beat me I'll double your fare! Tired of these LOSERS talking about what they don't know, so PLAY ME, stop talking and PLAY ME, I'll use my wood racquet, anytime you want robot!

Torres
11-06-2012, 12:22 PM
^ I don't know anyone who is a higher level tennis player that talks smack like that. He sounds like a complete waste of time and energy. Another one for the 'ignore list'.

F. Perry
11-06-2012, 12:43 PM
I like this gem from the Filip Peliwo thread, where FP is answering questions about what it's like being a pro and Mick3391 jacks the thread for a little me and my son time:

How do you deal with old (38) jeolous guys like me who wish they could go back in time and wish they had the guidance you have had??

I'm just joking, when you are a 30 year old legend, look for Mick, he'll be a young upstart who will unseat you as the GOAT:)

Whatever you do, though, don't add Mick3391 to your 'Ignore' list. I made that mistake myself and lost out on one of the joys of TT for a couple months. His posts are hilarious.

gplracer
11-06-2012, 12:50 PM
I have both the 90 and the 95. I like the feel and the narrow beam of the 90 but I do find the 95 easier to generate pace. I look at the tests here on TW and those appear to state that the 90 has more power. Does that mean it has more power if you have good enough technique and arm strength to get it up to the same speed as the 95? For most that is hard to do. It is easier to get the 95 up to a greater racket head speed. Hence if you are older or slower and on the full run then getting the racket up to the appropriate head speed is more difficult.

robbo1970
11-07-2012, 03:34 AM
Maybe the words are a bit extreme, but the sentiment is not. This guy openly insulted and belittled anybody who disagreed with him on this topic, and freely extols his wisdom (read "personal opinion") to all. After a while, it becomes evident he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He totally needs to learn his lesson and back off a bit with his "advice", but I don't think that's ever going to happen. What can I say, he irks me more than any other poster (whom I normally ignore) but I wanted to call "bull*****" on this one.

Oh ok. I wasn't aware of the history. I was just a bit taken aback at first, that's all.