PDA

View Full Version : why do you use a midsize frame


vkartikv
03-29-2006, 05:40 PM
I know this topic has probably been given more attention than it deserves but I have some questions to ask and comments to make.

I used the wilson tour 90 for over a year and used the 6.0 mid for the last 3 months. I have also used the super rd tour 90 and diablo mid intermittently. All these frames can be summarized as 'feel good' frames - they felt good at the net, it felt good to be using something demanding and most importantly, it felt good to be using something the top 3 players in the world of all time (Samp. Fed. and Edberg.) had used.

But recently I find myself gravitating towards midplus frames that are not compromised in terms of weight - the c10 pro, the tour 10 gen II and for the last few days, the PK 5G. I feel like my game has been elevated by these frames, atleast my return of serve has been. The forgiving headsize is definitely a plus.

I jumped from the 6.3 hammer midplus to the super rd tour and then continued with mid size frames without ever bothering to try MP frames purely because of ego and the 'good feel' I have mentioned earlier. But I have regained my senses and find I am playing with so much more ease against the babolat (generic term for light weight topspinny frames) wielding players. Handling balls around my shoulder on my 1HBH is so much more easier now.

I am not trying to discourage anyone from using a midsize frame, I would never do that. My question to all you midsize frame users is this: Have you tried MP frames and found them unsuitable to your game or are you like me and look past the benefits of the MPs and stick with the mids to make yourself 'feel good'? What is your reason? Do you think your game will benefit by using something bigger without sacrificing weight?

Galactus
03-29-2006, 05:57 PM
I know this topic has probably been given more attention than it deserves but I have some questions to ask and comments to make.

I used the wilson tour 90 for over a year and used the 6.0 mid for the last 3 months. I have also used the super rd tour 90 and diablo mid intermittently. All these frames can be summarized as 'feel good' frames - they felt good at the net, it felt good to be using something demanding and most importantly, it felt good to be using something the top 3 players in the world of all time (Samp. Fed. and Edberg.) had used.

But recently I find myself gravitating towards midplus frames that are not compromised in terms of weight - the c10 pro, the tour 10 gen II and for the last few days, the PK 5G. I feel like my game has been elevated by these frames, atleast my return of serve has been. The forgiving headsize is definitely a plus.

I jumped from the 6.3 hammer midplus to the super rd tour and then continued with mid size frames without ever bothering to try MP frames purely because of ego and the 'good feel' I have mentioned earlier. But I have regained my senses and find I am playing with so much more ease against the babolat (generic term for light weight topspinny frames) wielding players. Handling balls around my shoulder on my 1HBH is so much more easier now.

I am not trying to discourage anyone from using a midsize frame, I would never do that. My question to all you midsize frame users is this: Have you tried MP frames and found them unsuitable to your game or are you like me and look past the benefits of the MPs and stick with the mids to make yourself 'feel good'? What is your reason? Do you think your game will benefit by using something bigger without sacrificing weight?
Switched to Prostaff 6.0 85 from Tour 90 last summer and my game improved, mainly on volleys at the net.
Also found that with a smaller sweetspot (and with some coaching) that I began to 'middle' the ball more often and with better technique.
Since I've added weight to it, my serves and groundstrokes are hit with more follow-through.

I'm still using it cos:
a) I haven't bothered to add weight to the Tour90 to see if I get similar results and
b) scared to stop using it in case my current game falls apart!! :mrgreen:

jonolau
03-29-2006, 06:01 PM
I started with OS mroe than 10 years ago, then progressed to MP after 5 years, and then moved to a mid early last year. I am now extremely comfortable with a mid as I've progressed past brute force/power to control/finesse.

I wouldn't say that the racquet elevated my game, but my game has elevated to the level that I need a racquet that can suit my needs and style of play.

This is not to say that I have given up on my MPs. On the contrary, I switch between mid and MP depending on my physical condition for the day, and the opponent I'm playing. If I'm playing against a hard hitter, out comes the MP. If I'm playing an extremely tactical player, I go with the mid.

armand
03-29-2006, 07:11 PM
The ti-80 is 98sq" but still has a thin beam and 12+ounce weight so it's a good compromise. However, I still found it a little too powerful and a bit lacking in control. Having said that, it's still my doubles racquet of choice as it allows me to crash the net and intimidate the net huggers with its wreckless power.
It's also good against singles grinders with loopy topspin who force you far behind the baseline('Babolat weilding players':mrgreen: ).

Keifers
03-29-2006, 07:34 PM
I've found the control offered by midsize frames to be unmatched by larger ones. Serves, groundies and volleys go where I want much more reliably. The ease with which mids cut through the air is a big factor in the control they bring to my game. Mids are just more precise tools, imo.

billyboybeacon
03-29-2006, 08:44 PM
if you have the game mids are better ...most of us don't

PurePrestige
03-29-2006, 09:08 PM
I used a Head Ti. Radical when I was younger, then I switched to a Head i.Extreme, because at the time I liked it because it was blue. That was the depth of my racquet choosing then. Then during some lessons I hit with my coaches i.Prestige Mid and I loved the weight on the 2handed backhand. It really carried itself through the ball. So I got some of them. Then made the switch to the LM Mid after that.

DX_Psycho
03-29-2006, 11:16 PM
i use a mid for the "feel good". i have tried many midplusses and i hit just fine with them, but they just don't feel as good. as soon as there is a midplus that feels as good as my prestige classic i'm switching. even if it's OS. as long as it has the feel, i'll get it.

bluegrasser
03-30-2006, 04:50 AM
My favorite frame was the PS 85, but that was when I was in my mid twenties, but if I was playing six days a week and in good shape..uhh...............back to reality. damn

Caswell
03-30-2006, 06:04 AM
I used a midsize as a junior for a short time, primarily because it was only racquet I could find that was flexible enough to let me hit out on the ball.

I don't see what the big deal is - what drives people into 12 page discussions on this topic? I've moved from oversize to midplus to midsize and back to midplus over my lifetime. There were subtle differences in power, control, and feel between them, but I don't remember the changes being dramatic. It wasn't like I picked up a midsize and started hitting the frame on every shot. I've stuck with a midplus simply because I don't like making major changes when I get new frames.

Odd how internet forums can take such a tiny thing and make it into a huge deal.

anirut
03-30-2006, 06:19 AM
Why do I use a mid? Because I've also played with a mid+ and I don't play well with it. May be because I mostly play flats. I do agree that the mid+ plays easier and more forgiving.

May be I should find a compromise in a 95 head, 18x20 pattern ... n 6.1 Team or HM 200G or MFil 200? Any suggestion?

rocket
03-30-2006, 06:23 AM
Have you tried MP frames and found them unsuitable to your game or are you like me and look past the benefits of the MPs and stick with the mids to make yourself 'feel good'? What is your reason? Do you think your game will benefit by using something bigger without sacrificing weight?

I don't have hangups on headsizes, but I don't have to go for something bigger than I need. The POG mid is about one of the widest mids there are, good enough to apply plenty of topspins. Its weight & balance allows me to put some heat on the ball whenever I feel like it. This stick is the king of the groundies for me; at net, it does a decent job, but doesn't flatten out the ball like the Maxply 98. The Maxply is the biggest headsize that I own. Its stock-weight & balance are not what I'd normally go for, but since it does a great job in retrieving dipping passing-shots, I'm currently tweaking its weight & balance to play an all-court game with it. :cool:

peter
03-30-2006, 06:56 AM
Why do I use a mid? Because I've also played with a mid+ and I don't play well with it. May be because I mostly play flats.

Same here. I've tried various frames of various sizes and for *my* game I've not noticed any advantages with playing with a larger frame - only drawbacks. I too play mostly flat though so that *might* be why I'm not seeing any improvements with larger frames... so I always come back to my trusted Wilson ProStaff 6.0-85 rackets.

May be I should find a compromise in a 95 head, 18x20 pattern ... n 6.1 Team or HM 200G or MFil 200? Any suggestion?

The HM200G is good. I have one such racket that I've been playing with quite a bit this winter and if I had to go away from the 6.0-85's I would definitely go for the 200G. It's a bit slower in the air so the net game is a bit more difficult, but the ground strokes and serve is very good with it.

milo
03-30-2006, 07:21 AM
The ti-80 is 98sq" but still has a thin beam and 12+ounce weight so it's a good compromise. However, I still found it a little too powerful and a bit lacking in control. Having said that, it's still my doubles racquet of choice as it allows me to crash the net and intimidate the net huggers with its wreckless power.
It's also good against singles grinders with loopy topspin who force you far behind the baseline('Babolat weilding players':mrgreen: ).

just like you adely, i've used the ti-80 before moving to rdx mid. but i rarely switch back to the ti-80. only when i feel really-really terrible using the rdx then i will switch to the ncode tour first then if i'm still not in the game than i go with my ti-80. mostly because of my stamina i switch to the mp frame. i find myself better with my rdx.

Ripper
03-30-2006, 07:31 AM
"why do you use a midsize frame"

Because they want to. This subject is getting boring.

vkartikv
03-30-2006, 07:40 AM
Let me rephrase the question - Is there anyone who jumped from OS frames to mids, skipping the MP stage and find that their game would be better off with something bigger?

Ronaldo
03-30-2006, 07:45 AM
vk play better or at least more effective with an OS but can play pain-free with a Head mid or at least a racquet with an RA 60 or below.

katone
03-30-2006, 07:50 AM
precision.

Simon Cowell
03-30-2006, 07:56 AM
I use a midsize because of fear of getting laughed at, I play my best with an OS and prefer it, but I just cannot take that chance of being laughed at or ridiculed for NOT using a midsize ;)

Ronaldo
03-30-2006, 08:04 AM
I use a midsize because of fear of getting laughed at, I play my best with an OS and prefer it, but I just cannot take that chance of being laughed at or ridiculed for NOT using a midsize ;)
And you still wear those too tight t-shirts before the millions and millions of fans?

Kevo
03-30-2006, 08:12 AM
I played with a 110" in high school for two years on the varsity team. I went to college was not on the team, so I only hit occasionally, sometimes using a MP, but never a mid. About 3 - 4 years ago I got back into tennis and was constantly frustrated with my inability to control the ball. I am a bit bigger and stronger than I was in high school. One day on the court I had some anger management issues and I smashed my frame. I started looking for a new stick and ended up with a RDX 500 mid. I was thrilled with the additional control and precision. I still hit too hard sometimes, but I found this stick to be a pretty good fit. The MP was good as well, but it wasn't quite as precise as the mid. I also tried several other frames, and none of them seemed to have the feel and control of the RDX mid. So that is what I've stuck with, and my game keeps getting better and better. I am able to hit the ball harder than ever and still have it go in the court. It's a wonderful feeling when you rip the cover off the ball and it lands on the line. Sweet. :-)

jasonbourne
03-30-2006, 08:57 AM
May be I should find a compromise in a 95 head, 18x20 pattern ... n 6.1 Team or HM 200G or MFil 200? Any suggestion?

anirut, I would suggest you demo n6.1 18x20. It is the only 95 frame I found comfortable to use behind a 6.0 85 and Max 200G.

Ripper
03-30-2006, 09:00 AM
I use a midsize because of fear of getting laughed at, I play my best with an OS and prefer it, but I just cannot take that chance of being laughed at or ridiculed for NOT using a midsize ;)

Simon Cowell has always been sincere.

Ripper
03-30-2006, 09:36 AM
Ok, I know I said this subject is getting boring, but I have a theory that could help explain why people prefer the raquet head size they prefer. My theory is simple: People who hit the major part of the time with flat strokes prefer mid sized raquets and people who hit the major part of the time with topspin prefer midplus and/or oversize raquets.

For Pete's sake, this is not, even, a theory. Much less mine. This is a fact. Having said that, it's not a general rule. However, OF COURSE, it's going to be a bit more difficult to hit a topspin stroke with a mid size. Even Federer, on a bad day, frames a lot of balls. BUT hitting a flat stroke with a mid size is a piece of cake. What's more, flat strokes BENEFIT from them.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying one type of stroke is better than the other.

Pixie
03-30-2006, 12:23 PM
I've been playing tennis for almost 15 years, i'm 24 now, my first two sticks were OS, then several MID+, back to OS again, switched to MID frames back and forth, i can tell you, if you are going to frame/mishit a ball, you'll do it, no matter what racquet you use.
Last year i switched from my "trusty old" Pro Staff 6.1 Classic to a Head Prestige Classic (that's like 5sq in decrease in headsize), the only thing i had to adapt was to the grip shape, nothing else, and i'm playing better tennis now, more solid strokes, better spin, but if the racquet change had something to do with me playing better tennis, is its Flex, NOT the headsize.

fishuuuuu
03-30-2006, 12:57 PM
why do you use a midsize frame?

To be very, very, very honest with you vkartikv. My first real frame that I had bought for me was a midsized frame on account of the fact that I knew absolutely nothing about tennis and I didn't know what Mid or Midplus was. I remember it well, Head Liquidmetal Prestige Mid.

BreakPoint
03-30-2006, 01:09 PM
To be very, very, very honest with you vkartikv. My first real frame that I had bought for me was a midsized frame on account of the fact that I knew absolutely nothing about tennis and I didn't know what Mid or Midplus was. I remember it well, Head Liquidmetal Prestige Mid.

Hmmm....I guess you haven't been playing all that long then since the LM Prestige only came out two years ago, and that was your first real frame?

LordRaceR
03-30-2006, 01:36 PM
For some reason, I canít hit sweet spot nice and clean with bigger frame, and I just like the precision and feel of 90 to 95 inch frame. Grow up with Dunlop max200g, so that may be one of the reasons why I like smaller head size.

fishuuuuu
03-30-2006, 01:47 PM
Hmmm....I guess you haven't been playing all that long then since the LM Prestige only came out two years ago, and that was your first real frame?

You're right, but I'm rated 4.0, not doing too terribly bad now am I? :p

The first thing it taught me was, twirling/whipping my wrist = bad and painful and hitting the ball on the strings was a thing of magic, both things that worked on my previous Wilson HH 4.3 OSX

BreakPoint
03-30-2006, 01:56 PM
You're right, but I'm rated 4.0, not doing too terribly bad now am I? :p


No, that's pretty good! :D But are you a legitimate 4.0, meaning have you played lots of other computer rated 4.0's and beaten them? Visual ratings don't count as much as computer ratings.

I know guys that have been playing 20 or more years and are still 3.5's. :(

fbone
03-30-2006, 01:57 PM
I started out playing with a smaller head (Black Ace 90) long ago...I never liked the feel of OS (tried the old Prince Aluminum)...the ball would always fly out of the court, but this was probably more because I was just learning to play.

Played w/a Prince CTS Presicion 90 until recently. Now currently hit w/93 & 95 sq inch heads. I've been thinking recently of going bigger to see how they rate against what I currently use. I'm going to demo these:

Prince Diablo 100
Prince O3 100
Yonex Ti-80 98
Dunlop M-fil 200 Plus 97

The difference isn't much (visually) when you compare head size 95 to 100 so I'm going in w/an open mind and hopefully one of these will add to my game (all-court heavy top-spin player). I love my current main stick (PS 6.1 Classic), but you'll never know what else is out there if you don't look?

fishuuuuu
03-30-2006, 01:57 PM
No, that's pretty good! :D But are you a legitimate 4.0, meaning have you played lots of other computer rated 4.0's and beaten them? Visual ratings don't count as much as computer ratings.

I know guys that have been playing 20 or more years and are still 3.5's. :(

I've played 3.0 and 3.5 league matches up the wazoo and cleaned them out. Geezers to little tots toting their moms. 4.0 is where ... my fitness and pesky backhand get beaten up on. :(

BreakPoint
03-30-2006, 04:59 PM
I've played 3.0 and 3.5 league matches up the wazoo and cleaned them out. Geezers to little tots toting their moms. 4.0 is where ... my fitness and pesky backhand get beaten up on. :(

Hmmm.....but if you're getting beaten up at the 4.0 level, wouldn't that make you a 3.5 (or under)? :confused:

anirut
03-30-2006, 05:34 PM
Thanks for the suggestions on my thinking of the compromised 95 headed, 18x20 pattern, rackets.

Yes, the n6-1 Team (18x20) seems like a good bet, BUT I can only get the Asian version, which is very light, may be like 290-305 grams only. I can't remember the exact figures. I live in Asia ...

The specs that says on the Asian n6-1 team even says its 4 pts HL.

How would you compare the 'lighter' (and head-heavier) Asian n6-1 Team to the HM200G? Opinions, even guesses, welcome.

A bit more here. I really like playing with the Dunlop Revelation Tour 90. Which of the two above-mentioned rackets plays 'closer' in precision and feel.

legolas
03-30-2006, 07:00 PM
i use the wilson ncode 90 tour for maximum control

Kaptain Karl
03-30-2006, 07:33 PM
Breakpoint - For someone who whined for pages about a little 'ol lady beating up on him in doubles, you surely do a lot of woofing.

- KK

BreakPoint
03-30-2006, 08:58 PM
Breakpoint - For someone who whined for pages about a little 'ol lady beating up on him in doubles, you surely do a lot of woofing.

- KK

Who said she was little and who said she was old? That's all in your imagination. Does one need to be little and old to use an OS racquet? :confused:

And if hitting a bunch of volleys off of the frame that drop over the net for winners classifies as "beating up on", then what do you call it when that 9-year old girl spanks you 6-0, 6-0? :cool: LOL.

fishuuuuu
03-30-2006, 09:03 PM
Who said she was little and who said she was old? That's all in your imagination. Does one need to be little and old to use an OS racquet? :confused:

And if hitting a bunch of volleys off of the frame that drop over the net for winners classifies as "beating up on", then what do you call it when that 9-year old girl spanks you 6-0, 6-0? :cool: LOL.

A spanking? :p

They don't "beat me up" literally ... but I start losing to people at that level. It's competitive, at least.

kinsella
03-30-2006, 09:13 PM
My "mid" is barely in the category at 93 sq in. I really like the smaller head for serving and volleying and the size is no impediment to any other shot I try to hit. I also string it pretty low and use a natural gut hybrid, giving me more power and a bigger sweet spot than I might have otherwise.

JacktheDu
03-30-2006, 09:36 PM
Is it just me or does anyone here think Legolas is just plain weird?

Ripper
03-31-2006, 04:32 AM
For those who've just joined (and are too lazy to read back) I'll repeat this:

"Ok, I know I said this subject is getting boring, but I have a theory that could help explain why people prefer the raquet head size they prefer. My theory is simple: People who hit the major part of the time with flat strokes prefer mid sized raquets and people who hit the major part of the time with topspin prefer midplus and/or oversize raquets.

For Pete's sake, this is not, even, a theory. Much less mine. This is a fact. Having said that, it's not a general rule. However, OF COURSE, it's going to be a bit more difficult to hit a topspin stroke with a mid size. Even Federer, on a bad day, frames a lot of balls. BUT hitting a flat stroke with a mid size is a piece of cake. What's more, flat strokes BENEFIT from them.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying one type of stroke is better than the other."

Edit: Different sticks for different strokes. Don't bring this subject up anymore. I'm tired of it. TW, I have a suggestion for you. Why don't you create a separate forum just for talking about this subject? We could use it for the 1hbh vs 2hbh discussion, too. And a couple of others, I don't want to recall :neutral:

bluegrasser
03-31-2006, 04:48 AM
Remember the Head 93" is really a 90' stick.

sdslyout
03-31-2006, 08:16 AM
To test myself i start out using my Ncode N6 @ 103 si. and if i'm hitting well then i switch over to my graphite aggressor @ 95 si. and then if i'm ON, i'll switch one more time (just for sh_ts and giggles) either to an copper ace, silver ace something @ 90 si. It's all about control !!