PDA

View Full Version : Advantages of a Small head size VS Big head size.... no punt intended :-)


VanGuy10
04-14-2006, 12:49 AM
I currently play with a 90 square inch frame, and plan to stick to it for quite some time. But everywhere I turn... people keep saying that my raquet sucks. I always tell them its just becuase they can't play with it. They always have those 100+ frames, and I just wanted to know the advantages of having a smaller head size versus a larger head size. I know its partly becuase of the control, and power. But I've always been a firm believer that to be a true tennis power, you should always be able to generate your own power, not need a raquet to create it for you. Dunno if I make any sense... but I just wanted to know what people thought :confused:

BreakPoint
04-14-2006, 12:55 AM
OH NO!!! Here we go again!! :(

Just be ready for some nasty arguments to ensue.

(BTW, if you do a search you'll see that there's been many, many...shall we say "heated"?......discussions on this board on this very subject since the beginning of time.)

Now better put that flak jacket on. ;)

VanGuy10
04-14-2006, 01:11 AM
OH NO!!! Here we go again!! :(

Just be ready for some nasty arguments to ensue.

(BTW, if you do a search you'll see that there's been many, many...shall we say "heated"?......discussions on this board on this very subject since the beginning of time.)

Now better put that flak jacket on. ;)

haha. thanks for the heads up. I will still stick with my 90 square inch frame 100% and say that they are better than the OS for sure :-)

BreakPoint
04-14-2006, 01:14 AM
I currently play with a 90 square inch frame, and plan to stick to it for quite some time. But everywhere I turn... people keep saying that my raquet sucks. I always tell them its just becuase they can't play with it. They always have those 100+ frames, and I just wanted to know the advantages of having a smaller head size versus a larger head size. I know its partly becuase of the control, and power. But I've always been a firm believer that to be a true tennis power, you should always be able to generate your own power, not need a raquet to create it for you. Dunno if I make any sense... but I just wanted to know what people thought :confused:

BTW, I agree with everything that you said above.

Oh, and, welcome to the board!!!! :D

chess9
04-14-2006, 03:47 AM
Ignore Breakpoint. He is a racquet snob. Simply put your hands up, walk into Sports Authority and get yourself something nice in a 135 square inch, 2 oz. racquet-head heavy of course. :)

-Robert

Kevo
04-14-2006, 06:03 AM
I only started playing with a mid about a year ago. Before that it was MP and in my early years a 110". However, I am playing better now with the mid. I think the benefits are more control, accuracy, and touch. Of course that goes with less power, more footwork needed, and additional weight so it's generally less maneuverable. However for me the tradeoff is worth it, because I am beginning to be able to keep the ball inside those white lines. :-)

samster
04-14-2006, 06:26 AM
Yeah, there was a very long thread (now deleted) about Midsize vs. Midplus not too long ago.

I would just say use whichever racket you like. If you are happy with it, who cares about what other people say. Be yourself, be unique!

Galactus
04-14-2006, 06:28 AM
Use whatever racquet improves your game and allows you to play injury-free...but don't just depend on that alone.

AndrewD
04-14-2006, 07:20 AM
Well, given that there's plentiful info on the TW main site (the Learning Centre) as well as in almost every 'how to play tennis' book published I think you'd have been better off looking in one of those two places for an answer.

badger_badger
04-14-2006, 07:28 AM
OP, what pun are you talking about

basil J
04-14-2006, 09:37 AM
I agree. Go with whatever works for you. I like a 95" head, but have successfully used 90" 100" and 102" frames in the past with no problem. I like a heavier frame, and usually the smaller head frames are also heavier, so my options are in a sense, limited to whatever headsizes are available over 11.7 oz., which are usually 100" or smaller. I think weight is more important than headsize. Headsize is easier to adjust to than swing weight IMO...

Morpheus
04-14-2006, 09:44 AM
OP, what pun are you talking about

I believe he meant double entendre...

Aeropro joe
04-14-2006, 11:38 AM
i have an assortment of frames that vary from 90sq in. to 110sq in. and honestly can change from frame to frame without much trouble. smaller headsize rackets usually offer less power at slower swingspeeds, more control, and decreased sweetspot. midplus rackets are a combination of the power and eazy to find sweetspot of an oversize, with the control of a midsize. and oversize frames are usually the most powerful at slower swingspeds, the biggest sweetspot and the least amount of control. also midsize frames tend to be the heaviest with the highest swingweight. generally i choose my mid or midplus frames such as my prestige (93sq in.), radical(98sq in.), or mfil 200(95sq in.) for singles play, and for doubles i will use my radical or lm fire(102sq in.)

Marius_Hancu
04-14-2006, 12:55 PM
try for yourself, you can buy a 2nd hand OS for under $50 for sure

yonex90
04-15-2006, 07:32 AM
Beat all of the guys who talk **** about your racquet. That will shut em up. No need to explain then.:cool:

Honestlybad
04-15-2006, 08:39 AM
I'm not getting into this argument again :)

ta11geese3
04-15-2006, 09:09 PM
How about for 1hb? Today I decided to hit with my brother's n61 95 after hitting for about an hour with my tweener pk 15g. And the difference for my 1hb was sick... my bh was so much more solid and I was hitting with confidence. Is the difference due to head size (95 vs 105)? Or is it due to the 61 being a more stable stick/some other factors?

BreakPoint
04-15-2006, 10:09 PM
How about for 1hb? Today I decided to hit with my brother's n61 95 after hitting for about an hour with my tweener pk 15g. And the difference for my 1hb was sick... my bh was so much more solid and I was hitting with confidence. Is the difference due to head size (95 vs 105)? Or is it due to the 61 being a more stable stick/some other factors?

It has to do with the smaller headsize, the heavier static weight, the higher swingweight, and that the n6.1 95 is a stable racquet.

Take2
04-16-2006, 05:37 AM
It comes down to the "W" versus the "F" factors. The Win versus the Fun.

You will Win more easily when using a larger size racket head when strung appropriately to control the power.

You will have more Fun when using a smaller size racket head when your fitness and strength are such that you can handle the weight. You will beat lesser and equals badly. But, you'll struggle with better players.

Captain America
04-16-2006, 05:51 AM
Just one guy's 2-hour experiment using a smaller head size....

Played a match yesterday and broke the strings of my NPro Surge (100in) in warmup. Had my wife's NTour (95in) with me as a spare. I definitely noticed the difference at first - a few more off-center shots on my returns (particularly backhand) and hitting on the run where more precision was required. After the first few games I realized I needed to concentrate more on my footwork to get into position more quickly and ensure the right position of the racquet head at contact. Smooth sailing after that. I have to say I enjoyed playing with the NTour and felt that the racquet offered a bit more control than the Surge without any noticeable drop in power. I may be borrowing my wife's racquet more often....

Eviscerator
04-16-2006, 06:55 AM
Being new to the board such as yourself, I do not know what to expect from people with different opinions on the subject, but here goes.

I think in general smaller head sizes equate to smaller sweet spots (the optimum spot to get the best hit on any given stroke). There is a reason why most pros play with smaller head sizes compared to the general public, and it is because their strokes are much more consistent, and they can hit the smaller sweet spot more often than the average player. I play with a 95 ' inch head, but I've demo'd with a much larger head, and have played with a T-2000 for fun as well. The thing I find with playing with a small head is that it forces you to concentrate more in an effort to hit the smaller sweet spot. So when I have taken out the T-2000 (which I bought for fun) it takes better footwork to get in position, and much better timing to strike the ball properly. Mis-hits are a lost point, not a weak hit that still goes over the net and gives you a chance to stay in the point. How Jimmy Connors and his contemporaries played and won so much with tiny head rackets is something to be respected.

As we get older our reactions slow a bit, we lose a half step, and yes our eyes are not as sharp. Having a larger head helps to compensate for the inevitable ravages of time, and helps to even the playing field. If you were a 5.0 player (A-player) your long stokes will always be to long to go for one of those giant head rackets because they typically generate too much power. However, everyone can benefit from a larger sweet spot based on the aforementioned.

A final comment would be that just because you play with a small head does not mean that you are a better player. I know a player who uses Pete's old Prostaff and feels he is good enough to play with it. While he is a decent player, it is the wrong racket for him on several different levels. However he pulls it out with pride as if to say that because he uses such a racket, that it shows how good of a player he is.
If you are a top level player and a 90' head suits you then by all means continue to play with it. As I said, it does make you work more for the best shot, so that in itself might make it worth playing with. In my case, the largest head I feel comfortable with is a 98' which I recently tried in the Wilson nBlade which I am actually considering. Other than being a little light for me (I'll add some weight if needed) and not having the PWS of other Wilson rackets, I enjoyed the feel of it.

Hopefully I did not offend anyone with my opinion, but if so, you are welcome to express your differing opinion.

louis netman
04-16-2006, 10:50 AM
Being new to the board such as yourself, I do not know what to expect from people with different opinions on the subject, but here goes.

I think in general smaller head sizes equate to smaller sweet spots (the optimum spot to get the best hit on any given stroke). There is a reason why most pros play with smaller head sizes compared to the general public, and it is because their strokes are much more consistent, and they can hit the smaller sweet spot more often than the average player. I play with a 95 ' inch head, but I've demo'd with a much larger head, and have played with a T-2000 for fun as well. The thing I find with playing with a small head is that it forces you to concentrate more in an effort to hit the smaller sweet spot. So when I have taken out the T-2000 (which I bought for fun) it takes better footwork to get in position, and much better timing to strike the ball properly. Mis-hits are a lost point, not a weak hit that still goes over the net and gives you a chance to stay in the point. How Jimmy Connors and his contemporaries played and won so much with tiny head rackets is something to be respected.

As we get older our reactions slow a bit, we lose a half step, and yes our eyes are not as sharp. Having a larger head helps to compensate for the inevitable ravages of time, and helps to even the playing field. If you were a 5.0 player (A-player) your long stokes will always be to long to go for one of those giant head rackets because they typically generate too much power. However, everyone can benefit from a larger sweet spot based on the aforementioned.

A final comment would be that just because you play with a small head does not mean that you are a better player. I know a player who uses Pete's old Prostaff and feels he is good enough to play with it. While he is a decent player, it is the wrong racket for him on several different levels. However he pulls it out with pride as if to say that because he uses such a racket, that it shows how good of a player he is.
If you are a top level player and a 90' head suits you then by all means continue to play with it. As I said, it does make you work more for the best shot, so that in itself might make it worth playing with. In my case, the largest head I feel comfortable with is a 98' which I recently tried in the Wilson nBlade which I am actually considering. Other than being a little light for me (I'll add some weight if needed) and not having the PWS of other Wilson rackets, I enjoyed the feel of it.

Hopefully I did not offend anyone with my opinion, but if so, you are welcome to express your differing opinion.


Excellent debut post and welcome to the TW message boards, Eviscerator. Hoping that you may contribute more in the future...

Eviscerator
04-16-2006, 01:58 PM
Excellent debut post and welcome to the TW message boards, Eviscerator. Hoping that you may contribute more in the future...

Thanks for the welcome and kind words. I visit several forums, and happened upon this one today. Depending on the forums membership and quality of posts, I might very well enjoy posting here since I enjoy tennis so much.

tennis_nerd22
04-16-2006, 03:12 PM
Beat all of the guys who talk **** about your racquet. That will shut em up. No need to explain then.:cool:

ya! :D