PDA

View Full Version : Why do midsized racquets serve so well?


djones
03-06-2006, 02:40 PM
Could someone explain?
I really feel more comfortable serving with my 'heavy' midsized Prestige Classic.
This has to do with the 'fact' that I seem to get more swingspeed.
But it's not logical if you consider that a lighter bigger headsized racquet 'should' be easier to swing!?

legolas
03-06-2006, 02:47 PM
me too, i noticed that my serves are much more better now that i am using the ncode 90 tour than before when i was using the npro surge

BreakPoint
03-06-2006, 02:54 PM
I agree as I've found the same thing. I just tend to serve better with smaller headsized racquets like the PS 6.0 85, Prestige Classic, i.Prestige Mid, LM Prestige Mid, etc. I think the reason has to do with them being more aerodynamic, the smaller headsize also seems to make eaiser to manipulate the angle of the head and easier to snap your wrist on the serve. It also seems more like you're swinging an axe overhead in which more of your power is concentrated into a smaller area resulting in more power. Smaller headed racquets also tend to be heavier too which can add more momentum and power to serves.

Lastly, since the head is smaller, I find that I feel more free to swing away on my serves with less fear that the racquet will get in my way or possibly even hit myself with it. This also results in more pace from the bigger swing.

armand
03-06-2006, 10:02 PM
I agree as I've found the same thing. I just tend to serve better with smaller headsized racquets like the PS 6.0 85, Prestige Classic, LM Prestige Mid, etc. I think the reason has to do with them being more aerodynamic, the smaller headsize also seems to make eaiser to manipulate the angle of the head and easier to snap your wrist on the serve. It also seems more like you're swinging an axe overhead in which more of your power in concentrated into a smaller area resulting in more power. Smaller headed racquets also tend to be heavier too which can add more momentum and power to serves.

Lastly, since the head is smaller, I find that I feel more free to swing away on my serves with less fear that the racquet will get in my way or possibly even hit myself with it. This also results in more pace from the bigger swing.BP, I use and love midsized frames as well. But where on Earth do you get the inexhaustible reserve of energy to keep praising them repeatedly in countless threads accross the boards?
Man, it took me 10 minutes to read this post as it tired me out so much that I was drifting in+out of a coma.
Well, it's a draining job and I'm glad I don't have to do it. Thanks BP

BreakPoint
03-06-2006, 10:18 PM
BP, I use and love midsized frames as well. But where on Earth do you get the inexhaustible reserve of energy to keep praising them repeatedly in countless threads accross the boards?
Man, it took me 10 minutes to read this post as it tired me out so much that I was drifting in+out of a coma.
Well, it's a draining job and I'm glad I don't have to do it. Thanks BP

You're welcome, adely!! :D

I don't feel that I'm touting midsize frames as much as just offering my honest opinion based upon my own personal experiences with frames of all sizes. If I actually served better with oversize frames, I would say so. But since I don't, I can't claim that I do, as I really do serve better with most midsize frames. Of course, the reasons I listed above are just my own personal opinions as to the reasons why and it's how I really feel when I serve with a midsize versus a midplus or an oversize racquet.

AngeloDS
03-06-2006, 10:37 PM
I don't notice too much of a difference (between tweener and midsized). But everything pretty much feels the same when you string down to 51-53 lbs =).

But it's mostly due to the fact there's some weight. And most people are used (or more comfortable) to throwing something heavy such as --> Football, Baseball etc. compared to nerf balls and such.

armand
03-06-2006, 10:38 PM
You're welcome, adely!! :D

I don't feel that I'm touting midsize frames as much as just offering my honest opinion based upon my own personal experiences with frames of all sizes. If I actually served better with oversize frames, I would say so. But since I don't, I can't claim that I do, as I really do serve better with most midsize frames. Of course, the reasons I listed above are just my own personal opinions as to the reasons why and it's how I really feel when I serve with a midsize versus a midplus or an oversize racquet.Oh I agree with you about the racquets. But I was actually asking about your bottomless reserves that allows you to keep posting about the same stuff. What drives you, BP?

BreakPoint
03-06-2006, 10:44 PM
Oh I agree with you about the racquets. But I was actually asking about your bottomless reserves that allows you to keep posting about the same stuff. What drives you, BP?

Well, in this case, just trying to help the OP by answering the question that he asked. I know it may get repetitive. But since people keep on asking........;) LOL.

BTW, you may want to ask Marius the same question. I think that guy is even more amazing!! :D

AndyP
03-07-2006, 04:18 AM
F=MA it's physics

Ripper
03-07-2006, 08:46 AM
"Why do midsized racquets serve so well?"

I know the answer! It has nothing to do with all the bull crap mentioned here before. It's simple really. The smaller the head the higher the sweet spot is located in relation to a larger headed raquet of the same length. Let's use both RDX500 raquets as an example. Take an RDX500 Midsize and an RDX500 MP and put them right beside each other. Both are 27 inches long. However, the hoop on the MP extends more downwards. Meaning the sweetspot on the Midsize is located higher. You could get the MP's sweet spot to be at the same height if you extended it's length. So, in other words, for serving, Midsize raquets act pretty much like an extended length MP raquet.

lucky leprechaun
03-07-2006, 09:19 AM
I think 2 reasons: smaller head racquets are usually heavier therefore smack the crap out of the ball with more force at impact to resist instability, and second, smaller head has less surface area to aerodyncamilly to slow it down.

But I think the main advantage of smaller headed racquets are not any of those things above for the serve, and its the same reason why it will always be superior for skillful volleys. You can turn the head on a dime when carving your volleys or turning the head just so for a perfect out wide ace serve. So, midsized racquets are superior in the serving department in every area except power, which isn't a problem if your're a powerful dude. I think they're also superior in volleys in every department, except put-away volleys which obviously a light stiff big racquet can much more powerfully do.

Ripper
03-07-2006, 09:43 AM
"Why do midsized racquets serve so well?"

I know the answer! It has nothing to do with all the bull crap mentioned here before. It's simple really. The smaller the head the higher the sweet spot is located in relation to a larger headed raquet of the same length. Let's use both RDX500 raquets as an example. Take an RDX500 Midsize and an RDX500 MP and put them right beside each other. Both are 27 inches long. However, the hoop on the MP extends more downwards. Meaning the sweetspot on the Midsize is located higher. You could get the MP's sweet spot to be at the same height if you extended it's length. So, in other words, for serving, Midsize raquets act pretty much like an extended length MP raquet.

Let me add that I'd take the extended MP over the standard Mid, any time. I think the fact that Federer uses a small headed raquet has a lot to do with some people still buying them. If Federer changes to a larger headed raquet at some point in his career, I'm sure a lot less people will continue using them. Btw, this is just my opinion; no need to hate me for that.

ta11geese3
03-07-2006, 10:21 AM
Don't Prostaffs though have a lower sweet spot..?

Kaptain Karl
03-07-2006, 10:24 AM
Why do midsized racquets serve so well?They don't. In fact "the racquets" don't perform any stroke ... well or badly.

Some people play more shots better with "x" stick. Other people play more shots better with "y" stick. But it's the player; not the racquet.

I think the fact that Federer uses a small headed raquet has a lot to do with some people still buying them. If Federer changes to a larger headed raquet at some point in his career, I'm sure a lot less people will continue using them. Boy! You have that right.

And certain "Mid Evangelists" would become apoplectic if Federer ever switched. (Or not. They seem able to ignore Agassi's, Roddick's and Nadal's sticks fairly easily....)

- KK

vkartikv
03-07-2006, 10:25 AM
Don't Prostaffs though have a lower sweet spot..?

Yes, that is true, that's what prostaff really means, if you look at 'technologies' on the tw homepage. I think its more of how easily you can cut through the air with midsize frames than sweetspot.

loubapache
03-07-2006, 10:31 AM
And certain "Mid Evangelists" would become apoplectic if Federer ever switched.
KK, then they'll say FED is a chicken.

Ripper
03-07-2006, 11:19 AM
Don't Prostaffs though have a lower sweet spot..?

"...The smaller the head the higher the sweet spot is located in relation to a larger headed raquet of the same length..."

...and balance...

BreakPoint
03-07-2006, 12:07 PM
I think the fact that Federer uses a small headed raquet has a lot to do with some people still buying them. If Federer changes to a larger headed raquet at some point in his career, I'm sure a lot less people will continue using them. Btw, this is just my opinion; no need to hate me for that.

I disagree. Sampras has not played a match for almost 4 years and no other visible pro has used a PS 6.0 85 for even longer than that, yet the PS 6.0 85 is still selling like hotcakes here at TW and anywhere else that stills sells them. TW sold out their 3 month supply in only a week!! :eek: So obviously people are not buying them because some pro uses them, since none do, but are buying them because they play well with them and like playing with them. :D

IMO, anyone that buys a racquet soley because some pro uses it is not very wise anyway.

BreakPoint
03-07-2006, 12:13 PM
And certain "Mid Evangelists" would become apoplectic if Federer ever switched. (Or not. They seem able to ignore Agassi's, Roddick's and Nadal's sticks fairly easily....)

-KK

But what does what the pros choose (and are paid) to use have any relation or corrolation to what we choose to use? I think unless you're playing against ATP pros everyday to make a living, there's no reason whatsoever to need to use a racquet similar to what the pros use. News Flash: You're competiton just ain't that good!

chess9
03-07-2006, 12:29 PM
Wave $1,000,000 in front of my nose and I'll play with the Queen's Knickers. Most pros are the same. The companies try hard to please them, but if Head wants someone to play a 135 sq. in. racquet they won't have any trouble finding plenty of "buyers" in the pro ranks. If you understand anything about marketing you'll understand how the tail wags the dog...and why. I doubt I need to tell many people here that tennis racquet marketing is full of baloney with very little mustard.

-Robert
________
MCDONALDS GIFT CARDS (http://bestfreegiftcard.com/mcdonalds-gift-cards/)

JacktheDu
03-07-2006, 12:55 PM
(Or not. They seem able to ignore Agassi's, Roddick's and Nadal's sticks fairly easily....)

- KK

I think the fact that all these players use two handed backhand contribute to their choice of racquet size. The size of the racquet compensate for the shorter reach of two handed backhand. It seems like most players who use one handed backhand, such as federer and sampras, would prefer a smaller raquet size. At least that's how I feel.

BreakPoint
03-07-2006, 01:04 PM
I think the fact that all these players use two handed backhand contribute to their choice of racquet size. The size of the racquet compensate for the shorter reach of two handed backhand. It seems like most players who use one handed backhand, such as federer and sampras, would prefer a smaller raquet size. At least that's how I feel.

Agreed. Same here. :D

loubapache
03-07-2006, 01:13 PM
If you take a look at all the top 20 players who have a one handed BH, you will be surprised to see most use headsize 95 or larger. Lubcic, Gaudio, Robredo, Gasquet, Blake, etc.

ask1ed
03-07-2006, 01:16 PM
Ask a carpenter why he uses a long handled, heavy head hammer for framing, and a small handled ball peen hammer for finish work. IF you don't care about damaging the wood, and want to slam a 16 penny home with one strike, you use the framing hammer. If you're working on a redwood gate, and installing, trim, use the ball peen hammer.

Sampras/Fed use the same stick essentially, where do you think Fed learned from the most? So did Becker, Edberg, Pearce, Courier, and so on. N code six one tour 90 is just the current improved version of the ps 85 red/yellow striper. Henin also uses the n code, Kiefer, and so on. Control is more important to the pros than power, as they can all munch the ball now with any stick, even the women.

Ripper
03-07-2006, 01:17 PM
I disagree. Sampras has not played a match for almost 4 years and no other visible pro has used a PS 6.0 85 for even longer than that, yet the PS 6.0 85 is still selling like hotcakes here at TW and anywhere else that stills sells them. TW sold out their 3 month supply in only a week!! :eek: So obviously people are not buying them because some pro uses them, since none do, but are buying them because they play well with them and like playing with them. :D

IMO, anyone that buys a racquet soley because some pro uses it is not very wise anyway.

PS 6.0 85s sell, because Sampras used them. In general, small headed raquets sell, because Sampras used them and because Federer uses them. If, after breaking all records, Federer retires still using a small headed raquet, the small headed raquets will continue to sell well (whatever that is). If Federer ever changes to a larger headed raquet and plays well with it, sales of all small headed raquets will go down. I don't think this should even be questioned. You guys know how it is.

BreakPoint
03-07-2006, 01:30 PM
PS 6.0 85s sell, because Sampras used them. In general, small headed raquets sell, because Sampras used them and because Federer uses them. If, after breaking all records, Federer retires still using a small headed raquet, the small headed raquets will continue to sell well (whatever that is). If Federer ever changes to a larger headed raquet and plays well with it, sales of all small headed raquets will go down. I don't think this should even be questioned. You guys know how it is.

Then why don't the Jack Kramer Autogrpahs sell well anymore since Kramer used them or the T-2000's since Connors used them? :rolleyes:

Not everyone gives a rat's *** what racquet the pros use. Many recreational players couldn't even tell you the exact model that most of the pros use. Most don't really care since they're smart enough to buy the racquet that works best for their games and that they enjoy playing with the most. I know many recreational players that never even watch pro tennis couldn't even name two players in the Top 50.

You must be one very disillusioned young man if you actually DO buy racquets just because some pro uses them. I feel sorry for you. :(

JacktheDu
03-07-2006, 01:49 PM
If you take a look at all the top 20 players who have a one handed BH, you will be surprised to see most use headsize 95 or larger. Lubcic, Gaudio, Robredo, Gasquet, Blake, etc.

Most of of these players use 95, which is still smaller than roddick's, aggassi's and nadal's 100, 98, and 100 headsize racquet. And I'm not saying that all one handed players would appreciate a mid size raquet, especially when they are playing in ATP tour which is without a doubt very physically and mentally demanding. A mid size racquet would probably do more bad than good for them since it requires a higher level of concentration, and this would definately tire out the players faster on court and the tireness would build up faster over days of the tournaments. So I think unless the player is confident enough about their physical and mental fitenss, it would be better for them to stay off a mid size racquet.

Honestlybad
03-07-2006, 02:58 PM
This thread turned into another mids vs. the world debate.

I think that the "magic" of small headed frames and the reason that they serve better lies in the fact that the mass that drives the ball is more concentrated. The fact that the strings are shorter, which results in a quicker, more crisp response of the stringbead upon impact may also have something to do with it.

The disadvantage lies in the small sweet spot. If you hit it, the ball really goes, and if you're good enough to hit it consistently under pressure you should go ahead and play with a mid. The mid will also force you to improve your technique but I don't want to get into that here.

There was a thread here a couple of months ago where someone did the stats on the headsizes of the winners of tournaments on various surfaces. The statistical winner of a grass tournament used approximately a 91inch frame, hard - 93inch, clay - 98. Since clay can become uneven and the bounces may vary it is difficult even for the pros to hit the sweetspot consistently. It is wiser to play with something a little bigger on clay. Anyone remember somebody winning the French with a midsize frame?

Anyhow, if you play predominantely on clay I recomend using a midplus (95 - 100) but if you are good enough and usually play on faster, more even surfaces, useing a mid is not a bad idea at all.

Midlife crisis
03-07-2006, 03:04 PM
But what does what the pros choose (and are paid) to use have any relation or corrolation to what we choose to use? I think unless you're playing against ATP pros everyday to make a living, there's no reason whatsoever to need to use a racquet similar to what the pros use. News Flash: You're competiton just ain't that good!

But relative to our levels of skill and athleticism, the competition is just as tough for us as it is for them!

lucky leprechaun
03-07-2006, 03:09 PM
I'm probably the only one that thinks this and probably get b*tch slapped :D but what the heck is wrong in wanting to try out a pro stick? I think I might have learned something about the game had I gotten the chance to swing pistol pete's specs on the green lawns of wimbledon, or nadal's specs on the red dirt of roland garros.

BreakPoint
03-07-2006, 03:41 PM
But relative to our levels of skill and athleticism, the competition is just as tough for us as it is for them!

But does that mean we should be using the same racquets that the pros use? Do you regularly play against guys that consistently hit 140mph serves and 100mph groundstrokes, and can run down your shots like Blake and Hewitt can?

Should we all be driving Formula One race cars because the "competiton" on the highways is just as tough for us as it is for professional race car drivers on the race track?

BreakPoint
03-07-2006, 03:48 PM
Anyone remember somebody winning the French with a midsize frame?


Yes, Courier, Lendl, and Borg to name a few. And they each won multiple times.

And how big were Wilander's, Noah's, Gomez's, Bruguera's, and Kafelnikov's racquets? :confused:

Honestlybad
03-07-2006, 03:55 PM
Kafelnikov - 98
Bruguera - 95
Courier - 95? not sure.
Lendl, Borg, I don't remember. It was a different game back then.
Anyone won it with a mid in the past 10 years?
My point was that larger frames make more sense on clay.

BreakPoint
03-07-2006, 03:59 PM
As I mentioned above, Courier used a midsize - the PS 6.0 85. In fact, he beat Agassi and his oversize racquet in the finals.

BTW, when Courier and Lendl won there were already many oversized racquets on the market.

Honestlybad
03-07-2006, 04:06 PM
So what is your point?

I repeat my question. Anyone won the French in the last 10 years with a mid?

Do you play on clay?

NoBadMojo
03-07-2006, 04:23 PM
They don't. In fact "the racquets" don't perform any stroke ... well or badly.

Some people play more shots better with "x" stick. Other people play more shots better with "y" stick. But it's the player; not the racquet.

- KK

True that..it's about the operator. You cant build a REAL case for midsized frames serving any better than you can for oversized frames serving better. Flipper can serve pretty much the same with anything as he proved in an experiment a while back. This thread is chock full of urban legends surrounding the 'mystique' of swinging a midsized frame. Fact is, most people serve worse with a midsized frame until they get up to the 5.0 level or so and then after that it may turn into a wash and strictly a matter of preference. Not to mention the injury opportunity.

Oh, I suppose you may get the occassional day when everything is clicking, you are feeling great, the wind isnt blowing, you dont have to serve into the sun, and you are playing someone else with a midsize.

I sure hope no one is buying a midsized frame to serve better based upon reading this thread

Ulam
03-07-2006, 05:11 PM
I feel the ball better with the midsize and with a heavier frame makes impact more stable. There are disadvantages to oversize. It's too light. There will be stability issues at impact if not hit in the sweetspot on flat balls. Also you will have greater trampoline affect, you will need to string even tighter if you hit with spin. This will minimize the sweetspot which was one its advantage. The other advantage is not hitting the frame as much.

Ulam
03-07-2006, 05:16 PM
Why do midsized racquets serve so well?

You have mass behind your swing and stability is much better.

ask1ed
03-07-2006, 06:07 PM
Yes, Courier, Lendl, and Borg to name a few. And they each won multiple times.

And how big were Wilander's, Noah's, Gomez's, Bruguera's, and Kafelnikov's racquets? :confused:


Wilander used the Rosignol f 200 carbon, with the inverted throat. Noah used the yamaha secret 04. Both 90 about. Secret weighs about 12.5 oz, strung, etc. Carbon is lighter, more flexible.

BreakPoint
03-07-2006, 07:14 PM
True that..it's about the operator. You cant build a REAL case for midsized frames serving any better than you can for oversized frames serving better. Flipper can serve pretty much the same with anything as he proved in an experiment a while back.

I thought Flipper only compared serving with his Prestige Classic with serving with a wood racquet? And I guess he proved that the wood racquet wasn't so bad because it's even smaller than his Prestige. I don't recall him comparing his Prestige with an oversize racquet. Please correct me if you know otherwise.

BreakPoint
03-07-2006, 07:30 PM
So what is your point?

I repeat my question. Anyone won the French in the last 10 years with a mid?

Do you play on clay?

My point is that it's not about the racquet. It's about the player and how accustomed they are playing on clay. The players that win the French tend to be people that grew up playing on clay and are very good clay court players utilizing clay court strategies, and not due to the size of their racquets.

Sampras, Rafter, Edberg, Becker and McEnroe never won the French because they are primarily serve and volleyers and attacking style players, and not due to the size of their racquets. Borg, Wilander, Lendl, Bruguera, Kuerten, Courier, Kafelnikov, Nadal, Ferrero, Costa, Moya, Gomez, Gaudio, etc., all won because they grew up on clay and are baseline players that know how to use clay court strategies, and not due to the size of their racquets, as proven by Courier, Lendl, and Wilander. Yes, that was more than 10 years ago, but has the red clay at Roland Garros changed over the past 10 years? Are there more bad bounces now than there were 10 years ago?

Yes, I've played quite a bit on clay although not recently.

NoBadMojo
03-07-2006, 08:02 PM
My point is that it's not about the racquet. It's about the player and how accustomed they are playing on clay. The players that win the French tend to be people that grew up playing on clay and are very good clay court players utilizing clay court strategies, and not due to the size of their racquets.

I couldnt disagree with this more. Sampras was thinking of going to a larger headed frame to give him a better chance at the FO. Nadal is owning Fed right now on the clay by kicking up balls high to the Fed backhand, and with a small Fed racquetheadsize Nadal is getting lots of UE's, weak responses, and short balls to attack or put away. . Fact is you need the extra headsize on the dirt, and it is even coming much more in handy on hardcourts as fast as the balls are flying out there today. Please no more examples about how players from days gone by won with small headed frames..that was then and this is now..game has changed even since Samps retired, and he was thinking of changing even back then.

If you have played on the dirt as you said, you surely dont understand how the game is played on the dirt or how the gear effects things out there

NoBadMojo
03-07-2006, 08:06 PM
I thought Flipper only compared serving with his Prestige Classic with serving with a wood racquet? And I guess he proved that the wood racquet wasn't so bad because it's even smaller than his Prestige. I don't recall him comparing his Prestige with an oversize racquet. Please correct me if you know otherwise.

ok..will correct you. there was also a game improvement bat in the mix. somethng light and large headed. he got the most mph out of the GI bat, but they were all close. if you dont understand the various reasons why wood really isnt close to anything modern to serve with during actual play, well then........awww nevermind

hoosierbr
03-07-2006, 08:17 PM
Just my opinion but a lot of the players dominating on clay these days are using Babolat rocket launchers that make it very easy to generate massive amounts of topspin.

Generally speaking, though, most of the players that do well at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open don't do all that well at Roland Garros. I can't say for certain if their racquets are the problem on the dirt or there are too many clay court specialists out winning everything.

With the exceptions of Federer and Henman I can't think of anyone using a sub-100 sq in. frame that made a run at Roland Garros recently. Maybe Kuerten in 2004?

As for myself, I serve better with a midsize but I know a lot of people who serve better with an MP or OS. I think it's mostly technique. Philippoussis served just as big using a wooden frame a few years ago in either a practice or some exhibition, I can't remember which.

I live in California and there isn't much clay to play on here. But I love the challenge of trying my game on the dirt. I'd like to find a place where I can play on some good clay courts before I enter a tournament.

BreakPoint
03-07-2006, 08:18 PM
NBMJ,
So do you seriously think that Sampras would have won the French just by switching to a bigger racquet? Remember that this is a guy that got destroyed, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 by Chang at the French the year that Chang won it.

Isn't the rationale for using bigger racquets on clay is because of the bad bounces? But you didn't answer my question before - are there more bad bounces now on the red clay at Roland Garros than 10 years ago?

As far as clay courters today hitting with topspin, isn't that what Borg and Vilas were doing at the French in the '70's?

Andres
03-07-2006, 08:34 PM
A small headsized racquet = faster swing speed and head speed.

PM_
03-07-2006, 09:18 PM
I think 2 reasons: smaller head racquets are usually heavier therefore smack the crap out of the ball with more force at impact to resist instability, and second, smaller head has less surface area to aerodyncamilly to slow it down.

*Sirens and red lights* I think we have a winner here! It's all about head speed, and both extreme headlightness and better aerodynamics will do it.

BreakPoint
03-07-2006, 09:35 PM
A small headsized racquet = faster swing speed and head speed.

Agreed. :D

PM_
03-07-2006, 09:42 PM
But really...just to spite you Bp, I'm thinking of going to a "tweener" and whipping some royal baseline *** at my next league. What do you think about that?

BreakPoint
03-07-2006, 09:47 PM
But really...just to spite you Bp, I'm thinking of going to a "tweener" and whipping some royal baseline *** at my next league. What do you think about that?

If that's what it'll take, go for it! :D

Like I've always said, people should play with whatever suits their style the best and whatever they play the best with. ;) Of course, arm safety is always also a consideration. (Had to add that last line for Marius. ;) )

PM_
03-07-2006, 09:54 PM
No but seriously, let's elaborate. I play an all-court game but some days I don't feel like coming up so...what better way to even the odds than bashing a tweener from the backcourt? Sure it'll give me the advantage and anyone else, even you Bp. 8)

Honestlybad
03-08-2006, 12:00 AM
My point is that it's not about the racquet. It's about the player and how accustomed they are playing on clay. The players that win the French tend to be people that grew up playing on clay and are very good clay court players utilizing clay court strategies, and not due to the size of their racquets.

Sampras, Rafter, Edberg, Becker and McEnroe never won the French because they are primarily serve and volleyers and attacking style players, and not due to the size of their racquets. Borg, Wilander, Lendl, Bruguera, Kuerten, Courier, Kafelnikov, Nadal, Ferrero, Costa, Moya, Gomez, Gaudio, etc., all won because they grew up on clay and are baseline players that know how to use clay court strategies, and not due to the size of their racquets, as proven by Courier, Lendl, and Wilander. Yes, that was more than 10 years ago, but has the red clay at Roland Garros changed over the past 10 years? Are there more bad bounces now than there were 10 years ago?

Yes, I've played quite a bit on clay although not recently.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I play on clay four hours every day and the additional couple of inches make a HUGE difference. As I mentioned before, the fact that bigger heads work better for clay is also proved statistically. Players using racquets with 95 and over sized heads simply win clay court tournament much more often than players unsing mid size frames.

ashpookie
03-08-2006, 01:03 AM
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I play on clay four hours every day and the additional couple of inches make a HUGE difference. As I mentioned before, the fact that bigger heads work better for clay is also proved statistically. Players using racquets with 95 and over sized heads simply win clay court tournament much more often than players unsing mid size frames.

Interesting read for everyone on racquet changes: The inch that changed tennis forever (http://www.racquetsportsindustry.com/issues/200601/200601science_inch.html)

Please read it, it's an informative perspective on how racquet changes have made today's pro game, and why "the additional couple of inches make a HUGE difference".

BreakPoint
03-08-2006, 01:37 AM
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I play on clay four hours every day and the additional couple of inches make a HUGE difference. As I mentioned before, the fact that bigger heads work better for clay is also proved statistically. Players using racquets with 95 and over sized heads simply win clay court tournament much more often than players unsing mid size frames.

Could it also be that most players that use midsize frames are serve and volleyers, are not clay court specialists, or did not grow up playing on clay? How many clay court specialists on the pro tour do you know of that use midsize racquets? And isn't it the clay court specialists that win most of the clay court tournaments? Now is that because of the size of their racquets or the fact that they're clay court specialists?

It's like saying that statistically, smaller frames are better for grass since midsize frames win more Wimbledons than bigger frames do. That it's the racquet and not the player. That Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Hewitt, and Federer would never have won Wimbledon if they had been using bigger racquets.

It sounds like you're saying that the size of the racquet has more of an influence on success than the player's skills and style of play for any specific surface.

Since you play on clay 4 hours everyday, do you play serve and volley tennis the majority of the time? Could it possibly be your clay court skills and style of play that make you a good clay court player and not just your racquet? If you played against a guy that was rated at your same level but almost never plays on clay, is purely a serve and volleyer, and uses a midsize racquet, who would win? Do you think he would have beaten you if he switched to a midplus racquet or would you have beaten him anyway?

rocket
03-08-2006, 03:08 AM
It's like saying that statistically, smaller frames are better for grass since midsize frames win more Wimbledons than bigger frames do. That it's the racquet and not the player. That Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Hewitt, and Federer would never have won Wimbledon if they had been using bigger racquets.

It sounds like you're saying that the size of the racquet has more of an influence on success than the player's skills and style of play for any specific surface.

I think both BreakPoint & Honestlybad are right. It's harder for a non claycourt-specialist to win the French, though not impossible. The pace & style of play on clay are very different from those on other surfaces. That probably explains why French champs don't do so well on other surfaces (with the exception of Borg & a few others).

You will notice that heavy topspin is "de rigueur" on clay, hence the use of much larger/wider racquets. The ball clears the net much higher there than anywhere else, plus players stand way, way back behind the baseline. That style of play doesn't work at the US Open, where Nadal got hammered by Blake's flatter & faster balls.

If anything, grass is the most uneven surface of all. The bounce there is most unpredictable, though modern technologies have rendered grass more durable & bounce friendly than before. :cool:

Honestlybad
03-08-2006, 05:44 AM
BreakPoint, I'm not saying that size the racquet has more of an influence on a player's sucess on clay but it is one of the factors! It is an important factor as statistics show.

Most clay court specialists do not play with mid sized frames (although some do - Arazi) BECAUSE THEY KNOW THIS. Not because they just do. Had they grown up playing on fast surfaces they would most likely use a mid.

A small head IS better for grass because it rewards you with more control on the serve and the volley. And the serve is the shot that counts on grass.

I'm speaking from my own experience. I used to play with a prestige mid and I loved the control. Now, that I mostly play on clay I decided to switch to a midplus and IT DOES MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE. I love mid size frames and will recomend them to anyone who wants to properly learn the mechanics of the game but for competetive tennis on clay a midplus is simply BETTER. Just like a mid is better for grass. Even the statistics show it.

Grimjack
03-08-2006, 06:03 AM
Wilander used the Rosignol f 200 carbon, with the inverted throat. Noah used the yamaha secret 04. Both 90 about. Secret weighs about 12.5 oz, strung, etc. Carbon is lighter, more flexible.

Noah won the French with a relatively oversized Le Coq Sportif woodie model.

http://thethao.vietnamnet.vn/dataimages/original/images611295_noah.jpg

Ripper
03-08-2006, 11:40 AM
You must be one very disillusioned young man if you actually DO buy racquets just because some pro uses them. I feel sorry for you. :(

Well, then, no need for you to feel sorry for me, because that's not how I select the raquets I buy. And I'm not saying that's the way you do it, either. Of course, there are many people that don't care what the pros use. However, there are many more (imo) that do care. That's what I'm saying.

BreakPoint
03-08-2006, 12:00 PM
I think the difference between now and over 10 years ago is that back then there weren't the armies of clay court specialists from Spain, Argentina, Brazil, and other South American and European countries, so guys like Courier, Wilander, and Lendl could win the French with midsize or smaller racquets. Today, it would be nearly impossible for a non-clay court specialist to win the French regardless of the size of their racquet.

BTW, I believe most clay court specialists do not use midsize racquets and use bigger racquets because none of them are serve and volleyers. They all play baseline games and bigger racquets are more suited to that style of play. It's the same reason why most baseline players that primarily play on hardcourts also use bigger racquets. So I believe that one's choice of their racquet size has more to do with their style of play than on the surface that they play on. Of course, the surface that you play on may dictate your style of play.

For example, if Sampras were to play the French again and he intended to continue to serve and volley at all costs, he would probably be better off sticking with his PS 6.0 85. However, if he decided to change his style of play completely and become a baseline dirtballer grinder, then that's another story, and perhaps switching to a bigger racquet would benefit his new style on clay. But I think his odds of winning the French would be slim in either case regardless of which racquet he used since he's just not a clay court specialist.

Honestlybad
03-08-2006, 12:25 PM
Is Hewitt a s&v player? Would you consider Safin a serve and volleyer?

Anyhow, looks like we're finally beginning to agree. You said that the surface you play on may dictate your style of play. Of course it does. Especially grass which favours s&v and clay which slows the ball down after the bounce and favours baseline bashing. If you grow up playing on clay you will probably be more inclined to play baseline tennis, and if you grow up playing on grass you will be more inclined to rush the net. A better racquet for doing this is a mid. Clay is a specific surface because it may become uneven and a sligtly larger head helps you deal with those bad bounces. It also has other advantages like easier access to spin. It's not easy to consistently hit the sweetspot on a mid under pressuere and it is even more difficult on clay where the points last longer and there is more room for such a mishit.

Clay court specialists predominantly use midplus to oversized frames BECAUSE they are better for clay court tennis. If mids were better for clay court play the would be using mids! This is the way it goes! Not the other way around.

BreakPoint
03-08-2006, 12:44 PM
Is Hewitt a s&v player? Would you consider Safin a serve and volleyer?


Has either won the French? Neither of these guys are "clay-court specialists". Hewitt is a better grass court player and Safin is a better hard court player. These guys are top pros so they are good enough to use mids even if they are primarily baseline players. Hewitt can't win the French because he can't generate his own power so he needs a faster surface to help him do that. Safin can't win the French because he's too aggressive and not patient enough. It's not because they're using midsize racquets.

Honestlybad
03-08-2006, 12:51 PM
My point was that these two are not serve and volleyers not that they are clay-court specialists. Learn to read. They use mids for baseline play as do many other pros. And the fact that they do use mids is a DISADVANTAGE on clay.

armand
03-08-2006, 01:27 PM
Here are my 2 cents
The best serving racquet that I've ever used was the Prince TTWarrior Mid+. The high stiffness made it accurate, the fatter beam made it powerful and the open pattern made it spin very well.
But it was way too much for baseline play so I had to give it up. But for serving, which the player is striking a stationary ball and there is less energy, it was great.
My RDX500 90 lacks accuracy on serves but only because it's too flexy.
So for me, it's the stiffness of a racquet that determines how well a racquet serves.

Kevo
03-08-2006, 01:34 PM
I mostly find accuracy lacking in my technique not the racquet. :-)

goosala
03-09-2006, 03:08 PM
The smaller headsize allows me to swing faster on my serve thereby getting more racquet head speed. Also, since they are usually heavier they can generate more force upon impact. I serve harder with the Pro Staff 85 than I do with the 90 and faster with the 90 than the 95. Go figure.

BreakPoint
03-09-2006, 03:58 PM
The smaller headsize allows me to swing faster on my serve thereby getting more racquet head speed. Also, since they are usually heavier they can generate more force upon impact. I serve harder with the Pro Staff 85 than I do with the 90 and faster with the 90 than the 95. Go figure.

Agreed. Same here, the smaller the head, the harder the serve, typically.

ac3111
12-13-2008, 07:25 PM
For me things are different. It's the weight of the racket that plays vital role for my serve not the headsize... Going from 95 to 98 won't make big difference in head speed. Going from 308gr to 350 it does...

FedererForehand
12-13-2008, 08:37 PM
ac3111- why are you digging up threads that are years old???

ac3111
12-13-2008, 08:39 PM
What's your problem? Never heard of search button right? Maybe that's why the board is flooded with identical and similar topics...
Sorry I had to ask for your permission to post in an old topic.

matchmaker
12-13-2008, 09:35 PM
I agree as I've found the same thing. I just tend to serve better with smaller headsized racquets like the PS 6.0 85, Prestige Classic, i.Prestige Mid, LM Prestige Mid, etc. I think the reason has to do with them being more aerodynamic, the smaller headsize also seems to make eaiser to manipulate the angle of the head and easier to snap your wrist on the serve. It also seems more like you're swinging an axe overhead in which more of your power is concentrated into a smaller area resulting in more power. Smaller headed racquets also tend to be heavier too which can add more momentum and power to serves.

Lastly, since the head is smaller, I find that I feel more free to swing away on my serves with less fear that the racquet will get in my way or possibly even hit myself with it. This also results in more pace from the bigger swing.

Breakpoint I fully agree with you. My serves are also better with mids and I feel it is because it is because you can be more detailed in you movement. Let me explain. Just like you say, a small movement makes a major difference with mids, so when you put kick or spin on the ball, you get it with a little angle of the racquet or some pronation. With MPs I have a very effective kick, but I feel I have to make a bigger movement. With mids, a short brush up is enough, with MPs it is as if the racquet has to brush up longer against the ball, resulting in a lot of kick, in my case, but lowering the mphs on the serve and giving it a less piercing quality.

sureshs
12-14-2008, 09:34 AM
The serve is the most important stroke in tennis, specially on the men's side. Pros go to extraordinary extents to fine tune their serves for more speed or placement, including video analysis and expert coaching. If a mid-sized frame really improved the serve, you bet the majority of men would be using it, as they can always do without the extra power on groundies.

Always look at the money trail - look at people who make a living out of tennis.

Mdubb23
12-14-2008, 09:44 AM
ac3111- why are you digging up threads that are years old???

No offense, but why does it matter?

plasma
12-18-2008, 10:43 PM
smaller head = longer leverage. thousands of heavy-wieghts flip flopped throughout history but the hardest puncher was a middlewieght, ray robinson; deadly. Power is nothing without accuracy. In a contest to launch a ball fastest or furthest an oversize would win, but every recent G.O.A.T. candidate played with a mid...

phoenicks
12-18-2008, 11:30 PM
ac3111,

Dude, congrats for reviving a 2006 thread, you're the man !!!!

ac3111
12-18-2008, 11:43 PM
ac3111,

Dude, congrats for reviving a 2006 thread, you're the man !!!!

Thank you, phoenicks. Some subjects, I think, go beyond time and I thought it would be a waste of forum space to start a new thread. But for a few moments I thought I will face a "trial" for my option... But hopefully that was not the case...

Kevo
12-19-2008, 06:27 AM
I think it's about stiffness as well for easy serving. I served great with the Pure Control Team with a stiffness of 70 I think, similar to the PD Roddick. Problem was I could not take a full cut at a ground stroke. Sailed a ton of bails straight into the fence with that frame. The PD Roddick had more control for me than the Pure "Control" did. I did later discover that once I got above a certain speed, the power from the frame did not give me as big an advantage as I thought. Only made a few mph difference.

Kevo
12-19-2008, 06:31 AM
but every recent G.O.A.T. candidate played with a mid...

I don't think that looking at the best players of all time is necessarily the best way to choose a frame. If Roddick could switch to a mid and start winning grand slams I'd be pretty shocked. How many of us here would love to play as well as any of the top 20 women? How many of them use a mid?

hoodjem
12-19-2008, 07:08 AM
I don't know whether it's the headsize or the flex pattern or the sweetspot location, but I serve MUCH better with an AG100 than I did with my older 95 sq. in racquet (which was a very nice racquet).

But I'm not going to waste much time trying to figure it out, I'm too busy enjoying these great serves.

Kevo
12-19-2008, 07:14 AM
I don't know whether it's the headsize or the flex pattern or the sweetspot location, but I serve MUCH better with an AG100 than I did with my older 95 sq. in racquet (which was a very nice racquet).

But I'm not going to waste much time trying to figure it out, I'm too busy enjoying these great serves.

That sounds like a good approach to me. If you find something that works well for you, just go out and enjoy it. I'm quite excited we have some sun today. I haven't hit in a week and I'm looking forward to getting out there this afternoon.

whosyumom
12-19-2008, 12:31 PM
Wave $1,000,000 in front of my nose and I'll play with the Queen's Knickers. Most pros are the same. The companies try hard to please them, but if Head wants someone to play a 135 sq. in. racquet they won't have any trouble finding plenty of "buyers" in the pro ranks. If you understand anything about marketing you'll understand how the tail wags the dog...and why. I doubt I need to tell many people here that tennis racquet marketing is full of baloney with very little mustard.

-Robert

You have a very good point my friend. In the end, it is all about the money and endorsements.

matchmaker
12-19-2008, 09:20 PM
Just a little anecdote. Today a friend of mine mentioned the fact that there seem to be less big servers on tour than in the past. I know we still have Karlovic and Roddick, but it is a fact that when Becker, Stich, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Edberg (not really a cannon serve, but outstanding kick and placement), Mc Enroe (again, no ace cannon, but beautiful disguise and placement) were playing their serves were a lot stronger and varied than the current bunch.

Edit: I forgot to add Krajicek to my list, he was also playing a mid.

I know much has been done to slow down most surfaces, so that is one possible explanation, but I was just thinking, and that is the link with this thread, that these guys were all using mids, whereas now, except Federer (and he is using as somewhat bigger mid), most players use MPs and have very decent, albeit not incredible serves.

Kevo
12-20-2008, 06:50 PM
I think many players now are better on average with returns. It could make the serves look a bit less big than they are.

Also our perspective could be skewed. I seem to remember McEnroe commenting that he serves bigger now than when he was on tour, but I don't think his serve would give the top players too much trouble today. I've never considered Edberg a big server. He was very good, but he didn't throw down like Sampras or Becker.

So I guess I'm not convinced that there aren't big servers today, just that maybe the tour as a whole has changed a bit so in comparison it seems that there are less big servers.