PDA

View Full Version : Which changes first? The racquets or the style of play?


BreakPoint
03-01-2006, 10:17 PM
I guess this is sort of an "chicken and egg" type of question.

There are some here that believe we need to change to "modern racquets" because the style of play has changed into the "modern game", which means since the game has changed, so the racquets now need to be changed to suit the new style of play. However, in my opinion, it's the other way around. Because the racquets changed, it enabled the game to be changed and ushered in a different style of play. So to me, it appears as if it was the racquet manufacturers that forced this change upon us by continuously introducing bigger and more powerful racquets rather than any changes in the game that was desired by the players first.

I mean if graphite racquets were never invented, we'd probably all still be using wood racquets and still playing the game like Borg and McEnroe did back in the late '70's, right? So why did we allow the racquet manufacturers to change the game of tennis and force a new style of play upon us? Did anyone ask for this change?

So anyway, which do you think comes first, the change in racquets which forces the style of play to change or the change in style of play which demands new types of racquets?

AngeloDS
03-01-2006, 10:42 PM
Tennis started off baseline, and this was prominant in the early 1900s. Bill Tilden did not use a continental grip and had a pretty good baseline game. One of the strongest and most dominant players. Amazing serves, backhands and forehands.

Then it progressed into serve and volley later down the road and we saw more continental grips.

Racquets have not made the modern game, nor' did the modern game make the racquets. The modern game is based on the person, their body and how they move their body. We don't see a lot of people in the past decades using upper body rotation like we see now as well as with the different swing paths and such.

New racquets came out because of the development of technology outside coming in and being integrated. But as well as racquet competition this racquet company comes out with a brand new racquet with new materials. And it works great, now this racquet company wants to top that and such.

Ulam
03-01-2006, 11:30 PM
I mean if graphite racquets were never invented, we'd probably all still be using wood racquets and still playing the game like Borg and McEnroe did back in the late '70's, right? So why did we allow the racquet manufacturers to change the game of tennis and force a new style of play upon us? Did anyone ask for this change?

They have not used the wooden racquets to its fullest. Mark Philippoussis tried serving with the wood and compared it to his racquet. There is very little difference in pace. So, I say the answer is both.

BreakPoint
03-02-2006, 12:04 AM
They have not used the wooden racquets to its fullest. Mark Philippoussis tried serving with the wood and compared it to his racquet. There is very little difference in pace. So, I say the answer is both.

Yes, I agree that there's not a huge difference between serving with wood versus serving with graphite, but there IS a huge difference between returning serve with a 65 sq. in, 14 oz., no power wood racquet versus returning serve with modern racquets.

anirut
03-02-2006, 12:18 AM
I voted for racket changed first.

But really, if it wasn't for Borg's and Vilas' crazy topspins, I guess, IMO, the game would mostly be flats.

Modern rackets have greatly enhanced the topspin. And that really changed the game.

hoosierbr
03-02-2006, 12:26 AM
I think it's a bit of both. Obviously, the change from wood to graphite affected how much more pace and power was brought to the game. Before guys like Lendl came along blowing people off the court very few players actually trained in the gym.

But the players themselves have ushered in a lot of changes. For example, Jack Kramer is credited with spearheading the serve-and-volley attack in order to beat his chief rival Don Budge, who stood on the baseline.

Borg and Vilas came along and started to hit with lots of topspin. Lendl took that and then added a whole lot more pace to his forehand. The big serve and forehand combo was excercised by Ivan and then picked up by others.

Boris Becker, Andre, Pete - all three made contributions to the game.

Nice point about Bill Tilden. It'd be interesting to see how he'd fare today. I think his game matches up pretty well with today's players.

AndrewD
03-02-2006, 01:06 AM
There are some here that believe we need to change to "modern racquets" because the style of play has changed into the "modern game", which means since the game has changed, so the racquets now need to be changed to suit the new style of play. However, in my opinion, it's the other way around.

Can you provide an example of anyone who suggests that the game just suddenly changed all by itself and not because of the change in equipment, surfaces and personnel? I mean a genuine example and not just someone saying 'the game has changed so you need to utilise modern equipment to play a modern game' (which is making no claim at all for how the 'modern game' developed).

Regardless, who asked for the change in equipment? We did and if anyone's to blame for the way equipment is today it's the people who made them financially viable - us.

BreakPoint
03-02-2006, 02:04 AM
Can you provide an example of anyone who suggests that the game just suddenly changed all by itself and not because of the change in equipment, surfaces and personnel? I mean a genuine example and not just someone saying 'the game has changed so you need to utilise modern equipment to play a modern game' (which is making no claim at all for how the 'modern game' developed).

Regardless, who asked for the change in equipment? We did and if anyone's to blame for the way equipment is today it's the people who made them financially viable - us.

Well, I guess one example would be pros like Borg and Vilas ushering in their massive topspin baseline game, much of which we still see today. I'm sure the manufacturers noticed this and decided that racquets with bigger heads, lighter weights, and more open string patterns would work better for this style of play.

Also, there are some here, one of which we all know and who is most vocal about preaching that since "the game has changed so we need to use modern racquets to play this new modern game." So that got me wondering, isn't it the modern racquets that enabled people to play this modern game? I mean, without the modern racquets, would most people still be playing the modern game? Or would people have mostly continued to play the old style game? Sure, there will always be a few that prefer to play the Borg/Vilas baseline style but would there still be people interested in playing the McEnroe/Edberg style of serve and volley play? Since with modern racquets and the modern game, serve and volleyers have become essentially an extinct species. Would this have occurred anyway if the racquet companies had not kept introducing newer and more modern racquets? So was it the players that wanted change and the racquet companies obliged by introducing racquets that the players wanted to buy? Or was it the manufacturers that introduced the modern racquets, without any prompting by the players, that forced the players to change their games to adapt to the new modern racquets?

BTW, this of course, still continues today, as the both the racquets and the game continues to evolve. Manufacturers keep coming out with new racquets and players keep changing their games, but which happens first? Does one necessarily follow the other? And is anyone asking for these new changes in both racquets and in the game? Would we be happy if the manufacturers never came out with another new racquet and we had to play with what's currently out on the market now? Likewise, would we be happy if the game stopped changing and we just had to keep playing the way we play now?

Mugatu
03-02-2006, 02:46 AM
i don't think it's a major issue. sure, manufacturers can produce much more powerful racquets these days, but the racquets used predominantly by pros are control-oriented rather than the more powerful racquets on the market. look at sampras; he dominated the game massively until only very recently using relatively old-school technology. all the hype about racquet technologies is mainly just marketing propoganda. i'm not at all interested in the most powerful racquet i can get my hands on; quite the opposite..

but i guess the racquets of today are very different to the wooden racquets of yesteryear which may be more the point of this thread. is anyone really that disinterested in watching guys like federer hit as hard as he does though??

rocket
03-02-2006, 02:51 AM
So that got me wondering, isn't it the modern racquets that enabled people to play this modern game? I mean, without the modern racquets, would most people still be playing the modern game? Or would people have mostly continued to play the old style game? Sure, there will always be a few that prefer to play the Borg/Vilas baseline style but would there still be people interested in playing the McEnroe/Edberg style of serve and volley play? Since with modern racquets and the modern game, serve and volleyers have become essentially an extinct species. Would this have occurred anyway if the racquet companies had not kept introducing newer and more modern racquets?

I think you're right. The introduction of graphite in the late 70s - early 80s changed everything. The mtl allows for stiffer & bigger frames, enhanced power, thus the game became a lot more fast & furious. Perhaps someone can point out a modern frame that doesn't have any graphite in it. :D

A faster game means better physical conditioning to create & withstand the pace. The game has become so fast that one doesn't have, or need, or dare to run up behind their serves. Plus, younger players learn to blast shots from the baseline, a la Bollettieri, that's why we don't see that many s&v plays anymore. Hopefully, a new McEnroe will come along bring the game back to the net to create a balance.

AndrewD
03-02-2006, 04:22 AM
I was asking for a concrete example of someone on this board who has stated that the game has changed of its own accord and not as a result of the change in equipment.

"So that got me wondering, isn't it the modern racquets that enabled people to play this modern game? "

Given that you're referring to NoBadMojo (why not just name him, this isn't a Harry Potter book), I'd suggest you read his posts a bit more closely and you'll find that is exactly why he's saying what he does. The equipment has changed, the game has changed as a result of the equipment changes (and all that enables) so "we need to use modern racquets to play this new modern game".

Agree with him or not, that's something he's been 'preaching' for as long as I've been on this board. How come you're only twigging to it now?

bluegrasser
03-02-2006, 05:11 AM
Mr Head changed the game ( OS frame ) plain and simple. why ? because he represented the majority of the populace, the 2.5 - 4.O tennis player who found it so damn difficult to play this crazy game at an acceptable level,so he made it easier by introducing the OS frame, and the rest is history folks.

tom4ny
03-02-2006, 05:31 AM
i think that a HUGE factor that changed the game of tennis is when it expanded out from the country club and into the public park and inner city.

secondly the improvement in full body conditioning and training has impacted all sports and they played faster today with more atheletic skill and raw power.

and technology has evolved too as evidenced by your automobile, electronic gadgets, and sports gear. my customers are always needing to improve their manufacturing methods and respond to the market in order to survive in this ultracompetetive world economy. i manufacture and sell them plastics (urethanes actually) so that they can mold all kinds of stuff.

the only thing that you can count on is that things always change. whether you embrace it or resist it is up to you but change occurs regardless.

so the answer is -> both

pinky42
03-02-2006, 07:43 AM
I'll take door number three. Neither.

Moose Malloy
03-02-2006, 08:40 AM
They have not used the wooden racquets to its fullest. Mark Philippoussis tried serving with the wood and compared it to his racquet. There is very little difference in pace. So, I say the answer is both.

People love to bring up this point, but it really doesn't prove anything(& his pace did come down, something like 15 mph) Hitting 20 practice serves as hard as you can isn't the same as hitting a serve as hard as you can over the course of a match(or an entire season). Swinging a wood racquet that fast consistently would tire Mark out. I'd also like to see his accuracy with a wood racquet in a match situation. He'd have to lower the mph to get a good % in. "Not using the wood racquets to the fullest," huh? Wow all those oldtimers must have been complete idiots, hitting the ball the way they did. Imagine if a genius like Roddick was playing tennis 30 years ago, he might have shown those fools what they were capable of.

Before guys like Lendl came along blowing people off the court very few players actually trained in the gym.

Yeah tell that to Harry Hopman & all the great Aussies he trained in the 50s/60s. Fitness was emphasized more than any other aspect of the game. Running miles in the sand & such. Fat modern guys like Dent/Nalbandian/Fish wouldn't be able to do the workout routines of Laver/Rosewall. But they sure do have some powerful racquets!

I mean if graphite racquets were never invented, we'd probably all still be using wood racquets and still playing the game like Borg and McEnroe did back in the late '70's, right?

Andres posted about an exhibition doubles match in Argentina last year. Clerc/Vilas played Gaudio/Nalbandian with a woodie for a set. The old guys won 6-0.

Racquets have not made the modern game, nor' did the modern game make the racquets.

I guess you kids will never realize how much equipment has changed the game unless the ATP has a wood only event. I have no doubt that all of today's pros would struggle mightily just to keep the ball in play. they would make a ton of errors & start hitting the ball very slowly when they realize they can't swing the same way. And the myth of the greatness of today's players compared to the players of the past will finally be exposed. Never would happen of course because today's players would have too much to lose.

kreative
03-02-2006, 09:02 AM
I voted for style of play. Players will adapt to what works for them in order to win. When asked if the S&V game was dead, Edberg responded "The styles of play goes in cycles of dominance....". The game used to be dominated by baseliners such as Lendl and Borg, then you had S&V Sampras, Edberg, Rafter, and now transitioned back to the baseline games of Nadal, Hewitt, Roddick etc and the all court Federer. Players discover new techniques and implement them into their games i.e. western grip topspin, 2 handed backhand, etc. New and modern racquets have shaped styles of play, perhaps making it easier to pick up the game.

I do not doubt that it's difficult to play with a wooden racquet due to it's heft and small headsize. In that exhibition match, Clerc/Vilas have experience using wood racquets whereas Gaudio/Nalbandian probably don't. It may take more of an adjustment perior for them, especially since it's so different from what they're used to swinging day in and day out. Throw McEnroe/Sampras vs Clerc/Vilas, and we'll see who wins.

DSL
03-02-2006, 11:50 AM
I voted for racquet. My thought is that racquets have enabled players to play different styles, not necessarily forced different styles.

BreakPoint
03-02-2006, 12:59 PM
Given that you're referring to NoBadMojo (why not just name him, this isn't a Harry Potter book), I'd suggest you read his posts a bit more closely and you'll find that is exactly why he's saying what he does. The equipment has changed, the game has changed as a result of the equipment changes (and all that enables) so "we need to use modern racquets to play this new modern game".

Agree with him or not, that's something he's been 'preaching' for as long as I've been on this board. How come you're only twigging to it now?

AndrewD,
That's exactly what I was alluding to. If someone like NMBJ mentions that "we need to change our racquets because the game has changed into the modern game." Isn't he in effect saying that because the game has changed, we now need to switch to modern racquets to play this new modern game? Meaning the game changing was the cause, and the effect is that we need to change our racquets in order to play it. But what if no one decided to switch racquets and we all continued to play with whatever we were using? Would the game still have changed? Even if the game has changed, if everyone just kept playing with what they were using, would this change have had any effect at all on our style of play or choice of equipment?

And as to why I'm only now thinking about this? It was this post last night from another member that got me wondering a little more deeply about this issue: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=780610&postcount=5

Kaptain Karl
03-02-2006, 01:31 PM
As so often happens, I don't think you have enough choices in your OP. I think a lot of our problem with the so-called "modern game" is, the result of Academy Tennis and its copy-cats.

Johnny's parents think he's a prodigy. They send him to Academy Tennis where, along with dozens of other 10 year old kids (who can only hit groundstrokes because they are too short or too weak to hit volleys) they are drilled and drilled in how to win with the (limited) tools they can master. The trouble is, as they grow strong enough to learn to volley, net play is still ignored by Nicky and his contemporaries. These kids grow into very fine competitors ... from the back court. And they are cheated out of developing a full court game.

Howard Head dramatically changed the racket, first and people *could* say the game changes followed. I choose to say the Academies (which came between the two events) are the biggest reasons the game is different.

- KK

NoBadMojo
03-02-2006, 01:43 PM
AndrewD,
That's exactly what I was alluding to. If someone like NMBJ mentions that "we need to change our racquets because the game has changed into the modern game." Isn't he in effect saying that because the game has changed, we now need to switch to modern racquets to play this new modern game? Meaning the game changing was the cause, and the effect is that we need to change our racquets in order to play it. But what if no one decided to switch racquets and we all continued to play with whatever we were using? Would the game still have changed? Even if the game has changed, if everyone just kept playing with what they were using, would this change have had any effect at all on our style of play or choice of equipment?

And as to why I'm only now thinking about this? It was this post last night from another member that got me wondering a little more deeply about this issue: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=780610&postcount=5

I would prefer to speak for myself rather than have another insist on knowing what i really mean, especially since I havent even contributed to this thread in this metaphor and in this format, nor voiced my own complete opinion. But since I am being talked about, I will voice my opinion, not that it matters, but just so anyone remotely interested knows:
I think the poll is flawed as it doesnt even cover a viable option which is that it could be BOTH. I think that is how evolution often works. One drives the other..the other drives the one...they're interconnected, but they're seperate. It's true of most things I think and things are almost never A or B. Whether one thinks the evolution is for the better is another topic for conversation. and what difference does it make anyway..things are as they are.
As for me, I would wish this fixation Breakpoint and his other alter ego posting identities has on me would go away.
I also think it goes beyond changing the racquets to match the game..it also involves changing stroke production, changing strategy, and some other abba dabba which are all inter related to the way things are.

funny Harry Potter comment Blue. ;O

BreakPoint
03-02-2006, 01:54 PM
But when the racquet manufacturers come out and say that they are not interested in coming out with any more midsize racquets because the game has changed, isn't that a little disingenuous since it was THEM that changed the game in the first place by introducing all these huge, light, powerful racquets?

They seem to make it sound as if they're just following the changes in the game, when in reality, they are the ones LEADING the changes in the game IMO.

tom4ny
03-02-2006, 02:12 PM
They seem to make it sound as if they're just following the changes in the game, when in reality, they are the ones LEADING the changes in the game IMO.

who is "they"? and how? :confused:

*edit*
i should be more specific in that i mean 'which' manufacturer?

imho (successful) companies see trends and meet them with their products (i.e. apple iPod), and if something doesnt sell so well in that the profit margins dont support demand (i.e. pay phones), then a smart company adapts and focusses on alternatives (cell phones, blackberry, et al).

tom4ny
03-02-2006, 02:15 PM
I think the poll is flawed as it doesnt even cover a viable option which is that it could be BOTH. I think that is how evolution often works. One drives the other..the other drives the one...they're interconnected, but they're seperate. It's true of most things I think and things are almost never A or B. Whether one thinks the evolution is for the better is another topic for conversation. and what difference does it make anyway..things are as they are.

spot on again mister. opinion or fact (my votes for the latter). keep sticking around man, you are good for this place.

BreakPoint
03-02-2006, 02:20 PM
who is "they"? and how? :confused:

"They" are the racquet manufacturers, of course.

tom4ny
03-02-2006, 03:05 PM
sorry BP, i editted above and maybe you missed that. i wanna know which manufacturer(s)? cuz it is an arrogant thing to state it that way.

BreakPoint
03-02-2006, 03:51 PM
sorry BP, i editted above and maybe you missed that. i wanna know which manufacturer(s)? cuz it is an arrogant thing to state it that way.

ALL the manufacturers. Unless you know of a racquet manufacturer that has more midsize and players racquets in its current product line than MP and OS tweener and granny racquets.

Tweeners and granny racquets now sell better because they've already changed the game by making 90% MP and OS racquets and only 10% (or less) midsize racquets over the past 10-15 years. The only way they could change the market and change the game back to what it was is to start making 90% midsize players racquets and only 10% MP and OS tweeners. Somehow, I doubt they are going to do that. Fewer people want to buy the midsize racquets now because the game has already been changed, e.g., the genie is already out of the bottle, the horse has already left the barn, etc.

tom4ny
03-02-2006, 04:24 PM
give me a specific example and any manufacturer 'saying' what you say they said!!

AndrewD
03-02-2006, 05:07 PM
AndrewD,
That's exactly what I was alluding to. If someone like NMBJ mentions that "we need to change our racquets because the game has changed into the modern game." Isn't he in effect saying that because the game has changed, we now need to switch to modern racquets to play this new modern game? Meaning the game changing was the cause, and the effect is that we need to change our racquets in order to play it.

No, that isn't correct and is a mis-reading on your part.

ALL he is saying is that the game has changed so we need to switch to modern racquets. He has NOT given any reasons for the game changing BUT you're drawing an inference that doesn't exist in what he's written. To get anything more is an error on your part.

He is in effect and in actuality saying that "we need to change our racquets because the game has changed into the modern game". Now, given the antagonism that exists between the two of you it isn't a particularly clever thing to be putting words in his mouth. So, before you make that assumption you would need to ask him directly why he thinks the game has changed.

I'm sure you'll get a professional and reasoned answer but NOT one as simple as the the game just changed.

Even laying the blame at the door of racquet manufacturers is over-simplifying things to the nth degree. Surfaces play a very important part in the dominant style of tennis and have since the year dot. If the courts were faster and the ball stayed lower the percentage play would not be to hang behind the baseline and steer clear of the net. Yes, a lot would still do it (natural inclination) but the dominant players (apart from the rare exception you have to allow for) would be the ones who played up and didn't have extreme grips. Balls are slower today (Wilson have a heavier felt for the men to use at the US Open and Aus Open to slow things down), courts are slower and the bounce is high. Players are, on average, bigger and stronger than in the past. All of that plays a very large part in the evolution of a particular style of play.So the percentage play is not to serve-volley and the percentage technique is not to have conventional/traditional grips and technique (again, you have to allow for the rare exceptions like Federer or Sanguinetti).

All of those things are factors in changes to the style of play. Racquets might be the chief factor but the deliberate slowing of the game is something you can't exclude.

BreakPoint
03-02-2006, 09:00 PM
give me a specific example and any manufacturer 'saying' what you say they said!!

Huh? :confused: Come on, do they really need to send out a mass e-mail or hold a press conference to annouce it? If they were really interested in making midsize racquets, wouldn't they go ahead and just make them? The fact is, they're not interested because the MP and OS racquets sell much better so they make many, many more models of them. In fact, I only know of 2 (or 3, depending on if one will be discontinued soon) racquets that are 90 sq. in. or less, i.e., the nSix-One Tour and the RDS 001 Mid (and the RDX 500 Mid which may be replaced by the RDS 001). Many manufacturers don't even make a midsize racquet, such as Babolat, Fischer, Dunlop, Technifibre, etc. The ones that still do, only have one in their product line amongst several dozen MP and OS racquets. Prince is even now calling a 95 a "Midsize" to make it seem like they're still making them when not too long ago a true midsize was 90 or smaller. In fact, the POG 93 is still called a "Midplus".

The proliferation of these bigger, more powerful racquets changed the game, so now the manufacturers say they are just making what the public wants (as shown by what sells), when it was the manufacturers that changed the game by putting out over 90% MP and OS racquets which forced us to need the bigger racquets so we could adapt to the modern game.

rilokiley
03-02-2006, 09:15 PM
Didn't read the whole thread, but for me the racquets change first and I'm forced to play differently. It's just impossible to find the one racket that suits my game perfectly therefore I have no choice but to find a "good enough" racket and change my style accordingly.

BreakPoint
03-02-2006, 09:29 PM
No, that isn't correct and is a mis-reading on your part.

ALL he is saying is that the game has changed so we need to switch to modern racquets. He has NOT given any reasons for the game changing BUT you're drawing an inference that doesn't exist in what he's written. To get anything more is an error on your part.

He is in effect and in actuality saying that "we need to change our racquets because the game has changed into the modern game". Now, given the antagonism that exists between the two of you it isn't a particularly clever thing to be putting words in his mouth. So, before you make that assumption you would need to ask him directly why he thinks the game has changed.

I'm sure you'll get a professional and reasoned answer but NOT one as simple as the the game just changed.

Even laying the blame at the door of racquet manufacturers is over-simplifying things to the nth degree. Surfaces play a very important part in the dominant style of tennis and have since the year dot. If the courts were faster and the ball stayed lower the percentage play would not be to hang behind the baseline and steer clear of the net. Yes, a lot would still do it (natural inclination) but the dominant players (apart from the rare exception you have to allow for) would be the ones who played up and didn't have extreme grips. Balls are slower today (Wilson have a heavier felt for the men to use at the US Open and Aus Open to slow things down), courts are slower and the bounce is high. Players are, on average, bigger and stronger than in the past. All of that plays a very large part in the evolution of a particular style of play.So the percentage play is not to serve-volley and the percentage technique is not to have conventional/traditional grips and technique (again, you have to allow for the rare exceptions like Federer or Sanguinetti).

All of those things are factors in changes to the style of play. Racquets might be the chief factor but the deliberate slowing of the game is something you can't exclude.

I think you've misinterpreted what I'm saying. I don't believe I've written in any of my posts that "NBMJ says the game has changed BECAUSE..........." Why he thinks the game has changed is not of my concern. The fact is, it has changed. Now that it has changed, he says that we need to switch to modern racquets so that we can play this modern game, right? Do you agree with me so far? Now, what if none of us switched racquets? Would the game still change, would the game stay the way it is or would the game go back to the way it used to be?

The implication is, since the game has changed, we must all now switch to the modern racquets, but what would happen if none of us did? Would the game then stop changing?

I mean it's a symbiotic relationship, right? Racquets changed which caused the game to change which then caused the racquets to change more which then caused the game to change even more which then.............it'll never end, right? So if none of us changed racquets, would it break this never-ending cycle? I mean the only people that have a vested interest in making sure this cycle never stops are the racquet manufacturers, right? This is how they make their profits, right? So don't you think they have an interest in seeing that the game continues to change so they they can keep selling us the new racquets we need to play this continuously changing game? But what if we just said "No", and just kept using the racquets we have now? Would it break this cycle? Would the game stop changing? Just some questions to ponder, that's all.

BTW, I agree with you that the slowing down of the game due to surfaces and balls has also contributed to changing the game along with the racquets.

NoBadMojo
03-02-2006, 09:30 PM
Good points I think KK and Andrew. So not only do we have a combination of A and B, but there is also a C=Academy Tennis and D=slower higher bounding surfaces, and if one believes in the theory of Chaos (The Butterfly Effect), that brings a whole other element into the equation.

tom4ny
03-03-2006, 02:49 AM
Huh? :confused: Come on, do they really need to send out a mass e-mail or hold a press conference to annouce it? If they were really interested in making midsize racquets, wouldn't they go ahead any just make them? The fact is, they're not interested because the MP and OS racquets sell much better so they make many, many more models of them.

The proliferation of these bigger, more powerful racquets changed the game, so now the manufacturers say they are just making what the public wants (as shown by what sells), when it was the manufacturers that changed the game by putting out over 90% MP and OS racquets which forced us to need the bigger racquets so we could adapt to the modern game.

so no manufacturer actually 'said' what you claim they 'said'. nonetheless, i agree with you above and that should put a smile on your face :)

the slight modification to your argument is this (cuz you contradict yourself a little in the 2nd paragraph above (public wants. vs. mmanufacturer forcing the public).

the manufacturers are responding to the market by producing what sells. they are not forcing people to buy, they are making what most people want to buy. thats good business.

it has impacted the game too. no doubt. but the game changed to due other factors as well as some smart people have pointed out here.

its not some great conspiracy to make the game a certain way. its a forward evolution that always continues.

p.s. 90% of all consumer products last less than 2 yrs on the market before they are changed and/or replaced with something else. consumers are very fickle. (generally)

peace out.

jackcrawford
03-03-2006, 05:36 AM
The game had already changed badk to a baseline game when wood and even smaller headed steel and aluminum frames were the norm - Connors, Borg, Vilas, Solomon, Dibbs et al displaced Rosewall, Laver and Newcombe often with one-sided scores (Connors 6-1, 6-0, 6-1 over Rosewall US Open 1974). This happened even in 1974 when three of four GS were still on grass. "Tennis: Myth and Method" by Ellsworth Vines former tennis great published in 1978 gives a detailed discussion of what happened and why. The extra spin potential big racquets have just accentuated a trend.

BreakPoint
03-03-2006, 12:29 PM
the manufacturers are responding to the market by producing what sells. they are not forcing people to buy, they are making what most people want to buy. thats good business.

its not some great conspiracy to make the game a certain way. its a forward evolution that always continues.


But would you agree that the manufacturers have a vested interest in seeing that the game does continue to change so that we'll continue to need to buy new racquets to keep up with this ever changing game? If the game never changes, would we still need to keep upgrading our racquets as much as we have over the past 30 years? Couldn't we just keep using the racquets we have now, or we had before, until they die, so that there's really only a replacement market for racquets? So wouldn't that have a major negative impact on the racquet manufacturers' business? Thus, I believe the manufactures do indeed instigate and push the changes so that they can keep selling us new racquets every year.