View Full Version : Wider frame= less spin
02-25-2004, 05:55 PM
Hi, I read somewhere that a wider frame is harder and doesnt generate as much topspin? Is this true? If so why? I think it might be true because I use the pure drive and it seemed like my friends hornet which is also 100 sq. in but is denser 16-20 and the pure drive is 16-19 and his seemed to be able to generate more spin.
02-25-2004, 06:01 PM
Somebody forgot to tell that to Pure Drives and his bro. They generate more top than any racket that I know.
02-25-2004, 06:51 PM
I think u are confusing 2 things with each other... frame width is how thick your frame is and the 16-20 is the string pattern. Also the crosses really dont make a difference in generating spin. IMO a thinner beam does result in hitting any spin easier.
02-26-2004, 03:39 AM
I'll disagree, imo it is flexibility, not beam width, that will determine a racquet's ability to generate spin.
02-26-2004, 04:39 AM
The most spin I ever got out of any racquet was with a customized Head Ti Fire with an even ounce of lead weight in the handle along with a leather grip and overwrap. It has a dense (18 mains) string pattern and a 24mm beam width, by most accounts, a very wide beam.
02-26-2004, 06:02 AM
Frame width doesn't determine spin,neither does string pattern, but more open one's make it easier and dense one's make it more controlled and predictable and are easier on the strings.In my personal findings the determining factors for spin are weight,flex.Look at the spin heavy frames like RD-7,RD-3,POG,PS 6.0,PS 6.1,T90,MW 200g,IPrestige.I can hit more spin on these than any fanned snowshoe frame.See the weight will hit a harder ball,the flex will hold the ball and cup it and the string pattern will determine how easily you can get spin.POG has 14M and the PS 6.1 has 16M, but both get good spin.If you ask good players they will tell you that denser patterns do no limit spin,if you as general tennis players they will like the open one's, but honestly give me a small headed,heavy,flexible(Pattern doesn't matter so much) frame,prefeably a thin straight beam and I'll be happy.
02-26-2004, 06:29 AM
The thing about string pattern, is some racquets even have varying density, such as the C10 pro. I think it is 16x19, but in the middle of the bed, the strings are denser than the outside, but that bat gets good spin. It's pretty hard to compare apples to apples with all these different racquet specs.
I begged to differ a little bit. I haven't hit with RD-7, but I could put a lot of spin with Precision Equipe OS LB.
A lot of factors are involved, at least from my experience,
1.stiffer rackets are better for spin (at least slice).
2.larger head gives your more spin.
3.open string pattern gives you more spin.
4. Some say wider frame will give you more spin-not so sure.
02-26-2004, 10:47 PM
I see what your saying jin, but how is it that I and many will find that spin is not limited by string pattern, but the ease of getting spin is lower for open patterned frames.Larger heads don't necessarily give you more spin since spin comes hugely from the mains and the crosses just help the mains stay in place since most larger frames are wider rather than that much longer.Wider frames may expand the sweetspot shape widthwise, but that doesn't necessarily give you more spin.I'm not saying that the Precision Equipe OS LB isn't a spin friendly frame, but it's got weight,thin beam,control oriented.Stiffer racquets deflect less and provide more power, but if all else is equal the more flexible frame will cup the ball longer and in the right hands will offer more spin.
Imo there are 2 types of spin(superficial and heavy).Superficial spin is almost aesthetic in that it's not penetrating,and rather predictable from brushing the outter edge and true spin is where you actaully try and rotate the ball and strike it's center.When you hit the ball the strings deflect and now the center of the ball(part your trying to strike and rotate around)is much closer or even behind the frame and when the string reflex back into shape the spin was put on when the balls center could actually be affected.The easiest way I can explain it is trying to spin a wheel by turning the circumfrence versus from the axis of rotation.Although the outter edge night be easier you have to do more travel and when the ball is on the strings for so short a time this sueprficial spin is mroe often than not gotten from stiff frames.I do understand that slice does feel better with stiff frames, but you are also going against gravity.It's hard to identify and separate factors, but if you think about what your doing to the ball spin is much simpler to comprehend.
Equipe LB OS wasn't really a control oriented frame.
what you say does make sense-. As far as OS is concerned, You can argue that os has more surface that ball can be brushed on. I think there are many people who would agree that Classic MID isn't really spin freidnly frame. Take PD, pretty stiff, open string pattern, and I could put good spin on it.
About Open string pattern and desnstring pattern. Take a flat wooden board and start putting horizontal (or vertical) lines on it. You put tem too closely, the surface is llike a flat board. If you give more room between each other, you could really feel the edges.
I think more than anything, the person should be able to swing the racket fast enough to generate spin on it. No matter how much spin potential RD 7 had, if a person can't swing 12+oz stick for his living, then the spin on the ball won't be much...
02-27-2004, 02:10 AM
Hawaii, you're statement about flexibility and spin is kinda ruined by the fact that you include the prostaff 6.1, which has a stiffness of 72; actually, all Wilson racquets you mentioned have a stiffness in the upper 60's, and the HPS, another racquet that gets great spin, is 68...... Anyway, I doubt if the 15% difference in flex between the most flexible and most stiff frames you included will make much of a difference. The only difference I can see when it comes to beam width is that wider beams may leave a smaller window to hit the ball when swinging for a lot of spin, and maybe some people will have trouble with hitting the ball off the frame. Anyway, I think there are too many little variances to say that all racquets with any certain spec(flexibility, beam width, string pattern, or whatever) are good or bad for spin....
02-27-2004, 06:48 AM
My personal experience has been that wider frames also slow down the aerodynamic speed of a racket. I can swing a think frame much faster that a wide body. I usually test this on my kick serve. Widebodies are usually light weight and have a lower swing weight, while thin frames tend to be heavier with higher swing weight. For me the frame thickness has a bigger impact than the swing weight with regards to the ability to generate head speed. The string pattern, flex, string tension have already been explained by others above.
02-27-2004, 09:34 AM
Well if you look at the PS 6.1 depsite it's RDC rating of stiffness you must look at it that all Prostaff's have stiff throats and that's where the rating is rated at, and the hoop and other parts are much more flexible and the ratings don't account for that so you kinda have to rely more on personal experience to know what is stiff and what is flexible and you can't go solely by the ratings.Look at the RD Ti50 which has a flexible throat, but stiff upper hoop or the MW which has an even flex throughout.Not all frames are made the same and the ratings are imo just another stat.The precision Equipe was Prince's competator to the PS 6.1 and despite it's medium beam and large head it was part of the precision line which is like the pro staff line in wilson,so it was more contorl oriented.The attributes are common, but not necessary for spin as we all know.Weight,flex,thin beam.The PD is an oddity beacuse it has a low stringing range(despite it's ability to handle up to 65,most string low for the woofers),somewhat aerodynamic beam shape and that will offset some of it's stiffness,it does have weight, but low SW so headspeed is pretty good no matter who swings it.
vBulletin® v3.6.9, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.