PDA

View Full Version : PS 6.0 85 demanding?


timmyboy
01-08-2006, 04:13 AM
how demanding is it? how much power do you get?

Marius_Hancu
01-08-2006, 04:24 AM
check this one:

Wilson ProStaff Original 6.0 85: just bought one...
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/search.php?searchid=646562

yes, you need to move your legs well
but it offers very good control
for more power, you might need some lead

Keifers
01-08-2006, 07:56 AM
Check out TW's review and the comparative reviews -- all well written and very informative.

I demoed the 85 a few months ago. Truly outstanding in many respects, but, alas, I'm not good enough to play with it.

emerckx53
01-08-2006, 11:25 AM
I am not sure how people determine they are not good enough to play these racquets...I have said it before if you started with wood a ps85 was a huge upgrade in sweetspot, power, control etc...if you started with a oversized stiff power stick and went to a 85,90in stick I can see how someone would say that.

arky-tennis
01-08-2006, 11:41 AM
I can hit with it and love it but my arm makes me retreat to lighter racquets.

slice bh compliment
01-08-2006, 11:52 AM
Arm pain, so you go to a LIGHTER racquet?
Conventional wisdom says the opposite, no?

Maybe it is the ProStaff's stiffness you do not like.

NoBadMojo
01-08-2006, 12:00 PM
I am not sure how people determine they are not good enough to play these racquets...I have said it before if you started with wood a ps85 was a huge upgrade in sweetspot, power, control etc...if you started with a oversized stiff power stick and went to a 85,90in stick I can see how someone would say that.

I think people who are honest about their abilities and know that the modern game is diffrent from the game when it was played with wood, <or even the ps85> would determine they shouldnt play with a frame like this. Modern technique vastly differs from wood technique and even ps85 technique. Small headed heavy racquet technique is diferent from the tecnique that is used in the modern game. You get power from frames like this thru weight transfer and longer swings with a much longer viable contact zone than what is needed with modern gear. Old fashion technique also doesnt put you in the best position on the court to recover for the next shot when someone playing the modern game with modern gear smokes the next shot by you. Modern game is all about racquet head speed and creating spin for control and getting power from a big shoulder turn rather than weight transfer...very difficult to do with a small headed heavy frame

peter
01-08-2006, 12:08 PM
I can hit with it and love it but my arm makes me retreat to lighter racquets.

Then you're not using the right technique with it. As many others have said you need to have long full swings with this racket. If you start to muscle it with your arms you will be tired very quickly. Another factor that I find important is to have a good responsive string that's not to "stiff".

I get more than enough power for my shots with that racket. I've also tried playing with larger headsize rackets and the difference isn't much (I mean you still need to hit in the general center of the racket for the ball to go it the right direction).

Aonex
01-08-2006, 12:35 PM
I play with a PS 85 when I'm back in CA, usually against a friend who plays with an Aero Pro Drive, and I can usually hit along with him from the baseline. It is a demanding racquet at first, but nothing a little getting used to and attention to proper form won't couldn't take care of. I'm not sure if I'd ever use it as my primary racquet... also, I have it strung with gut... anything less, and it'd probably feel like a brick. One thing I like about hitting with the PS 85 is how much it demands me to pay attention to my form and to look at the ball while making contact.

SteveI
01-08-2006, 12:37 PM
I think people who are honest about their abilities and know that the modern game is diffrent from the game when it was played with wood, <or even the ps85> would determine they shouldnt play with a frame like this. Modern technique vastly differs from wood technique and even ps85 technique. Small headed heavy racquet technique is diferent from the tecnique that is used in the modern game. You get power from frames like this thru weight transfer and longer swings with a much longer viable contact zone than what is needed with modern gear. Old fashion technique also doesnt put you in the best position on the court to recover for the next shot when someone playing the modern game with modern gear smokes the next shot by you. Modern game is all about racquet head speed and creating spin for control and getting power from a big shoulder turn rather than weight transfer...very difficult to do with a small headed heavy frame


Ed,

To sum all that up.. a guy using a Pure Drive Plus playing the modern game will smoke a player using the PS85 and old school strokes. Even Pete was complaining late in his run that the players with the new frames and games were making to hard for him to stay on top. Now Fed Ex is playing with an "Old School" frame producing "New Game" racket head speed and strokes.. and you really can't use Fed for an example.. he is the exception.. and not the rule.

Regards,
Steve


Regards,
Steve

emerckx53
01-08-2006, 01:09 PM
Let's try a different angle. I have always played with a western forhand even when I was on wood. I still have exactly that, a long loopy whippy stroke, same as it was 15 years ago. That said, I believe the compact size of the PS 85 allows for a more compact, maneuverable stick. Therefore easier to whip. If you combine that with the weight of the racquet I believe the racquet has plenty of power and surgical accuracy. When I swing larger headed racquets and it doesn't matter if they are lighter or heavier I feel I can't get on top of the ball as well. I assume swingweight is a combo of weight and mass. Can someone substaniate why I feel so strongly about headsize?

Galactus
01-08-2006, 01:32 PM
how demanding is it? how much power do you get?
Demanding: I'm 37, 6'3 and 210lb - I can still hit all night long with my ProStaff 6.0 85" (2-3 hours or so) and I really feel afterwards as though I've had a good workout.....however, the next day my arm aches quite badly round the inside of my elbow. This may be due to numerous factors:
1 - trying to 'arm' my serve across the net
2 - incorrect technique...not relaxing enough when serving/strokeplaying
3 - Racquet stiffness
However, I have this ache I have had when using both the ProStaff Tour90 and the nCode Tour90 so it may not be #3.

Power: I tried using it at it's default weight of 355g and I was surprised, especially as it's essentially a racquet from the 80s and 90s - nice with serve, great on volleys - seems to 'cut' through the air with ease. I've since added 18g of lead tape at 3 and 9 o'clock and I get more power from it - I regularly play against a friend who has a Babolat Pure Drive at 300g and 100" head and I can go toe-to-toe with him from the baseline, however, I do feel I have an advantage over serving-speed and volleys. His serves, 1st and 2nd I find I can move forward to return back for winners, when previously, he was using a Prince 90" MidPlus from 1992, which I felt he got more 'pop' with....however, having said that, neither of us play at high-standard (Id say we are 3.4 - 4.0 rated players), so two top-class pros playing with these racquets...I don't know who would come out on top (see SteveI's post, above)

Going back to the issue of the racquet being demanding: when I say I feel Ive had a good workout, this is due to me using my entire body to get maximum power: I use my legs, torso, shoulders - it's a very low-powered racquet so the added lead tape and my 210lb behind the ball really pays off when baselining and serving....

chess9
01-08-2006, 02:50 PM
I think people who are honest about their abilities and know that the modern game is diffrent from the game when it was played with wood, <or even the ps85> would determine they shouldnt play with a frame like this. Modern technique vastly differs from wood technique and even ps85 technique. Small headed heavy racquet technique is diferent from the tecnique that is used in the modern game. You get power from frames like this thru weight transfer and longer swings with a much longer viable contact zone than what is needed with modern gear. Old fashion technique also doesnt put you in the best position on the court to recover for the next shot when someone playing the modern game with modern gear smokes the next shot by you. Modern game is all about racquet head speed and creating spin for control and getting power from a big shoulder turn rather than weight transfer...very difficult to do with a small headed heavy frame

The question is "What is a 'small headed heavy frame?" Is that a woody, an 85, a 90, a 93, a 95, a 98, a 102 or a 135? Is it 300 grams, 320, 340, 400? :)

Are you suggesting there is a minimum head size and a maximum weight for the "modern" game? And, which modern game are we talking about? The "NEW" modern game with more backspin shots or the "OLD" modern game with mostly topspin? And whose modern game is the model?

-Robert
________
Zx14 Vs Hayabusa (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_bike_is_quicker_kawasaki_zx_-14_or_suzuki_hayabusa)

Marius_Hancu
01-08-2006, 02:54 PM
however, the next day my arm aches quite badly round the inside of my elbow. This may be due to numerous factors:
1 - trying to 'arm' my serve across the net
2 - incorrect technique...not relaxing enough when serving/strokeplaying
3 - Racquet stiffness

However, I have this ache I have had when using both the ProStaff Tour90 and the nCode Tour90 so it may not be #3.

Galactus, I am worried about yourself, get to a coach, check your technique problems. We should continue this discussion in Health though.

Radical Shot
01-08-2006, 04:20 PM
As stated previously, I also believe that the Pro Staff 6.0 85 will force you to move into position early, have a good technique and hit every shot with 100% focus and intent. When you do these things, you will get more control, power and enjoyment than you can handle.

The PS does require different technique to get the best out of it, but every racquet will make you do that.

NoBadMojo
01-08-2006, 04:43 PM
aye SteveI..and the game has changed much even since Sampras has retired. The game since Sampras retired favours small headed heavier frames even less. not even arguable. Also Sampras toyed with going to a larger headsized frame so he would have a better chance at winning the French.
People will still try to flush hit the ball to the best of their ability no matter which headsize they have...saying that a smaller headed frame makes you concentrate better and gives you better technique is ridiculous and only proves that someone is lacking in discipline and concentration to begin with. And even if they do make the frame work, they must use obsoleted inefficient technique to make it work, and that stuff gets gobbled up by better players...unless of course you ARE Federer or Safin or equivalent or you are playing 3.0 players or something...otherwise it simply doesnt parse.
Disclaimers: Like anythng there can be the occassional exception. Also everyone is certainly welcome to use whatever gear they wish to no matter how inappropriate. If someone chooses to attack me for posting this, it only serves to prove what a real jerk the attacker is. This post is directed at nobody specifically and is a statement of GENERAL fact and is no way an attack directed at any one specific individual, their family members, offspring, heirs, pets, or anyone they know. Sorry if these disclaimers havent covered every possible eventuality.

Keifers
01-08-2006, 05:24 PM
Let's try a different angle. I have always played with a western forhand even when I was on wood. I still have exactly that, a long loopy whippy stroke, same as it was 15 years ago. That said, I believe the compact size of the PS 85 allows for a more compact, maneuverable stick. Therefore easier to whip. If you combine that with the weight of the racquet I believe the racquet has plenty of power and surgical accuracy. When I swing larger headed racquets and it doesn't matter if they are lighter or heavier I feel I can't get on top of the ball as well. I assume swingweight is a combo of weight and mass. Can someone substaniate why I feel so strongly about headsize?
To me, there is no question that the 85" head contributes to the maneuverability of this stick -- it's reputed to be "scalpel-like" and that's exactly what I experienced. I think the 17mm beam width is a part of this also.

The tradeoff for me at my current level of proficiency is too many mishits with such a small head. I can play with a 90" head with no problem -- feels no different in terms of hits vs. mishits from a 95" or 100" frame. Somewhere between 90" and 85", my accuracy hitting the ball takes a dive.

Too bad because I would really love to play with the 85 -- good hits feel so good!

emerckx53
01-08-2006, 06:01 PM
Thank you MoJo....I would have preffered something positive related to my question using your considerble knowledge. BUT your tone is once again to teach us a lesson. PS....and I must say your new disclaimer theory is quite ingenious...a very nice polite way to say 'I am correct and I don't have time for anyone who disagrees"

Keifer....since you used to be a PS85 user and I am NOT ruling out the fact that technology has probably advanced (I don't even have the 85's anymore) what is your thought on how the 90/93/95 headsize plays? Tell me the positives and negatives..I still have to demo 4 racquets before I purchase. Thanks for your help.

NoBadMojo
01-08-2006, 06:16 PM
emerck as you might be able to see by my post, it was directed to SteveI and not to you as evidenced by it being prefexed by the words 'Aye SteveI'. That seems to be a pretty good indicator that it wasnt directed to you in any way and i even tried to disclaimer lots of eventualities and cearly state that my comments arent directed at any specific person. i had you on my ignore list and happened to open up one of your posts and decided to respond to it..i dont think that is evil or malicious....and i can see why i have you on 'Ignore'. You really need to give this stuff up...it's pretty sad. back on Ignore you go, so feel free to attack away..my back will be completely turned

BreakPoint
01-08-2006, 07:59 PM
Ed,

To sum all that up.. a guy using a Pure Drive Plus playing the modern game will smoke a player using the PS85 and old school strokes. Even Pete was complaining late in his run that the players with the new frames and games were making to hard for him to stay on top.

Hmmm....interesting then how Sampras with his old school strokes and old school small headed PS 6.0 85 smoked Roddick with his modern strokes and modern big headed Pure Drive Plus in straight sets, 6-3, 6-2, 6-4, at the 2002 US Open QF, on his way to smoking another player with modern strokes and a big headed modern racquet in the final, Agassi. :o

oldguysrule
01-08-2006, 08:57 PM
You know, it occured to me that it really doesn't matter whether a player using an "old" racquet beats a player using a "modern" racquet or vice versa. You can't compare me with my 6.0 85 to NBMJ with his Volkl. You have to compare me with my 6.0 to me with a Volkl...or PD, etc. The issue is: are there people that can beat me when I use the 6.0 85 that I can beat if I used a "modern" racquet.

Also, a question...would the 6.0 95 be considered a "modern" racquet?

One more question...what are the characteristics or specs that would generally be considered to be those of a "modern" racquet?

Keifers
01-08-2006, 10:54 PM
Keifer....since you used to be a PS85 user and I am NOT ruling out the fact that technology has probably advanced (I don't even have the 85's anymore) what is your thought on how the 90/93/95 headsize plays? Tell me the positives and negatives..I still have to demo 4 racquets before I purchase. Thanks for your help.
emerckx53, I've not owned or regularly played with an 85 for at least 15 years. I did demo one from TW last August, though, and that's where my comments above came from.

Last October, I demoed and subsequently bought a 6.0 95, and it's been my league match racquet of choice ever since. I'm 9-1 in competition with it so you could say I'm pretty happy with it. (Strung with Wilson Reaction 16 @ 62lbs.)

The 6.0 95 is spec'd at 10 points HL. With an overgrip, mine is just over 11 points HL, and I find it just a treat for s&v, fast volley exchanges at net, and, my favorite, those shots where I have to lunge to my left to retrieve a ball that is almost by me (groundie or volley). IMO, the 20mm beam of the 95 also has something to do with how easy it is to get the racquet head to the ball -- the 95 is not as scalpel-like as the 85"/17mm, but it's still very good. Along with its nice flex pattern (stiffer in the throat, where ra stiffness is measured, and flexier in the hoop), and its graphite/kevlar composition, the 95 gives me a greater sense of control - by which I mean the ability to hit the ball exactly the way I want to hit it - than pretty much any of my other racquets.

Now, more about head sizes and beam widths. Let's call "how easily the racquet moves through the air" -- tta. This is different from "maneuverability," which is most commonly equated with swingweight, "how heavy it feels to swing the racquet," a function of how much mass the racquet has AND how that mass is distributed along the racquet's length.

I reckon smaller head sizes and thinner beam widths both contribute noticeably to tta, and that's why I prefer 90-93-95 inch and 17-20mm racquets. Swingweight impacts tta, too, of course, but let's stick with head sizes and beam widths for now.

NoBadMojo has a valid point that 85" frames are not nearly as effective for hitting modern strokes as, say, 100" or larger. But I don't hit those strokes, and neither do my typical opponents. So if I can, I like to stay at or below 95" and below 20mm. I can feel the tta difference if I go above 95"/20mm.

So I would suggest demoing the 6.0 95, the Pro Kennex Type C 93 (19mm) and the Yonex RDX 500 (90", 18-20mm) -- those are the ones I know best at this point. You could also use TW's Racquet Finder to get other candidates.

Lastly, I'm hoping and waiting for Wilson to produce a 90" version of the 6.0 85 that also splits strung weight, balance, swingweightand stiffness with the 95; same 17mm beam width, same composition. THAT would be one helluva fun racquet to hit with!

Let me know if you have other questions or comments. Cheers.

BreakPoint
01-08-2006, 11:27 PM
Thanks for the credit on the PS 6.0 90, Keifers! :D

But just to clarify, I think I said I would like to see Wilson produce a PS 6.0 90 which splits ALL the specs between the PS 6.0 85 and PS 6.0 95, including the beam width, which would make it around 18mm or 18.5mm. BTW, I've heard the nCode 90 is actually 18mm even though the specs say 17mm. I think when they design the racquet they need to make larger headed racquets with a slightly thicker beam in order to stiffen it to support the larger head and minimize the twisting from the greater torque from off-center mishits. Or else it may twist too much and/or feel too floppy, flexy or unstable.

Thus, in splitting the PS 6.0 85 and 95's specs, the PS 6.0 90, once again, should be:

Headsize: 90
Weight: 12.4 oz.
Swingweight: 323
Balance: 9 pts. HL
Beam Width: 18.5mm
String pattern: same 16x18
Construction: same 80% Braided Graphite/ 20% Kevlar (NO HyperCarbon nor nCode)
Same leather grip.

I do hope Wilson finally comes to their senses and decides to make the PS 6.0 90 soon. :D They can even give it the newer nCode style paintjob if they like, I don't really care.

Galactus
01-09-2006, 02:23 AM
Galactus, I am worried about yourself, get to a coach, check your technique problems. We should continue this discussion in Health though.
Marius - Im not sure: I have played just twice since mid-November - and each of those times was an hour each. other than that, I've not done anything tennis-related until last week.
The ache on the inside of my elbow started back in the summer when I started playing again after a long layoff and used the ProStaff Tour 90 - I had coaching lessons since and raised this subject with him - he said it was definately a technique issue as he noticed that:
a) I was trying to hard to serve
b) using my arm way too much

The thing is - the more tennis I played last summer, the less the pain and ache in my elbow....

But thanks for your concern - if it does start to get real serious and the ache lasts for days after, I will go to my GP and pick up with coaching again.

SteveI
01-09-2006, 02:23 AM
Thanks for the credit on the PS 6.0 90, Keifers! :D

But just to clarify, I think I said I would like to see Wilson produce a PS 6.0 90 which splits ALL the specs between the PS 6.0 85 and PS 6.0 95, including the beam width, which would make it around 18mm or 18.5mm. BTW, I've heard the nCode 90 is actually 18mm even though the specs say 17mm. I think when they design the racquet they need to make larger headed racquets with a slightly thicker beam in order to stiffen it to support the larger head and minimize the twisting from the greater torque from off-center mishits. Or else it may twist too much and/or feel too floppy, flexy or unstable.

Thus, in splitting the PS 6.0 85 and 95's specs, the PS 6.0 90, once again, should be:

Headsize: 90
Weight: 12.4 oz.
Swingweight: 323
Balance: 9 pts. HL
Beam Width: 18.5mm
String pattern: same 16x18
Construction: same 80% Braided Graphite/ 20% Kevlar (NO HyperCarbon nor nCode)
Same leather grip.

I do hope Wilson finally comes to their senses and decides to make the PS 6.0 90 soon. :D They can even give it the newer nCode style paintjob if they like, I don't really care.

SteveI
01-09-2006, 02:30 AM
Thanks for the credit on the PS 6.0 90, Keifers! :D

But just to clarify, I think I said I would like to see Wilson produce a PS 6.0 90 which splits ALL the specs between the PS 6.0 85 and PS 6.0 95, including the beam width, which would make it around 18mm or 18.5mm. BTW, I've heard the nCode 90 is actually 18mm even though the specs say 17mm. I think when they design the racquet they need to make larger headed racquets with a slightly thicker beam in order to stiffen it to support the larger head and minimize the twisting from the greater torque from off-center mishits. Or else it may twist too much and/or feel too floppy, flexy or unstable.

Thus, in splitting the PS 6.0 85 and 95's specs, the PS 6.0 90, once again, should be:

Headsize: 90
Weight: 12.4 oz.
Swingweight: 323
Balance: 9 pts. HL
Beam Width: 18.5mm
String pattern: same 16x18
Construction: same 80% Braided Graphite/ 20% Kevlar (NO HyperCarbon nor nCode)
Same leather grip.

I do hope Wilson finally comes to their senses and decides to make the PS 6.0 90 soon. :D They can even give it the newer nCode style paintjob if they like, I don't really care.


Ok,

Here is the bottom line.. How many pros are winning with the PS 85 vs players winning with a modern frame? End of story for me. The only pros out there winning with old school frames are Safin and Fed.. and they are the expections. They are the gifted few that can still compete and win with these frames. Almost no lady pro uses a old school frame. The numbers do not lie. Of course... this is all IMHO. Have a great day!

Steve

Galactus
01-09-2006, 02:34 AM
aye SteveI..and the game has changed much even since Sampras has retired. The game since Sampras retired favours small headed heavier frames even less. not even arguable. Also Sampras toyed with going to a larger headsized frame so he would have a better chance at winning the French.
People will still try to flush hit the ball to the best of their ability no matter which headsize they have...saying that a smaller headed frame makes you concentrate better and gives you better technique is ridiculous and only proves that someone is lacking in discipline and concentration to begin with. And even if they do make the frame work, they must use obsoleted inefficient technique to make it work, and that stuff gets gobbled up by better players...unless of course you ARE Federer or Safin or equivalent or you are playing 3.0 players or something...otherwise it simply doesnt parse.
Disclaimers: Like anythng there can be the occassional exception. Also everyone is certainly welcome to use whatever gear they wish to no matter how inappropriate. If someone chooses to attack me for posting this, it only serves to prove what a real jerk the attacker is. This post is directed at nobody specifically and is a statement of GENERAL fact and is no way an attack directed at any one specific individual, their family members, offspring, heirs, pets, or anyone they know. Sorry if these disclaimers havent covered every possible eventuality.
I'm not sure about the game changing too much since 2002 - the only way I see it has changed is that it's now purely a baseliner's paradise using 100" sized racquets.
Saying that using a smaller headed frame proves that someone is lacking in discipline and concentration to begin with - can't that be said for the same male player that uses a 100" head racquet so they can find the sweetspot easily in the same way women's tennis players did in the 80s and 90s?

Example: why does Federer switch from a 85" ProStaff to a Wilson custom-built 88" racquet? Why not get Wilson to build him a 95" or even 100" special so he can crush the rest of the field with even more ease?

SteveI
01-09-2006, 02:52 AM
Hi,

"Example: why does Federer switch from a 85" ProStaff to a Wilson custom-built 88" racquet? Why not get Wilson to build him a 95" or even 100" special so he can crush the rest of the field with even more ease?"

Fed does not really apply when speaking in general terms regarding this issue IMHO. He is most likely the greatest player ever to touch a frame. We can debate that also..:-).. but I have to get to work...

Steve

oldguysrule
01-09-2006, 06:06 AM
Breakpoint, Keifers...(and any others that want to answer)
Do ya'll consider the 6.0 95 to be a modern racquet?

If not, what specs or characteristics do modern racquets have?

NBMJ,
You mentioned that modern racquets are more suited to the modern strokes. If I don't have modern strokes, do you recommend I relearn the game in order to play with the newer racquets? If not, then wouldn't I probably play better with an old school racquet that meshed better with my strokes? And if so, would learning newer, more efficient technique with a modern racquet enable me to move from a 4.0 to a 4.5? I understand there are many variables but just in general....bascially, would it make me a better player.

Again, I think we should leave the pros out of this. They obviously will have a "modern" game...they are all young. They have unlimited resources to match their racquet to their game, and vice versa.

These are sincere questions, not meant to give offense or promote one stroke or game over another and certainly not to say that one racquet is better than another.

NoBadMojo
01-09-2006, 06:32 AM
[quote=oldguysrule]
NBMJ,
You mentioned that modern racquets are more suited to the modern strokes. If I don't have modern strokes, do you recommend I relearn the game in order to play with the newer racquets? If not, then wouldn't I probably play better with an old school racquet that meshed better with my strokes? And if so, would learning newer, more efficient technique with a modern racquet enable me to move from a 4.0 to a 4.5? I understand there are many variables but just in general....bascially, would it make me a better player.
[quote]

Oldguys you are always good about having reasoned discourse rather than atacking so I am happy to engage you and try and respond to this.
You can also play 'classic' technique style tennis with modern frames. With 'classic' frames, you do need old school technique to make them work, so you are really limited. I think the pros are mentioned because they are the only ones good enough to make a small headed heavy frame work, and only a very select few of them can make them work. I like to think I am qualified to speak about this having learned with wood, being a studier of the game, and also able to teach both techniques, and having blended both classic styles and modern styles into my own game. I would really have to spend sometme with you on court to be able to figure out what it would take for you to bump a level in play.
Disclaimer: I'm not bragging here..i am merely backing up a point. Am including an exerpt from TW posting policy which is pretty easy for anyone to find and to comprehend
2. No personal attacks or abusive language is allowed. If you have a problem with someone, take it off of Talk Tennis. Antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated. Debating issues and opinions is fine, but flaming and insulting won’t be tolerated.

arnz
01-09-2006, 06:58 AM
Hi,

"Example: why does Federer switch from a 85" ProStaff to a Wilson custom-built 88" racquet? Why not get Wilson to build him a 95" or even 100" special so he can crush the rest of the field with even more ease?"

Fed does not really apply when speaking in general terms regarding this issue IMHO. He is most likely the greatest player ever to touch a frame. We can debate that also..:-).. but I have to get to work...

Steve

I dont understand this reasoning. He is the greatest player to touch a frame so he likes to make it harder for himself? Or he doesnt know what he is doing? He hasnt seen the research? He is stubborn?

I've seen him mishit balls too, so why didn't he think to change to a bigger racquet?

Why did Pete Sampras and now Federer, the two greatest players ever in my opinion and have dominated tennis for the last decade and a half, use these racquets?

And if they are so good that it doesnt matter what they use, do you think its just a coincidence that they happen to choose the smaller head? Couldnt have somebody when they were growing up tell them, hey start with this bigger racquet?

iscottius
01-09-2006, 07:16 AM
Point about the PS 85 and Pete Sampras Game.

Something that is overlooked in this discussion is that Pete served and volleyed with this racquet almost exclusively. He relied on this racquet for bomb serves and put away volleys. Yes, Pete had good groundies but this was not his strategy and he did not win from the baseline. In today's modern game, serve and volley is almost extinct, due to the power and accuracy of the baseline and return game.

The ps 85 is much like the persimmon golf woods of the 80's, they worked fine and it required great skill and practice to utilize them effectively, but when titanium woods of the 90's came out, it was easier to get the same or better results and even the most die hards on tour switched.

oldguysrule
01-09-2006, 07:19 AM
Oldguys you are always good about having reasoned discourse rather than atacking so I am happy to engage you and try and respond to this.
You can also play 'classic' technique style tennis with modern frames. With 'classic' frames, you do need old school technique to make them work, so you are really limited. I think the pros are mentioned because they are the only ones good enough to make a small headed heavy frame work, and only a very select few of them can make them work. I like to think I am qualified to speak about this having learned with wood, being a studier of the game, and also able to teach both techniques, and having blended both classic styles and modern styles into my own game. I would really have to spend sometme with you on court to be able to figure out what it would take for you to bump a level in play.
Disclaimer: I'm not bragging here..i am merely backing up a point. Am including an exerpt from TW posting policy which is pretty easy for anyone to find and to comprehend
2. No personal attacks or abusive language is allowed. If you have a problem with someone, take it off of Talk Tennis. Antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated. Debating issues and opinions is fine, but flaming and insulting won’t be tolerated.

Would love to spend time on the court with you. If you ever come to Texas, give me a shout...I will do the same if I ever manage to get that vacation to NC? for some golf and tennis.

In the meantime...is this debate strictly about headsize, or does it involve other racquet specs also? (I realize that some specs tend to move together)

Ash Doyle
01-09-2006, 07:25 AM
Sorry, to take this off-topic, but...NoBadMojo, are you in NC as oldguysrule stated? I'm in NC too. Drop me an email, I'd love to meet another player here in NC.

SteveI
01-09-2006, 07:26 AM
I dont understand this reasoning. He is the greatest player to touch a frame so he likes to make it harder for himself? Or he doesnt know what he is doing? He hasnt seen the research? He is stubborn?

I've seen him mishit balls too, so why didn't he think to change to a bigger racquet?

Why did Pete Sampras and now Federer, the two greatest players ever in my opinion and have dominated tennis for the last decade and a half, use these racquets?

And if they are so good that it doesnt matter what they use, do you think its just a coincidence that they happen to choose the smaller head? Couldnt have somebody when they were growing up tell them, hey start with this bigger racquet?

Hi,

Fed is one of the only players that can "blend" new and old style tennis.. play various styles.. switch gears and utilize spins/power/court angles like no ever has. He seems to make these changes durning points.. sets.. matches.. that is one of the big reasons he is so hard to beat. If there was a edge Fed would realize from a larger head.. I am sure he would be using it. Fed is someone that is always breaking-down things and making changes.. that is one of the reasons he is staying ahead of the field. Pros take any edge they can to win matches... how could Fed win more than he has in the last two years? That one is open to debate.. guy has only lost like 8 matches in the last two years or something like that???

Regards,
Steve

NoBadMojo
01-09-2006, 07:32 AM
Oldguys i live on the first coast of Florida and if you're ever in the area, i would be happy to give you a lesson or two if you like and see what we can do about morphing your game a bit if we both feel it is necessary. To answer your question, going along with the small headsize of the 'players' frames is typically high swingweight and for most players, that doesnt work so well in the modern game either, since modern tennis is about very high racquethead speed and spin for control which is very hard for most players to accomplish with small headed heavy frames.

NoBadMojo
01-09-2006, 07:43 AM
Sorry, to take this off-topic, but...NoBadMojo, are you in NC as oldguysrule stated? I'm in NC too. Drop me an email, I'd love to meet another player here in NC.

So to summarize, you get to attack me in another thread and then you wish for me to have a nice friendly hit? How does this work? Oh great..i'd be happy to forego the hitting lesson fee for you, and then how about i buy you some dinner and drinks after our hit and you can insult me some more? amazing........

Ash Doyle
01-09-2006, 07:48 AM
So to summarize, you get to attack me in another thread and then you wish for me to have a nice friendly hit? How does this work? Oh great..i'd be happy to forego the hitting lesson fee for you, and then how about i buy you some dinner and drinks after our hit and you can insult me some more? amazing........

NoBadMojo, I never "attacked" you. I was just hoping you and Bill could stop your nonstop argueing. I merely pointed out that you had instigated the fights just as much as he had...it takes two to argue/fight. I'm sorry if it was interpreted as an attack.

NoBadMojo
01-09-2006, 08:12 AM
NoBadMojo, I never "attacked" you. I was just hoping you and Bill could stop your nonstop argueing. I merely pointed out that you had instigated the fights just as much as he had...it takes two to argue/fight. I'm sorry if it was interpreted as an attack.

As a reminder this is what you wrote.
<snip>First there was Bungalow Bill and NoBadMojo. (I respect both of your opinions, but you've both lost respect as people with me) Now this. Grow up, people. So what if you don't agree with what someone says. State your opinion...and then LET IT GO! It was bad enough when it was kids doing this....it's downright embarassing for adults. <end snip>
If you followed what was going on at the Tips forum you would know that I rarely post there, but when I would drop in the ocassional post i would be stalked by Bungalo Bill who is very insecure and protective about his little kingdom when somone well credentialed shows up in 'his' forum. Lots of other posters are also hacked off at Bungalo Bill. When I told him I was puttng him on my ignore list he responded with something like 'oh good, i will just follow this guy (me) around the forum and pick all of his posts apart since he (me) wont be able to see what I wrote.' You may call that acceptable behaviour..it is not. and you may conclude that i was trying to fight with this person..i was not...i was trying to avoid him
i didnt find your conditional partial apology acceptable at all when you said it wasnt 'entirely' my fault, whch easily implies you thought it was 'mostly' my fault.
ya now what..this isnt worth it. please dont engage me in discourse anymore as i wont respond..thanks..i appreciate it

emerckx53
01-09-2006, 12:08 PM
Originally Posted by Ash Doyle
NoBadMojo, I never "attacked" you. I was just hoping you and Bill could stop your nonstop argueing. I merely pointed out that you had instigated the fights just as much as he had...it takes two to argue/fight. I'm sorry if it was interpreted as an attack.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ashe.....don't you know if you disagree with NBM in his eyes you are attacking...;) In 10 years of being on various forums I have never seen arrogance like his.

Radical Shot
01-09-2006, 12:13 PM
emerckx53, Agreed.

NBM, Ash was seeking to meet up with your for a hit for crying out loud! This doesn't sound like an attack to me! Having a hit is what tennis is really about, not these message boards. Lighten up and go and play some tennis instead of getting agro on your computer.

NoBadMojo
01-09-2006, 12:27 PM
he attacked me earlier as i clearly pointed out and then he asked me to have a hit...sorry you cant seem to understand that isnt very nice. i am glad for the ignore list and you're on it as well. why dont you at least make an attempt at understanding something prior to beng critical of someone..and why dont you go play tennis instead of typing criticisms

emerckx53
01-09-2006, 12:27 PM
emerckx53, I've not owned or regularly played with an 85 for at least 15 years. I did demo one from TW last August, though, and that's where my comments above came from.

Last October, I demoed and subsequently bought a 6.0 95, and it's been my league match racquet of choice ever since. I'm 9-1 in competition with it so you could say I'm pretty happy with it. (Strung with Wilson Reaction 16 @ 62lbs.)

The 6.0 95 is spec'd at 10 points HL. With an overgrip, mine is just over 11 points HL, and I find it just a treat for s&v, fast volley exchanges at net, and, my favorite, those shots where I have to lunge to my left to retrieve a ball that is almost by me (groundie or volley). IMO, the 20mm beam of the 95 also has something to do with how easy it is to get the racquet head to the ball -- the 95 is not as scalpel-like as the 85"/17mm, but it's still very good. Along with its nice flex pattern (stiffer in the throat, where ra stiffness is measured, and flexier in the hoop), and its graphite/kevlar composition, the 95 gives me a greater sense of control - by which I mean the ability to hit the ball exactly the way I want to hit it - than pretty much any of my other racquets.

Now, more about head sizes and beam widths. Let's call "how easily the racquet moves through the air" -- tta. This is different from "maneuverability," which is most commonly equated with swingweight, "how heavy it feels to swing the racquet," a function of how much mass the racquet has AND how that mass is distributed along the racquet's length.

I reckon smaller head sizes and thinner beam widths both contribute noticeably to tta, and that's why I prefer 90-93-95 inch and 17-20mm racquets. Swingweight impacts tta, too, of course, but let's stick with head sizes and beam widths for now.

NoBadMojo has a valid point that 85" frames are not nearly as effective for hitting modern strokes as, say, 100" or larger. But I don't hit those strokes, and neither do my typical opponents. So if I can, I like to stay at or below 95" and below 20mm. I can feel the tta difference if I go above 95"/20mm.

So I would suggest demoing the 6.0 95, the Pro Kennex Type C 93 (19mm) and the Yonex RDX 500 (90", 18-20mm) -- those are the ones I know best at this point. You could also use TW's Racquet Finder to get other candidates.

Lastly, I'm hoping and waiting for Wilson to produce a 90" version of the 6.0 85 that also splits strung weight, balance, swingweightand stiffness with the 95; same 17mm beam width, same composition. THAT would be one helluva fun racquet to hit with!

Let me know if you have other questions or comments. Cheers.


Keifer, thanks for the reply.....good info. I am coming to the realization that if I can duplicate as much as possible the 85 feel...and take advantage of some sq in....probably is the ticket...

lude popper
01-09-2006, 01:09 PM
I have to agree with mojo here -- the game is slowly making the 85 dated.

the game is played with more power...which causes
more angular and open stanced mechanics...which results in a much more compressed hitting zone with less adjustment time -- a larger headsize is a natural response.

Bolt
01-09-2006, 01:17 PM
he attacked me earlier as i clearly pointed out and then he asked me to have a hit...sorry you cant seem to understand that isnt very nice. i am glad for the ignore list and you're on it as well. why dont you at least make an attempt at understanding something prior to beng critical of someone..and why dont you go play tennis instead of typing criticisms

Wow, Radical Shot you made the list in record time. Congrats. :rolleyes:

Back on topic (somewhat) ... NBM, what do you expect the post-modern game to look like? Do your junior clients emulate Fed such that his "blended" style will shape and form the post-modern game or "maybe it's something really cool that I don't even know about?" Will the smallish midplus frames become the weapons of choice for these post-modernists?

Radical Shot
01-09-2006, 01:39 PM
he attacked me earlier as i clearly pointed out and then he asked me to have a hit...sorry you cant seem to understand that isnt very nice.

What!?!? So what's not nice about inviting a fellow tennis player to meet and have a game? You had a difference of opinon on an internet discussion board!!! Keep things in perspective man, otherwise your logon ID will become more and more a misnoma.

BreakPoint
01-09-2006, 01:50 PM
Hey, you know what's funny? I just looked up the word "paranoid" in the dictionary and guess who's screen name popped up? ;) LOL :mrgreen:

NoBadMojo
01-09-2006, 02:07 PM
Hey, you know what's funny? I just looked up the word "paranoid" in the dictionary and guess who's screen name popped up? ;) LOL :mrgreen:

tell us whose screen name popped up please.

emerckx53
01-09-2006, 02:17 PM
Hey, you know what's funny? I just looked up the word "paranoid" in the dictionary and guess who's screen name popped up? ;) LOL :mrgreen:

;)

BreakPoint
01-09-2006, 02:30 PM
tell us whose screen name popped up please.

Hmmmm....I thought I was on the top of your ignore list, no? If not, please feel free to put me back on.

NoBadMojo
01-09-2006, 02:49 PM
Hmmmm....I thought I was on the top of your ignore list, no? If not, please feel free to put me back on.

You are..i just take you off from time to time to see what cowardy classless things you are up to, like attacking me since you know i am not watching..you're one of the TW vultures and very good at piling on i see
I put you on my ignore list reluctantly because it's pretty entertaining when you say how the 9.11 disaster may be related to tennis and the us open and when you say that frames larger than midsized get in your way on the backswing and when you lose at tennis to some old lady and then come to the TW board and be a huge whiner about it becase the old lady who beat you uses an oversized frame. it was fun for a while..now it's just pretty sad. feel free to bring to bear one of your other posting identities..i think the poster Breakpoint is the mayor of a whole village of TW posters which reside in hs head. adios chief.

goosala
01-09-2006, 03:09 PM
PS 85 demanding? It looks like the only thing it is demanding is a lot of arguing from fellow posters. Yes, it is demanding for the average player who has only played tennis for a short while. However, I would say that generally any player who is 4.0 or higher and/or grew up using first generation graphite frames will like it. I surely do because I started playing over 20 years ago.

BreakPoint
01-09-2006, 03:54 PM
I put you on my ignore list reluctantly because it's pretty entertaining when you say how the 9.11 disaster may be related to tennis...yada yada yada.......

Yes, I must admit, I am here to entertain (as well as to edify). ;) BTW, how many Islamic extremists have you seen playing on the ATP Tour? :rolleyes: :mrgreen:

nViATi
01-09-2006, 03:55 PM
With the 6.0 85 you really gotta step into the ball and get your weight going forward and into the shot.

oldguysrule
01-09-2006, 04:12 PM
With the 6.0 85 you really gotta step into the ball and get your weight going forward and into the shot.

Interesting quote, and I agree with it. This is how we all (old guys) learned to play. What makes it interesting is that the game is not taught or played that way anymore. "Modern" (I hate that word) strokes are different now. Which means that maybe a different racquet would work better for those modern strokes. One of our esteemed instructors can describe the difference better, so I will leave that to others.

The main point I wanted to make is that some racquets are good for some games, and other racquets are good for other games. Get the racquet that fits you, your strokes, and the way you play the game, and have fun.

btw, Have you ever noticed that when people start talking about what they think they know, what they don't know comes through loud and clear.

Keifers
01-09-2006, 04:20 PM
Thanks for the credit on the PS 6.0 90, Keifers! :D

But just to clarify, I think I said ...
No problemo, BreakPoint. Credit where credit is due.

And thanks for your clarification about the 6.0 90 specs you'd like to see. For myself, I would prefer the 17mm beam width, but would certainly be happy with 18 or 18.5 mm.

Keifers
01-09-2006, 04:36 PM
Breakpoint, Keifers...(and any others that want to answer)
Do ya'll consider the 6.0 95 to be a modern racquet?

If not, what specs or characteristics do modern racquets have?
oldguysrule, I guess I would not consider the 6.0 95 a "modern" racquet in this sense: it's better suited to a s&V or all-court game (>12 ozs, 10 pts HL), rather than the modern baseline game, which (as NoBadMojo says)consists of heavy topspin groundies hit with fairly extreme grips using fairly powerful frames.

That doesn't mean you would do worse using a 6.0 95 than you would using, say, a Bab Pure Drive playing against a "modern player." I have a team mate who can hit all the modern strokes with his 6.0 95s.

The 95" head is big enough probably to do the job where the 85" head would be a lot more work and concentration (depending on your skill level, of course).

Keifers
01-09-2006, 04:54 PM
The main point I wanted to make is that some racquets are good for some games, and other racquets are good for other games. Get the racquet that fits you, your strokes, and the way you play the game, and have fun.
I couldn't agree more with this and your other posts above about leaving the pros out of this and focusing on comparing how one would play with one frame vs. how with another frame.

Saying that "people" are going to get badly beaten if they play with an 85" racquet against "players" using a modern racquet -- and therefore people shouldn't buy smaller-headed frames -- is a pretty broad generalization. Well-intended, I know, but the admonition does not take into account what you've said above. For me, since I don't play against modern players (typically) and I don't intend to change my strokes to the extreme grip/heavy topspin variety, I'm happy to enjoy playing with the racquets I enjoy playing with.

VGP
01-09-2006, 05:03 PM
I admit when I first read this thread I wanted to chime in because the Wilson PS 85 is my favorite frame, but I thought the "discussion" would begin and then degenerate like it has.

To answer the original poster's question, the Wilson PS 85 is "demanding" in the sense that you have to employ more body work and have good hand-eye coordination of an OLD SCHOOL flatter-stroke type.

To use a more "modern" frame requires a more of a more NEW SCHOOL approach, more topspin, quick hands, open-stancey type stuff. Different demands that are less familiar to some.

Perhaps the PS 85, the more it recedes into the annals of tennis history, it will get more and more "demanding" in the sense that the style typically needed to get the most of the frame becomes harder to remember.

P.S. to the newbies - this is the type of thread that will definitely attract the NoBadMojo/Breakpoint point-counterpoint "situation" that encites "disclaimers" and "user ignores" that are easily tossed asside by both parties in order to quell the insatiable need to voice (i.e. shove down each others' throats) their opinions. It is this type of pleasant discourse (drama) that keeps me coming back. :)

Cheers dudes.

emerckx53
01-09-2006, 05:07 PM
Interesting quote, and I agree with it. This is how we all (old guys) learned to play. What makes it interesting is that the game is not taught or played that way anymore. "Modern" (I hate that word) strokes are different now. Which means that maybe a different racquet would work better for those modern strokes. One of our esteemed instructors can describe the difference better, so I will leave that to others.

The main point I wanted to make is that some racquets are good for some games, and other racquets are good for other games. Get the racquet that fits you, your strokes, and the way you play the game, and have fun.

btw, Have you ever noticed that when people start talking about what they think they know, what they don't know comes through loud and clear.


Modern strokes(80's on) are NOT that different IMHO...the equipment is.....tell me Borg or Vilas or Lendl could not have ripped the cover off the ball with a Pure Drive..their ball striking was as good if not better than a Roddick....

emerckx53
01-09-2006, 05:11 PM
I admit when I first read this thread I wanted to chime in because the Wilson PS 85 is my favorite frame, but I thought the "discussion" would begin and then degenerate like it has.

To answer the original poster's question, the Wilson PS 85 is "demanding" in the sense that you have to employ more body work and have good hand-eye coordination of an OLD SCHOOL flatter-stroke type.

To use a more "modern" frame requires a more of a more NEW SCHOOL approach, more topspin, quick hands, open-stancey type stuff. Different demands that are less familiar to some.

Perhaps the PS 85, the more it recedes into the annals of tennis history, it will get more and more "demanding" in the sense that the style typically needed to get the most of the frame becomes harder to remember.

P.S. to the newbies - this is the type of thread that will definitely attract the NoBadMojo/Breakpoint point-counterpoint "situation" that encites "disclaimers" and "user ignores" that are easily tossed asside by both parties in order to quell the insatiable need to voice (i.e. shove down each others' throats) their opinions. It is this type of pleasant discourse (drama) that keeps me coming back. :)

Cheers dudes.

---------------------------------------------------------


To use a more "modern" frame requires a more of a more NEW SCHOOL approach, more topspin, quick hands, open-stancey type stuff. Different demands that are less familiar to some.


Just a reminder...there were "plenty" of high school, college and pros using those techniques in the 80's...clay courters..Borg, Salomon, Vilas, Lendl, Muster, Dibbs...to name a few.....

NoBadMojo
01-09-2006, 05:15 PM
oldguysrule, I guess I would not consider the 6.0 95 a "modern" racquet in this sense: it's better suited to a s&V or all-court game (>12 ozs, 10 pts HL), rather than the modern baseline game, which (as NoBadMojo says)consists of heavy topspin groundies hit with fairly extreme grips using fairly powerful frames.

Keifers just so you know my reasoning goes beyond what you say I say for using larger headed lighter frames than midsized players frames. There is ALSO the function of ball speed..and ball speed is so much faster now that it makes it harder and harder and harder to be able to get around on the ball with a heavy frame and also because the ball comes so much faster now, it is much tougher to flush hit a faster moving ball with a smaller sized head. As Luder suggested earlier, you can get away with it if you <not you personally> are posing at tennis or being fed perfect balls or hittng with Aunt Mary, but its much more difficult when guys are smoking balls at you with serious spin on them which are getting up on you around shoulder level. Those are very difficult to handle with MP sized frames not to even think about Mids. Additionally, a larger headed frame really comes in handy on service returns and on days when your just not feeling perfect or when it's windy, getting funky bounces on the clay etc etc. My only argument has ever been that I dont think midsized players frames are very suitable for the modern game. Its the speed of the ball coming at you combined with technique changes over the years. Like I said earlier I play with both weight transfer and open stance styles and it is so much easier with a modern fame. I also teach elements of both depending
I believe midsized frames are still considered frames less than 95

Disclaimer: All the normal disclaimers apply. Can you all quit the attacks? It would be nice to see considered non attacking posts in this forum, and ask that people observe that I dont start this crap...i just react to all the attacks and cheap shots even by some posters who know i have them on ignore..their only purpose then becomes just to cheap shot me while my back is turned and anyone with a brain can see what is going on. if folks wouldnt attack me and others, you wouldnt see me retaliate and maybe some of the other knowledable members of this forum might return again altho i kinda think this board is just a trainwreck now thanks to a bunch of whackjobs and ignorant people. attack me for this as you like..it only reveals YOUR nature

Keifers
01-09-2006, 05:29 PM
Keifer, thanks for the reply.....good info. I am coming to the realization that if I can duplicate as much as possible the 85 feel...and take advantage of some sq in....probably is the ticket...
No problemo. What you've just described would be really exciting for me too. So far, the closest I've found is the 6.0 95.

VGP
01-09-2006, 05:59 PM
---------------------------------------------------------


To use a more "modern" frame requires a more of a more NEW SCHOOL approach, more topspin, quick hands, open-stancey type stuff. Different demands that are less familiar to some.


Just a reminder...there were "plenty" of high school, college and pros using those techniques in the 80's...clay courters..Borg, Salomon, Vilas, Lendl, Muster, Dibbs...to name a few.....


I know....I guess the "new school" started in the 80's. In "old school" I kinda meant Tilden.

Keifers
01-09-2006, 06:06 PM
Keifers just so you know my reasoning goes beyond what you say I say for using larger headed lighter frames than midsized players frames. There is ALSO the function of ball speed..and ball speed is so much faster now that it makes it harder and harder and harder to be able to get around on the ball with a heavy frame and also because the ball comes so much faster now, it is much tougher to flush hit a faster moving ball with a smaller sized head. As Luder suggested earlier, you can get away with it if you <not you personally> are posing at tennis or being fed perfect balls or hittng with Aunt Mary, but its much more difficult when guys are smoking balls at you with serious spin on them which are getting up on you around shoulder level. Those are very difficult to handle with MP sized frames not to even think about Mids. Additionally, a larger headed frame really comes in handy on service returns and on days when your just not feeling perfect or when it's windy, getting funky bounces on the clay etc etc. My only argument has ever been that I dont think midsized players frames are very suitable for the modern game. Its the speed of the ball coming at you combined with technique changes over the years. Like I said earlier I play with both weight transfer and open stance styles and it is so much easier with a modern fame. I also teach elements of both depending
I believe midsized frames are still considered frames less than 95
NoBadMojo, thanks for clarifying your reasoning. I appreciate your noting the additional issue of ball speed. I'm sorry I left this out because it is something you've consistently talked about, and it's something I very much agree with -- ball speeds are so much faster now that heavy swingweight and a small head have definitely become liabilities (especially if one is trying to hit the ball with heavy topspin!).

Back in the day, and even now when our club has its wood-racquets-only Wimbledon mixed doubles tournament, the ball was/is noticeably slower and we could/can hit it with those 65"(?) heads with little difficulty.

And I agree that larger headed frames do have those other advantages.

So your argument that midsized frames are not very well suited to the modern game is something I can concur with. A small caveat though: IF I ever had to face someone with the modern game you've been describing, I would probably pick my PS Tour 90, or (2nd choice) my 6.0 95, rather than a more modern, larger head frame. I wouldn't use a 6.0 85, for sure, but the 90" would be big enough for me to go into battle with. Understand that I don't really want to play such a match, and would try really hard to negotiate myself out of it!

NoBadMojo
01-09-2006, 06:18 PM
NoBadMojo, thanks for clarifying your reasoning. I appreciate your noting the additional issue of ball speed. I'm sorry I left this out because it is something you've consistently talked about, and it's something I very much agree with -- ball speeds are so much faster now that heavy swingweight and a small head have definitely become liabilities (especially if one is trying to hit the ball with heavy topspin!).

Back in the day, and even now when our club has its wood-racquets-only Wimbledon mixed doubles tournament, the ball was/is noticeably slower and we could/can hit it with those 65"(?) heads with little difficulty.

And I agree that larger headed frames do have those other advantages.

So your argument that midsized frames are not very well suited to the modern game is something I can concur with. A small caveat though: IF I ever had to face someone with the modern game you've been describing, I would probably pick my PS Tour 90, or (2nd choice) my 6.0 95, rather than a more modern, larger head frame. I wouldn't use a 6.0 85, for sure, but the 90" would be big enough for me to go into battle with. Understand that I don't really want to play such a match, and would try really hard to negotiate myself out of it!

ya man Kiefers..as for me, when I play someone who hits it really hard and/or with a lots of spin, I am thankful for every bit of my 98 frame. But I am only a 5.0-5.5 hitter and I only use one one model frame for all of my matches for the last 3 years. I'm just not good enough to use different racquets. I do love to play guys wielding 85's and 90's and stuff. (not that i see guys like that anymore).I know I am going to have a great serving day and that I will likely be able to control the point from the baseline within one or two strokes. small headed players frames users often have one hand BH's and all I do is feed them a high bounding ball to their backhand which either immdeiately produces a UE or I get something weak back which i can have my way with. Western gripping PureDive users usually require a 2 ball combo...anything deep to their backhand which usually comes back to my backhand, and I hit a short sliced backhand to their forehand side which they have to run a ways for and usually cant deal with with their western grips
Disclaimer: Everyone is welcome to use anything they like. This is not a personal attack on anyone using midsized frames

emerckx53
01-09-2006, 06:32 PM
I know....I guess the "new school" started in the 80's. In "old school" I kinda meant Tilden.

I'm with ya.....

chess9
01-10-2006, 04:09 AM
Well, I have the full range of racquets up to 102 sq. in., including the PS 85. What I've found is that I can hit fine with almost all of them and that the differences are not so great that I can't adjust my swing to them. I have a decided preference for head light, heavy frames and have enough respect for my joints that I don't intend to ever use a 300 gram racquet on a regular basis.

When I watch guys play, say up to about 5.0, most of the points are LOST on position, not won. The lost points are lost because someone can't run and hit. Running and hitting is made slightly easier with a larger frame, but you have to get there to hit it. Most of the time the ball wouldn't be hit unless the guy had a very long racquet. So, if you don't swing, what difference does it make what size racquet you have? On service returns the larger frames have the most notable advantage, particularly if your opponent is a hard server. However, at the club level, I've found serve and volley very much alive, so I personally prefer something with more surgical precision and that compromise has me playing the 93 sq. in. ROK.

I've been off the tennis for a long time and recently came back, so my observations on racquets are probably woefully inaccurate, which is why I've read this discussion. :)

IMHO, if most players want to get better, they'd be better served following up on Marius' posts on training. Fitness levels at my club are appalling and I'm sure this problem is almost universal in the industrialized nations. What is even worse is the number of teaching pros walking around with a huge gut.

Oh, and since I'm rambling, exactly where is all this leading? What is the optimum racquet size and weight for those playing the modern game? And WHY? :)

-Robert
________
FIND HEADSHOP (http://headshop.net/)

Rabbit
01-10-2006, 05:15 AM
The Wilson ProStaff, in its original graphite form, was the premier racket of the 80s. It was used by the following pros:

Jimmy Connors
Chris Evert
Pete Sampras
Jim Courier
Aaron Krickstein
Jennifer Capriati
(and a few hundred others)


Does anyone see a pattern here? No? You're right! It was a great frame, but to say that it lends itself to one style or another is really a stretch. It all depends on the player. I can't believe for one second that anyone can tell the difference between 17mm and 20mm or between 90 sq in and 93 sq in when they're hitting with them.

Let's try another frame, the Prince Orignial Graphite (OS)

Michael Chang
Andre Agassi
Monica Seles

anyone see a pattern? Good now let's add two more users:

Paul Annacone
Chris Lewis (Wimbledon finalist from New Zeland)

Wait, what happened? The pattern which was perfectly clear is shot to hell and back! Two modern players who used it and two old school serve and volley players! Same racket!?! How could that be!

OK, one more frame, the Dunlop 200G.

John McEnroe
Martina Navratilova

If we use this population, we can clearly see that the 200G was developed exclusively for left-handed serve and volley players. Let's add one more famous user

Steffi Graf

Oops. Our sample just went down the tubes. Left-handed? Nope. Serve and volley? Nope. Successful? You bet.

I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that if you painted a 90 and 93 black and held them up side by side you couldn't tell which one was bigger. I remember a buddy of mine playing with the Wilson Hammer 5.0 110. I used the 95. We couldn't tell which one was bigger when they were side by side. It was one hell of an optical illusion.

There's a guy here in town who plays still with the original Profile racket. Before that, he played with a Kramer wood frame. He made one racket change in the last twenty years. Anybody see a pattern? Me neither.

Don't get me wrong. The racket does make a difference. I can play better with my new Cat 8 than I could with my old C10. But, overthinking your equipment to the tune of 3 mm or 5 square inches of head size is getting, well a little laughable. I bought Technical Tennis from TW. In this book they say that there are some professional players, world ranked, who can't tell the difference in ten pounds of tension in just hitting with the frame. They aren't allowed to bounce the stringbed on their palms, just hit with it. Ten pounds!

My point is, don't let your preconceived notion of what type frame is right for you eliminate your chances of playing better tennis. My wife and I have decided that when our daughter goes to college, we're taking up golf. It will be a return for me because I grew up playing golf. When I grew up, I played with tour blades. When I go back to playing, I'm going to purchase the biggest, ugliest clubs I can find. I want every advantage I can get. I learned this from tennis. After my bout with tennis elbow, the rackets I used were 1) Wilson Pro Staff 85, 2) Head Pro 280 (98), 3) Yonex RD Tour 90, 4) Volkl C9 (98), 5) Volkl C10 (98), 6) Wilson Tour 90, 7) Volkl C10 (98), 8) Volkl Cat 8 V-Engine (100). I've learned quite a bit about frames since then. I prefer an open string pattern because it's easier for me to generate spin with my grips. I prefer a mid-weight frame; not too heavy, not too light, just right (11.5 ounces). Head size really doesn't matter to me. When I started, head size was the predominant factor in a racket. I agree with mojo that head size has become a badge of honor. I also think that it's become more of a status symbol than the right choice.

oldguysrule
01-10-2006, 06:48 AM
Rabbit,
Are you saying that we spend too much time trying to match a racquet to a particular style of play? If so, I agree. If not...help me out a little on your point.

I played saturday...put my 6.0 95, pog 93 and PD 100 next to each other. Differences were extremely small.

I don't get the whole headsize and badge of honor thing. To me, when you go on the court, it is all about the shots you hit, not what you hit them with.

As for as your new golf clubs are concerned...They don't have to be big and ugly to be easy to hit anymore. Cleveland and Hogan (as well as others) have some really good looking irons that are easy to hit and won't require a mortgage on your house to buy. The real challenge is finding the time to play tennis and golf...

NoBadMojo
01-10-2006, 07:32 AM
While some better players cant notice 1o pounds of tension differences?????, others can notice 2 pounds. (i find this hard to believe because the depth of their shots would surely differ even if they couldnt feel the difference of 10pounds and i read that exerpt before too). Example: Many frames have a tension range of 50-60 and typically at 50 the stringbed will feel spongy and balls will tend to fly. Conversely at 60 pounds, the stringbed will feel a bit boardy, especially in comparison to 50pounds and it will be much harder to get the ball deep in the court). Perhaps what they did is give a player one unfamiliar frame without a reference point frame strung at a tension they knew to compare it to which I think would be a very inaccrate way to test things. To extend this a bit farther, there are pros who also dont even know what the grips they use are called and yet there are TW posters who fight about the grips these very same certain pros use. It's kinda like all the ridiculous paintjob arguments. many pros make lots of minour grip changes based upon the ball they are presented with and the shot they wish to shape, altho they likely have one basic ralley grip for the forehand for example. Some people may not be able to notice much difference between a 93POG and a PD100 (two very diferent racquets) but some can notice big differences in sweetspot size and playablity in going from a 95 headsize to a 98 (I notice very small differences and it's a blessing and a curse). Holding one frame up to another gives zero indication about how easy one frame is to flush hit vs another. You can hold up a ps85 to a 98 headsizeframe and I bet the difference in the width of the frame might only appear to be only perhaps 1/2" on the two sides and maybe 1" on top and bottom..with a standard wood frame maybe 1" on each side ...doesnt seem like much until you go out and hit with them. why people hang on to these obsolete frames and penalize themselves, i have no clue other than for the reasons Rabbit states. They also further penalize themselves by buying these frames which are well used and VERY fatigued.
Disclaimer: No personal attacks please. . Everyone can sure use whatever gear they wish. I apologize for the tangential post.

Galactus
01-10-2006, 08:21 AM
Keifers just so you know my reasoning goes beyond what you say I say for using larger headed lighter frames than midsized players frames. There is ALSO the function of ball speed..and ball speed is so much faster now that it makes it harder and harder and harder to be able to get around on the ball with a heavy frame and also because the ball comes so much faster now, it is much tougher to flush hit a faster moving ball with a smaller sized head. As Luder suggested earlier, you can get away with it if you <not you personally> are posing at tennis or being fed perfect balls or hittng with Aunt Mary, but its much more difficult when guys are smoking balls at you with serious spin on them which are getting up on you around shoulder level. Those are very difficult to handle with MP sized frames not to even think about Mids. Additionally, a larger headed frame really comes in handy on service returns and on days when your just not feeling perfect or when it's windy, getting funky bounces on the clay etc etc. My only argument has ever been that I dont think midsized players frames are very suitable for the modern game. Its the speed of the ball coming at you combined with technique changes over the years. Like I said earlier I play with both weight transfer and open stance styles and it is so much easier with a modern fame. I also teach elements of both depending
I believe midsized frames are still considered frames less than 95

Good post. I have been using a ProStaff Original 6.0 85" since last August for a number of reasons:
1 - I was crap at the net
2 - My service was inconsistent and mis-timed
3 - My groundstrokes were all 'armed'
4 - To see what all the fuss was about

Since using this I've found that I've improved in the first 3 areas - however, as my technique gets better, so does my level of opposition and I doubt I'll be able to trade from the backcourt with someone using a 100" Babolat PureDrive+...I'm in my late 30s, and am 6'3" and 210lb, a 2-3 hour baseline game won't suit me using the PS 85" (unless I suddenly become a fantastic serve-and-volleyer in a Sampras/Edberg/Becker stylee)

So, I anticipate that I shall move back up to 90"/95" frames later in the year...

Keifers
01-10-2006, 08:44 AM
Rabbit, I appreciate the arguments and examples you gave above, especially your point about not letting your preconceived notion of what type frame is right for you eliminate your chances of playing better tennis. I also appreciate oldguysrule's point that when you go on the court, it is all about the shots you hit, not what you hit them with.

That said, the minutiae of racquet specs are part of the discussion here, and I know I like to post my thoughts/comments/experiences about them. For sure, I noticed a sharp increase in mishits (especially on returns of serve) when I played with the 6.0 85 a few months ago -- compared with 90" or larger frames. I really wanted to play as well with the 85 as with the 90s/90+s because of the 85's wonderful other traits (feel, control, etc.), but I couldn't. Had I chosen to purchase and use the 85 regularly, it surely would have been a badge of honor thing (to put it kindly!).

Tennis is an interplay of so many factors -- experience, skill level, physical fitness (your point about this factor is very well taken), mental state and fitness, equipment, etc. -- there's no question that overfocusing on racquets is not good. Would I be able to tell the differences of 5 sq in or 3 mm when hitting a ball? I'd have to guess yes... and no. I'm pretty sure I'd have fun doing it, though.

Important to know and remember: There is a line between fun tinkering and obsessive fixation. (For me, the line is about 2.87 mm thick :) )

emerckx53
01-10-2006, 08:46 AM
[QUOTE=Rabbit]The Wilson ProStaff, in its original graphite form, was the premier racket of the 80s. It was used by the following pros:

Jimmy Connors
Chris Evert
Pete Sampras
Jim Courier
Aaron Krickstein
Jennifer Capriati
(and a few hundred others)


Does anyone see a pattern here? No? You're right! It was a great frame, but to say that it lends itself to one style or another is really a stretch. It all depends on the player. I can't believe for one second that anyone can tell the difference between 17mm and 20mm or between 90 sq in and 93 sq in when they're hitting with them.

Let's try another frame, the Prince Orignial Graphite (OS)

Michael Chang
Andre Agassi
Monica Seles

anyone see a pattern? Good now let's add two more users:

Paul Annacone
Chris Lewis (Wimbledon finalist from New Zeland)

Wait, what happened? The pattern which was perfectly clear is shot to hell and back! Two modern players who used it and two old school serve and volley players! Same racket!?! How could that be!

OK, one more frame, the Dunlop 200G.

John McEnroe
Martina Navratilova

If we use this population, we can clearly see that the 200G was developed exclusively for left-handed serve and volley players. Let's add one more famous user

Steffi Graf

Oops. Our sample just went down the tubes. Left-handed? Nope. Serve and volley? Nope. Successful? You bet.

I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that if you painted a 90 and 93 black and held them up side by side you couldn't tell which one was bigger. I remember a buddy of mine playing with the Wilson Hammer 5.0 110. I used the 95. We couldn't tell which one was bigger when they were side by side. It was one hell of an optical illusion.

There's a guy here in town who plays still with the original Profile racket. Before that, he played with a Kramer wood frame. He made one racket change in the last twenty years. Anybody see a pattern? Me neither.

Don't get me wrong. The racket does make a difference. I can play better with my new Cat 8 than I could with my old C10. But, overthinking your equipment to the tune of 3 mm or 5 square inches of head size is getting, well a little laughable. I bought Technical Tennis from TW. In this book they say that there are some professional players, world ranked, who can't tell the difference in ten pounds of tension in just hitting with the frame. They aren't allowed to bounce the stringbed on their palms, just hit with it. Ten pounds!

My point is, don't let your preconceived notion of what type frame is right for you eliminate your chances of playing better tennis. My wife and I have decided that when our daughter goes to college, we're taking up golf. It will be a return for me because I grew up playing golf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Great info Rabbit...my angle is quite simple...I have not had a chance to play with anything since the 85...I am not under any misconception that I can play like I did 15 years ago SO...most of you have convinced me to play a bigger stick and I will. I don't think I can go over a 95 however!

FiveO
01-10-2006, 10:27 AM
I agree that many players, perhaps the majority, would be better served having a professional, familiar with a multitude of frames, choose their racquet classification (head size, flex, string pattern, power rating, etc) and then their string and tension which would be most appropriate for them. In that, many players, too many at those levels are merely fishing or so caught up in emulating another player, usually a very visible tour player, to even know what game style fits their skill set and personality best let alone what equipment and set-up is most appropriate. However I also believe that at a certain higher level, with more history and experience, much of the choice is in fact based on subjective elements without sacrificing results.

I'm sure many play with head sizes inappropriately small for their level and skill set in that today they are afforded with myriad of alternatives to choose more today than ever before. Above that level, a higher percentage of players are much more aware of the subtle characteristics in frames, strings and tensions which fit their abilities best. That awareness is colored by subjective, familiar, comfortable characteristics they prefer. Maintaining an objective eye towards handling the various types of shots their competition forces them to deal with and the quality of shot which is necessary for them to generate in order to win with, much of the personal preference in equipment becomes subjective. Subjective preference while maintaining an objective eye toward what they are successful with and win with.

Using myself as an example. My experiences, skill set, limitations etc. combined with the fact that I am not a racquet 's-l-u-t' jumping from one frame to another with the change of seasons, and never being particularly fond of the demoing process have lead me down a path.

History:
-started in the late '60's with wood becoming a fairly accomplished junior
-serve and volleyer/all-court harder than average hitter off the ground
-developed a preference for gut, "boardy" feel and higher string tensions and shying away from set-ups which enhanced power.*
-also a preference for 'boxier' grip shapes as opposed to rectangular ones (recall marked variances in Wilson JK Autos and searching through racks of sticks to select "my shape grip")
-also set the stage for 'head light/higher mass' sticks

In the modern era:
-gravitated to the more wood like "feel" graphites, with the grip shape of Head they were off the table so it meant the Wilson Pro Staff 85"
-strung boardy still able to generate more pace than the majority of the competition I faced
-multi year lay-off after a failed attempt at minor league pro levels and a commitment to my next career
-came back with the 6.0 PS 85, no disadvantage against hardest hitting juniors up to D1, but 'modernized' technique, serving with higher pace overall to better prosecute s & v against more offensive returners and switched to sw fh grip to better handle the steadier diet of more heavier paced and topped, higher bouncing balls
-too much too soon and developed medial epichondylitis or "golfer's elbow"
-hit a multitude of more forgiving, wider bodied, larger heads in the flexier range

-Personal (very subjective) impressions:
-few with similar type of feel (read different) than what I prefered
-much wider beam widths felt awkward
a-strange in my off hand
b-'odd' moving through the air on swinging strokes (even with the narrower beamed Yonex's)
c-found variances in string beds for the first time, leading to my first experiences with the odd 'flyer'
d-easier access to spin
e-loss of 'pop' on my first serve having not tried the Babs due to many reports of their harshness and coming off a tender elbow for the first time in my life.
f-increased power everywhere else (sometimes an uncomfortable amount) from most.* Like a recent Tennis Mag article refers to that even 1 of 2 lbs. of string tension can translate into a foot difference in a pro player's depth of shot, I believe that the "potential power" in a frames construction can result in wide variances in the depth of shot helping/hindering depth control and control of points from player to player.

-settled on Prince Precision Response Ti 97" which was already discontinued-adjusted and played well but felt I lost pop on my serve. Arm healed. Eventually adjusted to frame and recovered to expected play levels but w/o the degree of 'familiar feel', what felt like lesser pace on serves and the occasional "flyer".

Wanted to get back what I felt was lost during the switch to a compromise stick. Again very subjective.

Ballparked my list based primarily on experiences of fellow players and observations of frames on this site and prior experience with hitting a multitude of larger heads and wider bodied sticks. The list?:

Wilson n-code, n-6.1 Tour 90 (immediate bias toward/memories of my PS)
Wilson n-code, n-6.1 95 (by numbers close to the PPTi 97")
Yonex RDX500 mid-plus
and reluctantly due to the altered aerodynamics of head and tube shape, weight and swing weight 'numbers': the RDX500 mid

Again rectangular grips of Head, Volkl, etc. were off the table.

Detested swinging and hitting with the Tour and 500 mid-plus. Despite my pre-conceived notion of how the Tour would feel similar to my PS of a lifetime, it felt nothing similar. I beam-ish. The 500MP felt heavy, balanced more head heavy than the numbers indicate and transmitted a "clunky" feel at speed. The MP also demonstrated an unequal string bed in my hands. Crossed both off my list within a week.

6.1 95" a more "pingy" PPRTi. Nice, better 'pop' on serves, slightly more powerful than the PPRTi, but that 'nagging occasional flyer' I feel is due to an unequal string bed.

Last choice before establishing my next list of demos, w/o much hope, was the RDX mid. Initially an odd, different feel than I was accustomed to. My shots initially landed shorter but demonstrated the hop and heaviness I was used to generating, but swinging it 'felt' very familiar. No string bed variance and it was difficult to mis-hit. After two days of hitting it, very minor adjustment to trajectory and 're-discovered' higher swing speeds which I had not sensed had gone dormant during my years with the PPRTi, all the depth, pace, spin and control were there without thought of a "flyer" entering the picture un-announced. It serves better than the PPTi in my hands. While I couldn't tell you if the science backs up "my sense of things" the frame appears to have a larger sweet spot and much more consistent string bed than either the 6.1 95" or it's own bigger brother. Again very subjectively.

Conclusion: This is not an endorsement of my frame. It's not a condemnation of other manufacturer or frame-types or questioning anyone's expertise. Im not saying my choice will be appropriate for others because it won't be. I wish my pre-prejudices did not omit certain manufacturers due to grip shape and the 'feeling' that I could not comfortably take a shot at Head or Volkl.

There are no "holy grails". Many players could and should benefit themselves of an objective and trained professional, evaluating them on-court to find a more appropriate 'fit' of equipment to their skill-sets. At certain higher levels, while maintaining objectivity in observing the results and quality of shot one gets with a certain frame, string and tension much of the choice is subjective. While being very open and mindful of objective results an individual gets, the type of feel (not to be confused with one frame having feel and the other not), the confidence that feel provides, and not feeling 'forced' to adjust far off comfort level to accomodate the playing characteristics of a particular piece and set-up, etc. will vary from individual to individual and thus 'appropriate' does have a myriad of subjective choices factored in.

Again I am not arguing that many, probably most players, need to be more objective in their self-analysis or need professional advice in making more appropriate equipment choices. However, at a certain level, with enough history and experience, much of the choice, without sacrificing objective analysis of on-court results, is largely subjective.

Ash Doyle
01-10-2006, 10:39 AM
I agree with Rabbit that a small and heavy racquet is a status symbol to a lot of the posters on these boards. I also agree with NoBadMojo that a lot of those same players would get better results if they used a more appropriate racquet. No topic on these boards causes such heated debate as this one, and as Rabbit said it's because it's so closely tied to ego. A lot of people of these boards when told they should choose a more appropriate racquet actually hear, "You're not good enough for that racquet". Then the ego kicks in and intelligent debate gives way to emotion fueled arguments.

Also, I think Rabbit is dead on about players confusing a racquet's strengths with the strengths of the top pro who uses that racquet.

Galactus
01-10-2006, 11:10 AM
I agree that many players, perhaps the majority, would be better served having a professional, familiar with a multitude of frames, choose their racquet classification (head size, flex, string pattern, power rating, etc) and then their string and tension which would be most appropriate for them. In that, many players, too many at those levels are merely fishing or so caught up in emulating another player, usually a very visible tour player, to even know what game style fits their skill set and personality best let alone what equipment and set-up is most appropriate. However I also believe that at a certain higher level, with more history and experience, much of the choice is in fact based on subjective elements without sacrificing results.

I'm sure many play with head sizes inappropriately small for their level and skill set in that today they are afforded with myriad of alternatives to choose more today than ever before. Above that level, a higher percentage of players are much more aware of the subtle characteristics in frames, strings and tensions which fit their abilities best. That awareness is colored by subjective, familiar, comfortable characteristics they prefer. Maintaining an objective eye towards handling the various types of shots their competition forces them to deal with and the quality of shot which is necessary for them to generate in order to win with, much of the personal preference in equipment becomes subjective. Subjective preference while maintaining an objective eye toward what they are successful with and win with.

Using myself as an example. My experiences, skill set, limitations etc. combined with the fact that I am not a racquet 's-l-u-t' jumping from one frame to another with the change of seasons, and never being particularly fond of the demoing process have lead me down a path.

History:
-started in the late '60's with wood becoming a fairly accomplished junior
-serve and volleyer/all-court harder than average hitter off the ground
-developed a preference for gut, "boardy" feel and higher string tensions and shying away from set-ups which enhanced power.*
-also a preference for 'boxier' grip shapes as opposed to rectangular ones (recall marked variances in Wilson JK Autos and searching through racks of sticks to select "my shape grip")
-also set the stage for 'head light/higher mass' sticks

In the modern era:
-gravitated to the more wood like "feel" graphites, with the grip shape of Head they were off the table so it meant the Wilson Pro Staff 85"
-strung boardy still able to generate more pace than the majority of the competition I faced
-multi year lay-off after a failed attempt at minor league pro levels and a commitment to my next career
-came back with the 6.0 PS 85, no disadvantage against hardest hitting juniors up to D1, but 'modernized' technique, serving with higher pace overall to better prosecute s & v against more offensive returners and switched to sw fh grip to better handle the steadier diet of more heavier paced and topped, higher bouncing balls
-too much too soon and developed medial epichondylitis or "golfer's elbow"
-hit a multitude of more forgiving, wider bodied, larger heads in the flexier range

-Personal (very subjective) impressions:
-few with similar type of feel (read different) than what I prefered
-much wider beam widths felt awkward
a-strange in my off hand
b-'odd' moving through the air on swinging strokes (even with the narrower beamed Yonex's)
c-found variances in string beds for the first time, leading to my first experiences with the odd 'flyer'
d-easier access to spin
e-loss of 'pop' on my first serve having not tried the Babs due to many reports of their harshness and coming off a tender elbow for the first time in my life.
f-increased power everywhere else (sometimes an uncomfortable amount) from most.* Like a recent Tennis Mag article refers to that even 1 of 2 lbs. of string tension can translate into a foot difference in a pro player's depth of shot, I believe that the "potential power" in a frames construction can result in wide variances in the depth of shot helping/hindering depth control and control of points from player to player.

-settled on Prince Precision Response Ti 97" which was already discontinued-adjusted and played well but felt I lost pop on my serve. Arm healed. Eventually adjusted to frame and recovered to expected play levels but w/o the degree of 'familiar feel', what felt like lesser pace on serves and the occasional "flyer".

Wanted to get back what I felt was lost during the switch to a compromise stick. Again very subjective.

Ballparked my list based primarily on experiences of fellow players and observations of frames on this site and prior experience with hitting a multitude of larger heads and wider bodied sticks. The list?:

Wilson n-code, n-6.1 Tour 90 (immediate bias toward/memories of my PS)
Wilson n-code, n-6.1 95 (by numbers close to the PPTi 97")
Yonex RDX500 mid-plus
and reluctantly due to the altered aerodynamics of head and tube shape, weight and swing weight 'numbers': the RDX500 mid

Again rectangular grips of Head, Volkl, etc. were off the table.

Detested swinging and hitting with the Tour and 500 mid-plus. Despite my pre-conceived notion of how the Tour would feel similar to my PS of a lifetime, it felt nothing similar. I beam-ish. The 500MP felt heavy, balanced more head heavy than the numbers indicate and transmitted a "clunky" feel at speed. The MP also demonstrated an unequal string bed in my hands. Crossed both off my list within a week.

6.1 95" a more "pingy" PPRTi. Nice, better 'pop' on serves, slightly more powerful than the PPRTi, but that 'nagging occasional flyer' I feel is due to an unequal string bed.

Last choice before establishing my next list of demos, w/o much hope, was the RDX mid. Initially an odd, different feel than I was accustomed to. My shots initially landed shorter but demonstrated the hop and heaviness I was used to generating, but swinging it 'felt' very familiar. No string bed variance and it was difficult to mis-hit. After two days of hitting it, very minor adjustment to trajectory and 're-discovered' higher swing speeds which I had not sensed had gone dormant during my years with the PPRTi, all the depth, pace, spin and control were there without thought of a "flyer" entering the picture un-announced. It serves better than the PPTi in my hands. While I couldn't tell you if the science backs up "my sense of things" the frame appears to have a larger sweet spot and much more consistent string bed than either the 6.1 95" or it's own bigger brother. Again very subjectively.

Conclusion: This is not an endorsement of my frame. It's not a condemnation of other manufacturer or frame-types or questioning anyone's expertise. Im not saying my choice will be appropriate for others because it won't be. I wish my pre-prejudices did not omit certain manufacturers due to grip shape and the 'feeling' that I could not comfortably take a shot at Head or Volkl.

There are no "holy grails". Many players could and should benefit themselves of an objective and trained professional, evaluating them on-court to find a more appropriate 'fit' of equipment to their skill-sets. At certain higher levels, while maintaining objectivity in observing the results and quality of shot one gets with a certain frame, string and tension much of the choice is subjective. While being very open and mindful of objective results an individual gets, the type of feel (not to be confused with one frame having feel and the other not), the confidence that feel provides, and not feeling 'forced' to adjust far off comfort level to accomodate the playing characteristics of a particular piece and set-up, etc. will vary from individual to individual and thus 'appropriate' does have a myriad of subjective choices factored in.

Again I am not arguing that many, probably most players, need to be more objective in their self-analysis or need professional advice in making more appropriate equipment choices. However, at a certain level, with enough history and experience, much of the choice, without sacrificing objective analysis of on-court results, is largely subjective.
APPLAUSE
Great post.

NoBadMojo
01-10-2006, 11:17 AM
I agree with Rabbit that a small and heavy racquet is a status symbol to a lot of the posters on these boards. I also agree with NoBadMojo that a lot of those same players would get better results if they used a more appropriate racquet. No topic on these boards causes such heated debate as this one, and as Rabbit said it's because it's so closely tied to ego. A lot of people of these boards when told they should choose a more appropriate racquet actually hear, "You're not good enough for that racquet". Then the ego kicks in and intelligent debate gives way to emotion fueled arguments.

Also, I think Rabbit is dead on about players confusing a racquet's strengths with the strengths of the top pro who uses that racquet.

What the shame of it all is that these ego driven people have to launch personal attacks on good people because someone doesnt think midsized frames are appropriate, or because someone doesnt wish to email someone directly, or because someone doesnt happen to think the frame they use is all that, or because someone doesnt wish to hook up an internet stranger with tennis stuff on the cheap, or because someone thinks they can ridicule someone and not be reminded of their bad behaviour, or when someone attacks someone and then gets all hacked off because they are put on that persons ignore list, or when someone on the persons ignore list and they know it takes advantage of that to further ridicule a person..etc etc and etc. It's a shame people have to launch personal atacks on people who know much about tennis, are excellent teaching pros, know the gear well, and who are only trying to help and to give something back to the game..it's a shame.

As for me, since we are describing our games here, I am at least a 5.0 and am told by the other teaching pros around here that i am a 5.5, and i am considered to be a very good ball striker. I am also realistic, and I'm just not good enough to use a mid sized frame altho i learned to play with wood. Even the 95 headsized frames would cause my level of play to drop a bit depending upon how big the sweetspot of that particular 95 frame is. sure, i could easly use a midsized frame against a 4.0 or something, but ramp up a couple notches and get really disadvantaged. even if i could use the midsize, there really isnt any benefit as there isnt anything that a midsized frame can do that a MP cant..we've been down that path before around here as well and i got attacked numerously for saying that as well and people made ridiculous statements about what midsized frames can do that other frames cant....the best people could come up with is that people can use whatever they damn well please....while that is certainly true, i thought the purpose of this forum was to try and learn something about the game, it's gear, and to improve.

Lastly, I could probably find 20 frames that TW stocks that i could learn to use to the best of my capacity to make the things work, and to also come to enjoy the feel after getting them setup right for me. But TW sure thrives on all the frequent racquet changers for sure. As for me, I am happy using what I've been using for the last 3 years and until something comes along which I think can make me into a better player (highly doubtful), i'll just be happily using what i use.

Disclaimers: Everyone can use whatever they damn well please.;O No personal attacks for me saying this because it only looks bad on the attacker

peter
01-10-2006, 12:21 PM
ITo answer the original poster's question, the Wilson PS 85 is "demanding" in the sense that you have to employ more body work and have good hand-eye coordination of an OLD SCHOOL flatter-stroke type.

To use a more "modern" frame requires a more of a more NEW SCHOOL approach, more topspin, quick hands, open-stancey type stuff. Different demands that are less familiar to some.


Indeed. And since I play a more of the OLD SCHOOL flat strike attacking style I love the PS6.0-85. I've actually tested a multitude of different rackets (my coach every now and then brings a bag of "modern" rackets and have us players test them, and I own a bunch of more "player" style rackets in size 95) and I can definitely say that the "modern" lightweight rackets with bigger headsized (98 and bigger) are *not* for me. Horrible feel when you go for your hard flat shots (vibrations galore and the arm hurts really quickly - I miss the *mass*).

The racket that I've come to rate as a close second to the PS6.0-85 is the Dunlop Hotmelt 200G. That is also a pretty good flat baseline striker (but not as good for volleying).

Btw, regarding the "problem" with hitting shoulder high bouncing balls using a 6.0-85 - that's just not true for me. I actually love getting those high bouncing balls - perfect to swing away at - no need for any topspin at all - just pure power! :-)

Granted it is harder to hit generate the same heavy topspin style shots with the PS6.0-85 than with the lightweight-oversize rackets (but who would want to hit those slow boring high-jumping shots anyway? :-)

Keifers
01-10-2006, 12:54 PM
... even if i could use the midsize, there really isnt any benefit as there isnt anything that a midsized frame can do that a MP cant..we've been down that path before around here as well and i got attacked numerously for saying that as well and people made ridiculous statements about what midsized frames can do that other frames cant....
This (the first sentence) I disagree with. I am not attacking you for your opinion. I do think a midsized frame moves through the air more easily than a midplus. That is my subjective experience.

You're right that this particular issue has in the past produced a lot of contentious, unpleasant back-and-forth. I propose that this time we try to not go there. I'm not even saying "Let's agree to disagree" -- I am saying that you have a right to your view and I have a right to mine. And I post mine here as my view, not as an attack on yours or anyone else's.

NoBadMojo
01-10-2006, 01:16 PM
This (the first sentence) I disagree with. I am not attacking you for your opinion. I do think a midsized frame moves through the air more easily than a midplus. That is my subjective experience.

You're right that this particular issue has in the past produced a lot of contentious, unpleasant back-and-forth. I propose that this time we try to not go there. I'm not even saying "Let's agree to disagree" -- I am saying that you have a right to your view and I have a right to mine. And I post mine here as my view, not as an attack on yours or anyone else's.

Volkl Tour10MPGen2 = 98 headsize = 315SW <or so>
Wilson PS85 = 85 headsize = 330SW <or so>
one example of many and some things should be discussed objectively because some things can and should be in my estimation. i dont think anyone can possibly dispute that racquet 1 is more maneuverable than Racquet2 on any stroke known to mankind.

Keifers
01-10-2006, 02:28 PM
You're certainly entitled to your estimation that some things can and should be discussed objectively. Unfortunately, the performance characteristic I'm talking about (let's call it tta - for through the air) is not captured in the sw spec, and to my knowledge, there is no official or commonly-used spec for measuring tta.

I wish there were. One could be devised and introduced into the lexicon of racquet technology. But the fact that there isn't one doesn't mean my empirical experience is invalid. It just means it can't be measured by an objective, standard test.

I'm not trying to get out of proving that there is a real difference in the ease with which different head sizes move through the air. I would love to have the wherewithal to do it.

Meanwhile, I report that my subjective experience is that mids move through the air more easily than midpluses. And I leave it to people to decide whether they accept or reject my opinion-based-on-subjective-experience.

NoBadMojo
01-10-2006, 02:45 PM
Swingweight measures the maneuverablity of a racquet..are you disputing that? dont know what tta is, but i assume that means maneuverability? you dont think swingweight measures maneuverability? do you now know how RDC swingweight is measured?
Things are easy in my world...a 325 swingweight frame is harder to swing than a 320 swingweight frame regardless of headsize...thise are the stats and that is how it feels to me as well..that's the very purpose of measuring swingweight....
obviously i am unable to dispute what you purport to be true since what you purport to be true by your very admission is subjective (and as such is not provable anyway) and we've gone full circle. but i do wonder why you wouldnt think swingweight is a measure of what you call tata?
but you are right Keifers..you are sure more than welcome to state your opinion and certainly no offense taken...if you think high swingweighed frames are more maneuverabe than lighter swingweight mid pluses, thats your perrogative, but you're clearly wrong. Anyone who knows tennis and would play the two frames i mentoned earlier would agree which one is more maneuverable. if you cant see that, i simply dont understand where you are comng from..
So again..i ask you if you think the ps85 being a midsized frame is more maneverabe than the Gen2?

BreakPoint
01-10-2006, 03:33 PM
Swingweight measures the maneuverablity of a racquet..are you disputing that?

Yes, sort of, because in my opinion, swingweight actually measures how much effort it takes to take a full, long swing of the racquet, which to me, is a little different from "maneuverability". To me, "maneuverability" also encompasses how easily or how cumbersome it is to move the racquet head into position without perceived obstruction or from one place to another within the 3D air space that the racquet head occupies for a variety of strokes and situations and not just for full, long swings. Thus, from my extensive experience playing with hundreds of different racquets, I agree with Keifers in that I also find smaller-headed, thinner-beamed racquets more "maneuverable" than larger-headed, thicker-beamed racquets even if they are of the same exact swingweight.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. :D

FiveO
01-10-2006, 04:54 PM
...As for me, since we are describing our games here, I am at least a 5.0 and am told by the other teaching pros around here that i am a 5.5, and i am considered to be a very good ball striker. I am also realistic, and I'm just not good enough to use a mid sized frame altho i learned to play with wood. Even the 95 head sized frames would cause my level of play to drop a bit depending upon how big the sweet spot of that particular 95 frame is. sure, i could easly use a midsized frame against a 4.0 or something, but ramp up a couple notches and get really disadvantaged. even if i could use the midsize, there really isnt any benefit as there isnt anything that a midsized frame can do that a MP cant. we’ve been down that path before around here as well and i got attacked numerously for saying that as well and people made ridiculous statements about what midsized frames can do that other frames cant....the best people could come up with is that people can use whatever they damn well please....while that is certainly true, i thought the purpose of this forum was to try and learn something about the game, it's gear, and to improve...

NoBadMojo,

Please don't interpret my post as an attack of you or your opinion. It was never intended as such and I feel we agree on the vast majority points on this topic and how it applies to the vast majority of players. It was not intended as an argument for smaller head sizes per se. It is simply stating that based on the characteristics I prefer in a stick and the sensory elements, associated and not, with those characteristics, my preferences have lead to what I play. Were it possible to play blind-folded I believe I would have ended up in the same place.

Prior to my limited play test I believed that I would end up with either the Tour or 500MP but it didn't happen that way. Very importantly, I also acknowledge that my list was limited going in, because of grip shape. I may have found a Head or Volkl which had the characteristics I like from those manufacturer's offerings, with a 95"+ heads, had they shaped their factory handles differently. However, given the choice, grip shape is enough reason for me to limit my options.

I was in no way implying that my experiences or level were better than anyone else's. It's just a history. However the compilation of those experiences, which on paper seem very similar to your own, have lead me to a slightly different end. Not better, I believe no worse, just slightly different. One player may prefer, exploit, adapt to and use more efficiently certain characteristics; others may find those very characteristics, which can vary from frame to frame with similar or disparate dimensions, unfamiliar to jarring to detrimental. Others, like myself, are not as comfortable or malleable in adjusting to subtle to more major differences in playing characteristics of different sticks.

I myself have moved from, what I think we can agree, would qualify as a "true player's frame" even an "uber-player's frame", to what would have been described as a tweener up until a couple of years ago in terms of weight. The PPRTi I played was described as a near "tweener" when it came out and it was an excellent frame having much in common with some of the current best Mid-Plus choices which are available today. In fact, in time, when age more significantly effects my ability to achieve higher swing speeds, coupled with what frames may be available or not with the majority of characteristics I prefer, I will predict that I will eventually transition to a larger head, slightly more powerful stick. Hopefully someone will be making one with the other characteristics my sensory set finds familiar.

But within the description that "there isn’t anything that a midsized frame can do that a MP cant" doesn't there exist the possibility that the MP might have some characteristic(s) which are not preferred, perhaps even unwanted even when comparing even one MP to another MP?

I don't think that the idea, is that radical and before making the following statement I will offer a caveat that it is in no way drawing a parallel of playing abilities. It is ONLY stated in regards to personal preference: Some playing professionals are more adaptable and have made equipment changes mid career, others decline to change frames throughout their careers to the point that even if "signing" with another manufacturer they will insist on playing "their frame" under a "paint job". If one feels any good player can adapt to playing with any frame, we would have to believe that the best players in the world would do that, like everything else they do on court, better than everyone else. Some can and do, others don't. Some adapt well to changes other's can't or at some level of consciousness, feel they can't or simply choose not to.

While that comparison is apples and oranges terms of playing abilities I think it demonstrates an apples/apples comparison in terms of preference and adaptability from individual to individual. I believe familiarity of sensory input may be more important in one person than the next. Again, not better, but I think different. Some may want and adapt well to the added pace the larger heads I play tested can provide, for instance. Others may not want that or need a particular characteristic in order to remain on an even keel with their competition. Personally and objectively as I can be, I do not feel like a salmon swimming upstream with my choice. From our wood days weren't there players who inherently generated more pace than other very good players, in some instances a lot more pace?

My premise wasn't an argument against yours or racquet head size in general. It was much more about characteristics, preferences and adaptability. What some want and/or need vs. others they may not want, need or comfortably adapt to, ending in a particular player's individual "sweet spot". It was absolutely not an attack, and if it read as such, I apologize.

5

Rath
01-10-2006, 05:10 PM
Does swingweight alone indicate anything about maneuverability? I don't think so.

Consider this from TW specs:
Wilson Ncode 6.1 Tour 90 Swingweight:326 wt:12.4 oz
Wilson Ncode N6 Oversize Swingweight:328 wt:9.7 oz

TW also states that Oversize has all the makings of a maneuverable, slice and dice racquet that's perfectly suited for angle and touch doubles play

Take both these racquets to the net and you can tell within the 1st 5 min which one is easier to get around. Won't be the Tour 90 (which has a lesser swingweight). Point is swingweight has to be looked at in combination with weight and balance. If you want to select based on swingweight, the weights have to be identical. Not only that, but I think the head size has to be identical too.

Having said that I do believe smaller head size racquets cut through air better because:

(1) Weight is concentrated in a smaller area
(2) Better aerodynamics
(3) More importantly users have reported it too (Kind of like string tension vs spin which for a long time had no scientific explantion)

None of these are considered by the RDC which only measures the rotational inertia. It is like looking at pendulum on a string. If you increase the length the inertia will increase and vice versa. On a racquet you are looking at the weight distribution along the length.

This is another one of the cases where the player feels something on the field but science does not have an explanation for it yet?

NoBadMojo
01-10-2006, 05:22 PM
NoBadMojo,


But within the description that "there isn’t anything that a midsized frame can do that a MP cant" doesn't there exist the possibility that the MP might have some characteristic(s) which are not preferred, perhaps even unwanted even when comparing one MP to another MP?


Fiver I've nothing at all against what you write, and sorry if you think i portrayed anything in that light. You know what you are talking about and we need more posters like you.

In resonse....Well sure Mp's are all created differently so there certainly will be elements some have which are preferred over others. As to midsized frames being better and having elements which can not be found in MP's, we get alot of urban legends and untruths. and a while ago i created a thread inviting for someone to state just one single thing that a midsized frame can do which a MP can not....I got the usual stuf like how they force you to have better footwork and how they give you better technique and a bunch of stuf which ust isnt true.
The discussion ended with me being attacked all over the place <pretty much like the threads over the holidays and up to now> and people saying the reasons they are better is 'because they say they are better' or because 'we can use whatever we like'...not very objective i dont think. When you compare advantages to MP and larger headed frames over Midsized there are several obvious ones which I would think people can understand. Convesely, when you try and come up with advantages to Mid sized frames over MP which cant be replicated in a MP. there really arent any objectve ones other than some people think smaller sweetspots are somehow better than larger ones and other stuff like that. In any case, I dont wish to go round and round about this and i am kinda tired of all the attacks, so you all figure this out. I know that several posters have thanked me for taking a bunch of crap about this because they are now playing better T by moving up to something right for them sweetspotsizewise, and several of my lessons are ecstatic because I got them into the right gear for them and can now really work on their games and their improvement rate has skyrocketed..they couldnt be happier...lots of players are simply precluded from improving because they hang on to the notion that midsized frames are somehow better and also the notion that they need to have their frame strung tightly or use poly. Then there are those who just choose to attack..i assume those are the midsized users who think i suck because i dont happen to think the midsized frame they use are likely right for them;) . None of this is ever personal from my end, but yet it somehow becomes that way from the other end. It's pretty clear that some people get their jollies off around here just by trying to jerk people around.
Disclaimer: People should play tennis with whatever they want to. No personal atacks please for me posting this. This post is not directed at any specific individual other than FiveOh. Like anything there are always exceptions, and just becase peope are using midsized frames it doesnt mean they are using the right gear

Bolt
01-10-2006, 05:28 PM
Good post Rath. Perhaps there is some way to incorporate weight, balance, swingweight and headsize into a metric that can approximate real-world maneuverability.

NoBadMojo
01-10-2006, 05:35 PM
Does swingweight alone indicate anything about maneuverability? I don't think so.

*****Swingweight IS a measurement of maneuverablity..thats what it measures..that's it's purpose***********


TW also states that Oversize has all the makings of a maneuverable, slice and dice racquet that's perfectly suited for angle and touch doubles play

*****So much for the theory that midsized frames are more maneuverable*************



I've given up. Now I am wishing there was also an Ignore Thread feature. I suggest that people should not proclaim to know about swingweight <or anything else for that matter> when they clearly dont know about swingweight, and that maybe they should speak from some sort of knowledge instead..maybe even find out what RDC Swingweight means..what it measures.....etc..

nViATi
01-10-2006, 05:38 PM
I've given up. Now I am wishing there was also an Ignore Thread feature
There is.. Don't click on the thread ;)

NoBadMojo
01-10-2006, 05:43 PM
There is.. Don't click on the thread ;)

you're ever so brilliant....how did you get this smart? ya know, i dont think i could ave possibly figured ths out otherwise, and what a wonderful contribution you've made to this discussion, and oh so necessary...

nViATi
01-10-2006, 05:47 PM
you're ever so brilliant....how did you get this smart? ya know, i dont think i could ave possibly figured ths out otherwise, and what a wonderful contribution you've made to this discussion, and oh so necessary...
Thank you :)

NoBadMojo
01-10-2006, 05:53 PM
dup post..my bad

NoBadMojo
01-10-2006, 05:54 PM
you're quite welcome Navianti, and i would like to take this opportunity to welcome you to my ignore list in spite of the fact that you are such an integral contributor to this thread. why dont you try and post something constructive instead of just busting peoples' balls? you seem like one of the posters i just mentioned who just wish to jerk people around and i'm glad to not have to read your posts. have a nice nite hoss.

tnkGod4tns
01-10-2006, 06:07 PM
all I can say is that there is no perfect racket, I've been around and tested so many frames but I always go back to my ps 85, not that it would work with anybody but I do believe in finding a racket that suits your style and stick with it, I like what a good doctor friend of mine once said that there is no perfect medicine, somewhere along the way there is always going to be a side effect, it's just a matter of weighing everything out, just like in picking a racket there's always a trade of between variables you just have to weigh out which one is more advantageous to you as a player.

Bolt
01-10-2006, 06:11 PM
you're quite welcome Navianti, and i would like to take this opportunity to welcome you to my ignore list in spite of the fact that you are such an integral contributor to this thread. why dont you try and post something constructive instead of just busting peoples' balls? you seem like one of the posters i just mentioned who just wish to jerk people around and i'm glad to not have to read your posts. have a nice nite hoss.

You are clearly losing it, dude. nViATi clearly used a smilie ... oh wait ... I forgot the lesson you taught us in another thread ... those smilies are only emoticons when you use them. Ignore on, Batman! :)

fishuuuuu
01-10-2006, 06:16 PM
you're quite welcome Navianti, and i would like to take this opportunity to welcome you to my ignore list in spite of the fact that you are such an integral contributor to this thread. why dont you try and post something constructive instead of just busting peoples' balls? you seem like one of the posters i just mentioned who just wish to jerk people around and i'm glad to not have to read your posts. have a nice nite hoss.

Will all the members on TW fit on your ignore list? :confused:

You know NBM looks like he was just trying to lighten the mood with a little humour but I don't know if you'll actually see this message or ignore me and it as an attack. Busting your balls? He just said you didn't have to click here anymore, is that so hard? Do we all have to praise your high and mighty and deeply sought after advice about everything? (And I mean everything.)

Yes, yes, you don't even have to write a reply, I am aware I'm welcome to your ignore list. :p

Have a nice night hoss.

P.S. This racquet is demanding to use, but then again I grew up on 110" racquets. Awesome to fool around with to gauge the "correctiveness" of your strokes though.

NoBadMojo
01-10-2006, 06:30 PM
Will all the members on TW fit on your ignore list? :confused:

You know NBM looks like he was just trying to lighten the mood with a little humour but I don't know if you'll actually see this message or ignore me and it as an attack. Busting your balls? He just said you didn't have to click here anymore, is that so hard? Do we all have to praise your high and mighty and deeply sought after advice about everything? (And I mean everything.)

Yes, yes, you don't even have to write a reply, I am aware I'm welcome to your ignore list. :p

Have a nice night hoss.

P.S. This racquet is demanding to use, but then again I grew up on 110" racquets. Awesome to fool around with to gauge the "correctiveness" of your strokes though.

that's pretty cool you knew the guys intentions for posting what he did..i would say that makes YOU think that YOU are the high and mighty one and not me. now i have to try and count the nmber of u's in your handle to get you on my ignore list....i wonder if you would like it much being atacked all over the place, and YOUR comments really arent necessary either.

Bolt
01-10-2006, 06:36 PM
that's pretty cool you knew the guys intentions for posting what he did..i would say that makes YOU think that YOU are the high and mighty one and not me. now i have to try and count the nmber of u's in your handle to get you on my ignore list....i wonder if you would like it much being atacked all over the place, and YOUR comments really arent necessary either.

I stand corrected. You aren't losing it ... it's long gone.

P.S. The smilie was the giveaway.

fishuuuuu
01-10-2006, 06:51 PM
that's pretty cool you knew the guys intentions for posting what he did..i would say that makes YOU think that YOU are the high and mighty one and not me. now i have to try and count the nmber of u's in your handle to get you on my ignore list....i wonder if you would like it much being atacked all over the place, and YOUR comments really arent necessary either.

You really have gone over the deep end. I didn't know restating blatant observations made me high and mighty (thanks for telling me though). I hope it's not past your mathematical capability ... there are 1, 2, 3, 4, oh, oh, oh, 5 u's in my username.

I thought you were trying to ignore this thread? :confused:

But I commend you on returning to let me know I'm ignored, even after I told you that you didn't have to, great guy you are ... there is no doubt in my mind! :p

P.S. Ample preparation time, footwork, and commitment make this racquet great despite it's higher-standard.

fishuuuuu
01-10-2006, 06:58 PM
that's pretty cool you knew the guys intentions for posting what he did..i would say that makes YOU think that YOU are the high and mighty one and not me. now i have to try and count the nmber of u's in your handle to get you on my ignore list....i wonder if you would like it much being atacked all over the place, and YOUR comments really arent necessary either.

I forgot to mention that you didn't contribute to the thread, hypocrite. :p

P.S. It's amazing how much spin you can make with 85 inches, but you really have to concentrate an amazing amount compared to a Pure Drive or O3 racquet.

Radical Shot
01-10-2006, 07:02 PM
Yes, I have tried all sorts of string and tension combinations and have found that with Big Banger Ace @56 pounds, I get comfort, power, control and lots of spin. The only down side is that the string loses tension too quick.

Yesterday I played with a very hard-hitting guy using a Babolat Aero. He smoked a few against me, I smoked a few against him. I did find it hard to get some of the balls back, but when I concentrated, moved my feet and prepared early there was no problems at all. These things are basics to tennis and I reckon that whatever racquet I used against him I would find it hard unless I did these things aswell.

Nothing smokes better than a Pro Staff 6.0 85 one-hander down the line hit in dead centre.

NoBadMojo
01-10-2006, 07:03 PM
additionally people like Bolt have been on my ignore list for some time and are aware of it..so if they are saying negative things about me..they know i cant see them and perhaps that empowers them and gives them the courage to pick the smallest of perceived mistakes i possibly maybe might have made apart and to pass judgment. I am happy to leave ths thread..it isnt my fault people dont understand swingweight and things like that even though they proclaim to..i have tried to explain things like this patiently and to the best of my ability and in a polite way...attack on as you like....if people dont like what i say or think i parse incorrect info, they are certainly most welcome to put me on their ignore list as well.. the reality is there are many posters around here who are best ignored, and a whole bunch who really dont know much about tennis but proclaim to...atack away ya all. my back is now completely turned...enjoy

fishuuuuu
01-10-2006, 07:06 PM
additionally people like Bolt have been on my ignore list for some time and are aware of it..so if they are saying negative things about me..they know i cant see them and perhaps that empowers them and gives them the courage to pick the smallest of perceived mistakes i possibly maybe might have made apart and to pass judgment. I am happy to leave ths thread..it isnt my fault people dont understand swingweight and things like that even though they proclaim to..i have tried to explain things like this patiently and to the best of my ability and in a polite way...attack on as you like....if people dont like what i say or think i parse incorrect info, they are certainly most welcome to put me on their ignore list as well.. the reality is there are many posters around here who are best ignored, and a whole bunch who really dont know much about tennis but proclaim to...atack away ya all. my back is now completely turned...enjoy

Aw ... I'm sorry NBM :(

I wasn't attacking you because of swing-weight and things like that ... I was attacking you because you're just a nut!

P.S. I used a synthetic gut on it and it felt somewhat powerful, I imagine using a polyester string might make it a little cumbersome to swing and get paid little on dividends in the way of pace.

Bolt
01-10-2006, 07:16 PM
I wasn't attacking you because of swing-weight and things like that ... I was attacking you because you're just a nut!

Yep.

I do think that measuring the true, real-world maneuverability of a frame does require more than just a swingweight comparison.

And, NBM, I'm empowered by your missing sanity. I know you're reading my posts even after claiming not to which is even more empowering. :p

Keifers
01-10-2006, 07:38 PM
Swingweight measures the maneuverablity of a racquet..are you disputing that? dont know what tta is, but i assume that means maneuverability? you dont think swingweight measures maneuverability? do you now know how RDC swingweight is measured?
Things are easy in my world...a 325 swingweight frame is harder to swing than a 320 swingweight frame regardless of headsize...thise are the stats and that is how it feels to me as well..that's the very purpose of measuring swingweight....
obviously i am unable to dispute what you purport to be true since what you purport to be true by your very admission is subjective (and as such is not provable anyway) and we've gone full circle. but i do wonder why you wouldnt think swingweight is a measure of what you call tata?
but you are right Keifers..you are sure more than welcome to state your opinion and certainly no offense taken...if you think high swingweighed frames are more maneuverabe than lighter swingweight mid pluses, thats your perrogative, but you're clearly wrong. Anyone who knows tennis and would play the two frames i mentoned earlier would agree which one is more maneuverable. if you cant see that, i simply dont understand where you are comng from..
So again..i ask you if you think the ps85 being a midsized frame is more maneverabe than the Gen2?
No question that the PS 85 (TW: 329 sw) is heavier to swing, less maneuverable than the GenII (315 sw). Their static weights (357g vs. 340g) and balance points (8 pts HL vs. 9 pts HL) indicate that would be the case also. And so it is on the court. Small head, heavier racquet = harder to swing = harder to move into position = more work to move through the air than larger head but lighter and lower-sw racquet. No argument there. OK?

Now for the next part, I'd like you to bear with me a bit. Give me a chance to make my case. Give me some benefit of the doubt, at least for a little while. Thanks in advance! (I hope!)

(I say this because this is where previous discussions have gone off the rails, fallen apart, whatever, and it would be really good if we could all get further this time.)

Let's now consider 2 racquets that have the same sw, static weight, balance, etc. -- everything the same, except head size. Now you would say they're going to swing exactly the same - by definition - because they measure the same; because, most significantly, their sws are the same.

And you would be right. Same sw = same maneuverability, by definition. No argument.

My contention is that the 85" frame will be noticeably easier to move through the air (tta) than the 95" because of a factor that is not measured when sw is measured: aerodynamics. The difference aerodynamics makes is not measured by the RDA because sw is measured a relatively slow swing speeds (and probably because the RDA is not sensitive enough to measure these admittedly small differences).

To support my contention, I ask you to swish an OS racquet about in your room. You can feel a fan-like wind resistance in the head area, right? Take a 95" racquet as similar as possible to the OS (except for head size) and swish it about in your room. Less wind resistance, right?

That's the difference I'm talking about. Admittedly very small compared with the diff sw, weight, balance, etc. make, but, nevertheless, noticeable to me and some others here.

Similarly, I find the difference in tta between 17mm beam width and 20mm noticeable -- because of wind resistance.

The PS 85 is one of the very few racquets that's been described as "scalpel-like" -- it's the only one that I've seen so described. I certainly found it to be so -- I wasn't even expecting it and I felt this sense that I could really be scalpel-maneuverable and scalpel-accurate in the way I moved the racquet into position and hit the ball and followed through. I think it's because of this wind resistance factor.

Over to you.

BreakPoint
01-10-2006, 08:19 PM
Will all the members on TW fit on your ignore list? :confused:


Yeah, at this rate, the next time NBMJ opens up the TW Talk Tennis message board, he'll probably be staring at a blank screen. ;) LOL.

Rath
01-10-2006, 09:00 PM
NBM: I respectfully ask you to read my previous post again. If you were to go by swingweight you would have to consider the Tour 90 more maneuvarable than the N6 which we know is not true.

I do know what swingweight is. It is nothing but moment of inertia of a moving tennis racquet. To put it simply, think of a pendulum on a string. If you had a heavier pendulum it will oscillate with more kinetic energy than a lighter one. This is exactly what the Babalot RDC measures.

The underlying assumption here is same racquet velocity. Another real world variable not captured here. Heavier racquets can be moved fast in the air without loss of ball control because they have small heads (translates to decreased string bed elasticity).

Swingweight has nothing to do with maneuvarability and cannot be used alone for racquet selection. Weight and balance should also be considered. I do realise that everybody including TW loosely use swingweight and manuevarability like its the same thing but it is not.

Also, I do think swingweight is a useful parameter if you are trying match racquets etc.

Rath
01-10-2006, 09:21 PM
Bolt: Thanks for the compliment.
I believe there is a real world number for the power potential of a racquet based on headsize, flex and swingweight.
Yeah, it will be nice to have a maneuverability number too. But I don't think the racquet companies will like that. They want you to keep trying out their racquets. Just joking :)

Keifers
01-10-2006, 09:28 PM
Rath: I meant to applaud your previous post (#86) before now, but had something to attend to. I suspect you're right in that, in addition to aerodynamics, the concentration of mass in a smaller head increases the maneuverability of the racquet -- I'll have to think more about the physics of that *.

In any case, I agree that the racquet parameters that are currently measured and used and are not adequate to describe all the sensations experienced and reported by some players here.

pinky42
01-10-2006, 09:38 PM
Swingweight has nothing to do with maneuvarability and cannot be used alone for racquet selection. Weight and balance should also be considered. I do realise that everybody including TW loosely use swingweight and manuevarability like its the same thing but it is not.

Also, I do think swingweight is a useful parameter if you are trying match racquets etc.

I agree that swingweight cannot be used alone for racquet selection but disagree that it has nothing to do with maneuverability. I believe they are correlated.

It's a shame that people use swingweight and maneuverability interchangeably. They are not the same thing. One is objective (swingweight) and the other is subjective. Put it this way. Maneuverability doesn't have units.

Keifers
01-10-2006, 09:46 PM
I agree that swingweight cannot be used alone for racquet selection but disagree that it has nothing to do with maneuverability. I believe they are correlated.

It's a shame that people use swingweight and maneuverability interchangeably. They are not the same thing. One is objective (swingweight) and the other is subjective. Put it this way. Maneuverability doesn't have units.
Well put, pinky42. Equating swingweight with maneuverability has limited the common meaning of that word. Would be nice to de-couple them, but that may not be possible. Of course, TW may just be the organization that can help do it.

Rath
01-10-2006, 10:06 PM
I agree that swingweight cannot be used alone for racquet selection but disagree that it has nothing to do with maneuverability. I believe they are correlated.

It's a shame that people use swingweight and maneuverability interchangeably. They are not the same thing. One is objective (swingweight) and the other is subjective. Put it this way. Maneuverability doesn't have units.

Pinky42: You are right. Wrong choice of words on my part. I was trying to say that when somebody says low swingweight it does not translate to better manueverability. Swingweight will play a role in defining maneuvarability but not without considering weight, balance, headsize. In fact I think weight will be more of a contributing factor, I think.

Rath
01-10-2006, 10:57 PM
Keifers: Thanks. Appreciate it.

In order to look at weight distribution and tta, consider this. By the way, I am gonna use your term: tta. Nice one. Let us say tta means effort required through the air. More meaning tough to swing.

Case 1: Take any racquet and add about say 15 g of lead total at 3 & 9positions. You don't even have to hit a ball but if you just swing it around forehand, serve etc you will see that tta has increased.

Case 2: Let us take all the weight out of there and put in the middle of the string bed (intesection of 3-9 line and 12-6 line). For the sake of experimentation. Wouldn't you agree that with this setup that the increase in tta won't be as much as Case 1.

However, in both cases the increase in swingweight should be the same.

What happens during a stroke?

Let us think about a forehand. If you think about the forces experienced by your hand, it is not the same thing the Babolat RDC measures. This is why. During the stroke, the angle of the racquet (with respect to a vertical plane parallel to net) is always changing from takeback to impact to followthrough. Yes, swingweight does contribute here. But we do not consider the inertia due to the torsion (twisting moment experienced by you hand) of the racquet. When I say twisting, I am talking about the twisting force your hand produces or experiences when you are changing the angle of the racquet. Surely it is there. Won't you agree a bigger racquet head will produce more torsion on you hand? Simply because the weight is moved further away from the centerline (12-6) contributing to more torsional moment. Hence tta will be a function of: (swingweight, torsion, aerodynamics).

I believe this contributes to your tta being less on smaller head sizes. Let me know what you think.

BreakPoint
01-10-2006, 11:20 PM
Let us think about a forehand. If you think about the forces experienced by your hand, it is not the same thing the Babolat RDC measures. This is why. During the stroke, the angle of the racquet (with respect to a vertical plane parallel to net) is always changing from takeback to impact to followthrough. Yes, swingweight does contribute here. But we do not consider the inertia due to the torsion (twisting moment experienced by you hand) of the racquet. When I say twisting, I am talking about the twisting force your hand produces or experiences when you are changing the angle of the racquet. Surely it is there. Won't you agree a bigger racquet head will produce more torsion on you hand? Simply because the weight is moved further away from the centerline (12-6) contributing to more torsional moment. Hence tta will be a function of: (swingweight, torsion, aerodynamics).

I believe this contributes to your tta being less on smaller head sizes. Let me know what you think.

I agree. Maneuverabity is NOT just swingweight alone. It is a combination of swingweight, aerodynamics, torsion, head size, total volume of air space the entire racquet takes up, static weight, and balance.

An example, even if a Lincoln Navigator SUV was the same exact weight as a Mazda Miata 2-seater sports car, the Navigator would still be harder to maneuver than the Miata just due to its sheer size and volume.

Keifers
01-10-2006, 11:28 PM
Rath: Thanks for your thoughtful ideas. Getting late so I'll sign off and respond tomorrow.

peter
01-11-2006, 12:38 AM
you're quite welcome Navianti, and i would like to take this opportunity to welcome you to my ignore list in spite of the fact that you are such an integral contributor to this thread.


Hey ! I want in too! I'm feeling left out!!! It's unfair that just some posters get to be included into your ignore list! Unfair!!!!

peter
01-11-2006, 01:04 AM
I agree. Maneuverabity is NOT just swingweight alone. It is a combination of swingweight, aerodynamics, torsion, head size, total volume of air space the entire racquet takes up, static weight, and balance.


Definitely - I'd even go as far as saying that maneuverability has very little to do with swingweight. A little list I just compiled of rackets I've played with/tested with data I've collected from the TW site:


| Racket | Size | Weight | Swingweight | Balance |
|-----------------------|------|----------|--------------|----------|
| Wilson ProStaff 6.0 | 85 | 12.6 oz | 329 | 8 pts HL |
| Dunlop HM200G | 95 | 11.9 oz | 316 | 5 pts HL |
| Dunlop Maxply McEnroe | 98 | 11.3 oz | 327 | 3 pts HL |
| Babolat AeroPro Drive | 100 | 11.3 oz | 324 | 5 pts HL |


Out of these rackets I'd rate them, as far as maneuverability (for example being able to make quick movements at the net) goes, like this (most maneuverable first):

1. Wilson ProStaff 6.0-85 (very good)
2. Dunlop Maxply McEnroe (good)
3. Dunlop Hotmelt 200G (bad)
4. Babolat AeroPro Drive (very bad)

I have no idea why the McEnroe feels so easy to move around when then AeroPro feels horribly sluggish. The 6.0-85 is easily the best of these four though. Very easy to move around.

chess9
01-11-2006, 03:23 AM
Kiefers:

I was onboard until this:

"My contention is that the 85" frame will be noticeably easier to move through the air (tta) than the 95" because of a factor that is not measured when sw is measured: aerodynamics. The difference aerodynamics makes is not measured by the RDA because sw is measured a relatively slow swing speeds (and probably because the RDA is not sensitive enough to measure these admittedly small differences)."

The aerodynamic differences (delta Cda) between a 135 sq. in. racquet and a 66 sq. in. woodie are slight at best. The Babolat aero frames, for instance, are, IMHO, a marketing gimmick as bad as the magnets in the new Fischer racquet. (Both are fine racquets nonetheless.) Even during the brief delivery phase of a serve where arm speeds reach on the order of, what, 80-90 mph (?), the aerodynamic considerations are minimal.

I'd be interested in seeing some actual drag numbers on various racquets if someone has that data (However, it is doubtful that any manufacturer has taken any tennis racquet to the wind tunnel).

Best Regards
-Robert
________
Volcano vaporizer (http://volcanovaporizer.net/)

Mulligan
01-11-2006, 05:00 AM
you're quite welcome Navianti, and i would like to take this opportunity to welcome you to my ignore list in spite of the fact that you are such an integral contributor to this thread. why dont you try and post something constructive instead of just busting peoples' balls? you seem like one of the posters i just mentioned who just wish to jerk people around and i'm glad to not have to read your posts. have a nice nite hoss.

NVianti; I started to think that NoBadMojo was losing it when he called me a "hack" for having a good playing experience with a mid size frame last February (I also thought it was very maneuverable, which I think set him off). I honestly think Mr. Mojo has completely lost credibility on this board with the China size "ignore" list that he has developed. Its one thing to disagree with people and debate the issues; its quite another thing to continually call people wrong all of the time and when challenged, put them on an ignore list. I communicate off the board with a number of former posters that have become really fed up with this type of stuff on the TW board. Quite juvenile. Oh well, if I wasn't on the ignore list...I certainly am now.

Mulligan
01-11-2006, 05:09 AM
Oh, back to the issue at hand. I do not have any solid data other than my playing experiences during the past 25 years or so. (I am about a 4.5 player currently). I have found that of similarly swingweighted frames, in most cases, the smaller headsize racquet is more "maneuverable". I do not know the reason why, other than it must swing through the air with slightly less resistance. Either that, or psychologically the smaller frame just feels more maneuverable. I agree that there is a difference between "swingweight" and maneuverability. Just my humble opinion

Rabbit
01-11-2006, 05:16 AM
I think there is another factor here with manueverability. Head size plays a part in it as well; although I don't think aerodynamics is it. There is something about the relationship between the head and the shaft and the swing of a racket that gives the feel of maneverability. I routinely play with wood rackets and they just feel like they're easier to move through the stroke even though they're heavier than what we play with today.

I think it has more to do with leverage than anything else. The head of a wood racket is further away from the hand which gives the impression that it is more maneuverable. With an oversized racket, the head of the frame is closer to the hand and you don't get the same feel.

This may be goofier than hell, but I know that when I hit with a wood frame, I can feel the head better than when I play with something larger.

As for as your new golf clubs are concerned...They don't have to be big and ugly to be easy to hit anymore. Cleveland and Hogan (as well as others) have some really good looking irons that are easy to hit and won't require a mortgage on your house to buy. The real challenge is finding the time to play tennis and golf...

I am very much interested in hearing more. If this is not the venue, then I'll be happy to start a thread on the odds and ends. When I played golf, club selection was limited to what I could get from my dad. I don't know diddly about golf clubs now except that they are way more expensive than tennis rackets.

Ash Doyle
01-11-2006, 06:40 AM
Here's my opinion on it: Swingweight does not take into account headsize. That's a fact, you can look up the equation online and see that. At least to me, smaller headsizes do feel more manueverable. BUT I think that is a perceived and not a real difference. When it comes to generating racquet head speed I think that swingweight does give an accurate idea of how much resistance you're going to have when trying to generate speed in your swings. And that is the important issue. You may be able to place the racquet in time for volleys, and get the racquet around and in place for shots, but your ability to generate the speed needed for creating spin on groundstrokes, and spin and power on serves may suffer if the swingweight is outside of your comfort range.

Rath
01-11-2006, 07:39 AM
An example, even if a Lincoln Navigator SUV was the same exact weight as a Mazda Miata 2-seater sports car, the Navigator would still be harder to maneuver than the Miata just due to its sheer size and volume.

Excellent analogy here. On sports cars, not only do you see a low center of gravity but the heavy components (like engine, transmission, driver etc) is located closer to the center of gravity for better maneuverablility.

BreakPoint
01-11-2006, 01:17 PM
I agree. Maneuverabity is NOT just swingweight alone. It is a combination of swingweight, aerodynamics, torsion, head size, total volume of air space the entire racquet takes up, static weight, and balance.

An example, even if a Lincoln Navigator SUV was the same exact weight as a Mazda Miata 2-seater sports car, the Navigator would still be harder to maneuver than the Miata just due to its sheer size and volume.

At the risk of quoting myself, I accidently omitted one other important contributor to maneuverability, and that is: weight distribution. Weight distribution is not always reflected in a racquet's swingweight number and definitely has a significant impact on a racquet's maneuverability. Examples include the PS 6.0 85, Tour 90, and nCode 90. All three of these racquets have similar swingweights but they differ dramatically in maneuverability due to their different weight distributions.

BTW, weight distribution also applies to my SUV vs. sports car example. That is, even if the SUV was the same weight as the sports car, if the SUV had all of it's weight distributed to the edges or to one end, it would be much harder to maneuver than the sports car which has most of its weight distributed towards the center of the vehicle. Thus, the SUV's poor weight distribution can decrease it's maneuverability as much as its sheer size and volume can.