PDA

View Full Version : why do people use demanding frames?


Pages : [1] 2

tennis_nerd22
08-21-2006, 06:32 AM
after trying out many frames i think im going to be going with a tweener (a 100 in or so). but im wondering that if so many of you guys use player's rackets that are demanding and that every shot you hit has to be perfect form or else it will not be the shot you want. when instead you could use an easy to use tweener or forgiving frame and not have to be as precise but still get good results (?).

is it just for pride? :D

im just wondering, dont flame me.

jackabee
08-21-2006, 06:37 AM
It helps you to improve for one! :)

maverick1
08-21-2006, 06:42 AM
My small heavy racket never felt any more demanding than my light oversize racket even though I am not an advanced player. It didn't make a preceptible difference to my results. I don't know if it has something to do with my style or my being "tone-deaf" when it comes to racket differences.

Given that I felt no difference, I prefer the former for two reasons:
1 everyone says heavier rackets are better from an injury standpoint
2 "pride", in your words. It makes me me feel more special.

emcee
08-21-2006, 06:45 AM
To get better. I thought you wanted to go pro or something. Getting a tweener racquet is not the way to go at all.

It helps the ego as well, but I also like heavy racquets simply because of the way they feel.

tennis_nerd22
08-21-2006, 06:48 AM
but what if you use a tweener thats heavy? is it no longer considered a tweener then? like the POG OS..

im just thinking like if you have enough control by yourself, why not make life a bit easier. as long as you can consistently play well, i personally wouldnt care if my racket was for beginners, advanced, or pro players.

TennsDog
08-21-2006, 06:50 AM
I actually almost consider tweener frames more demanding than player's frames because they make me think more about my shots while I'm hitting them. They have too much power so I have to make sure I don't swing too hard and get enough topspin, etc. With the racket I have now, I can focus on just hitting the way I want. I was always told I was swinging too hard and going for winners when I wasn't, that was just my natural stroke. Since changing rackets, that natural stroke I like is what is required to put weight into shots, so it works out well. I was never able to hit very consistently when I had to think about slowing down my swing speed to not lose control.

So an overall answer to your question is because that's what fits our games, just like why anyone buys any frame. You buy what works for you. An added bonus for demanding frames is that they're more stable to hit and handle heavy shots.

spaceman_spiff
08-21-2006, 06:51 AM
after trying out many frames i think im going to be going with a tweener (a 100 in or so). but im wondering that if so many of you guys use player's rackets that are demanding and that every shot you hit has to be perfect form or else it will not be the shot you want. when instead you could use an easy to use tweener or forgiving frame and not have to be as precise but still get good results (?).

is it just for pride? :D

im just wondering, dont flame me.

For some of us, when we take a long, full swing at the ball with a 'tweener, the ball sails long. If we don't have too much of a problem hitting the sweetspot on a smaller frame and provide our own power, then what we need is a racket that provides the necessary control to place the ball exactly where we want it; we do the rest.

That being said, because of the unpredictable surface that I started playing on a few months back, I have been looking for a bigger racket. I still don't need a lot of power or less weight, just a bigger frame because of slightly unpredictable bounces. There are some players frames between 95 and 100 in, but I wouldn't call them 'tweeners. However, back on good old predictable hard courts, my Estusa with the 92 in frame was great.

Mr.Federer
08-21-2006, 06:56 AM
Because some people have very good technique and are quite strong so generating power isn't very hard and the smaller headsize gives you more control.Also,"demanding" frames are made for players with full/long/fast swing, they even say it on the frame.Tweeners on the other hand(like in the 10 to11oz. range) are more forgiving and generate more power without needing a full/long/fast swing. Now, if you know, that you don't have a full/long/fast swing don't even consider using a "demanding" frame, because you don't need it! Improve your game and the day you have a full swing and have become stronger then you will see that you've outgrown your "tweener".


Hope that I helped

spaceman_spiff
08-21-2006, 06:58 AM
It helps you to improve for one! :)

If you really want a game improvement racket, try playing for a month with a Head Guillermo Vilas from the early 80's. It's like a log with a handle. The high weight plus small head size makes you really focus on all of your strokes; no laziness allowed. I played with one regularly last summer. After a month or so with one of those, even a PS 6.0 85 seems big, light, powerful, and spin-friendly.

bluegrasser
08-21-2006, 07:02 AM
I'm older and switched back to the mp Prestige FXP, I guess it came down to feel and control, I did lose some pop and racquet speed, but i'm happier playing with this stick..

TennsDog
08-21-2006, 07:06 AM
If you really want a game improvement racket, try playing for a month with a Head Guillermo Vilas from the early 80's. It's like a log with a handle. The high weight plus small head size makes you really focus on all of your strokes; no laziness allowed. I played with one regularly last summer. After a month or so with one of those, even a PS 6.0 85 seems big, light, powerful, and spin-friendly.
I had a similar experience. I've been playing with my PS 85 for the past 3 months. I picked up my n6.1 95 one day just because and it felt huge. I mean, it's only a 10" difference, but looking down at it in my hand made it seem a lot bigger. It just didn't feel right anymore. They are pretty close to the same weight, so I didn't notice that too much, though. Man, I don't think I would ever be able to go back and play with an OS 110" head like I did 5 years ago.

jace112
08-21-2006, 07:29 AM
Because it's hard to control a tweener from the baseline if you hit some heavy shots.

And it feels like the ball vanishes into the air before you have the time to understand what's going on.

And if you use high tensions, to get some control, that usually hurts.

I assume that by demanding you mean too demanding for the level required... (every frame could be demanding)

KuertenRules
08-21-2006, 07:36 AM
[QUOTE=TennsDog]I actually almost consider tweener frames more demanding than player's frames because they make me think more about my shots while I'm hitting them. They have too much power so I have to make sure I don't swing too hard and get enough topspin, etc. With the racket I have now, I can focus on just hitting the way I want. I was always told I was swinging too hard and going for winners when I wasn't, that was just my natural stroke. Since changing rackets, that natural stroke I like is what is required to put weight into shots, so it works out well. I was never able to hit very consistently when I had to think about slowing down my swing speed to not lose control.[QUOTE]

I use to have the same “problem”… My game got way better when I switched to a heavier frame.

anirut
08-21-2006, 07:46 AM
I don't use a demanding frame. My heavy-and-smaller-than-95-sq.in. rackets are just right for me.

Because if I use a tweener or something light and big, I'll miss it all. If I was really to use it, I would have to seriously concentrate. This kind of racket is considered demanding for me.

oldguysrule
08-21-2006, 08:12 AM
IMO, the distinction between "tweeners", "player's" and "game improvement" frames is sufficiently muddled that these lablels have no meaning. There are no "demanding" frames or "easy" frames. There are frames that fit your game and your swing better than other frames...which leads some to think that one is easier to play with than another. However, that same frame might be harder for someone else to play with. That is why there are so many different specifications for frames. Some like it hot, some like it cold. Some like it heavy, some like it light. Some like it big, some like it small. Get the picture? Pick the frame that you play the best with and don't worry about what anyone else plays with.

If you pick a frame for pride or ego, you really have problems and miss the point of playing a sport. There is no pride in losing unless you played hard, gave it your best shot, and gave yourself the best chance to win with the right equipment choices. Choosing equipment based on how you look, or what someone else thinks is not the best way to do it. Again, choose the frame that gives you the best chance to win and improve.

And finally, no racquet is going to make your strokes, technique, or concentration any better. This comes from practice, both physically and mentally. If you think using a "demanding" racquet will make your strokes better, you are mistaken. It might make your strokes better with that racquet, but then what happens when you switch back to your "easier" racquet.

Find a racquet that you feel comfortable with, practice hard with it, don't switch racquets all the time, don't obsess with what other people use, and go out and have fun playing tennis. You might choose a racquet that is small and heavy, big and light, or big and heavy. It doesn't matter as long as it is the right frame for you.

c_zimma
08-21-2006, 08:15 AM
I went from my PS 95 to a tweener OS, the Thundercloud. I thought things were going well, until my elbow became extremely sore. So back to the Pro Staff.

vkartikv
08-21-2006, 09:17 AM
I'll give you one short answer: It's what I used growing up and I am not giving it up. Just because everyone is getting silicone implants now doesn't mean I should appreciate those and forget natural beauty. I will always stay loyal to the naturals...

ace of spades
08-21-2006, 09:18 AM
I'll give you one short answer: It's what I used growing up and I am not giving it up. Just because everyone is getting silicone implants now doesn't mean I should appreciate those and forget natural beauty. I will always stay loyal to the naturals...
Exellent.

hadoken
08-21-2006, 09:39 AM
My suspicion is that most regulars here don't suffer from a lack of power (which is where tweeners are known for) and suffer from control so there is no reason to go to a tweener. I mishit a lot of balls and may benefit from going to an OS player frame, but for some reason I don't like how they serve so I stick to a midsize.

govols
08-21-2006, 09:51 AM
I can't use power frames as my shots sail with them. To me, players frames allow me to use spin much easier, much easer.

TennsDog
08-21-2006, 10:42 AM
IMO, the distinction between "tweeners", "player's" and "game improvement" frames is sufficiently muddled that these lablels have no meaning. There are no "demanding" frames or "easy" frames. There are frames that fit your game and your swing better than other frames...which leads some to think that one is easier to play with than another. However, that same frame might be harder for someone else to play with. That is why there are so many different specifications for frames. Some like it hot, some like it cold. Some like it heavy, some like it light. Some like it big, some like it small. Get the picture? Pick the frame that you play the best with and don't worry about what anyone else plays with.
I don't agree with the first part on this. The names "tweener", "player's", and "game improvement" all have specific meanings based on the specs. In general, a game improvement frame is larger, light weight, pretty stiff, and has plenty of power. A player's frame is small, heavy, head light, and most importantly low-powered. A tweener frame is just like it sounds, in between these two: medium size, a range of stiffnesses, good power and control. While the words themselves may not mean much, they do sufficiently classify rackets in general. When I say I'm looking for a "player's frame", no one is going to point me in the direction of a 110" head heavy frame with stiffness of 70. That just isn't what it means. As long as people understand the meaning and use of the terms, they do serve a purpose.

chaz_233
08-21-2006, 11:17 AM
One word: marketing.

jackson vile
08-21-2006, 11:23 AM
I really depends on you, how much experience you have, how strong you are, how is your technique, what is your game style, how much do you play on a regular basis, ect


The thing is that for me a 85sqin frame is easier to play with, it is less work, more acurate, ect for me

Now if you don't play often you will not have the best timing, if you are weaker then you need more power from the racket, if your stokes are shorter you may need more power from racket, ect


I did not switch to the on purpose it just kinda happend, I love my LMPMP and bought 5 of them just 2 month ago, but did not even play them when I got them as I started playing with my tnt-90s and those work so much better for the direction of my game.


There are almost no wrong answers as for each it is very indevidual, also I could easily switch to the LMinstinct XL for a very simular game and just a good.

Many pros use smaller head rackets and many other large head rackets, personally I prefer the short angle game more than others, so that is where it leaves me.

oldguysrule
08-21-2006, 11:25 AM
I don't agree with the first part on this. The names "tweener", "player's", and "game improvement" all have specific meanings based on the specs. In general, a game improvement frame is larger, light weight, pretty stiff, and has plenty of power. A player's frame is small, heavy, head light, and most importantly low-powered. A tweener frame is just like it sounds, in between these two: medium size, a range of stiffnesses, good power and control. While the words themselves may not mean much, they do sufficiently classify rackets in general. When I say I'm looking for a "player's frame", no one is going to point me in the direction of a 110" head heavy frame with stiffness of 70. That just isn't what it means. As long as people understand the meaning and use of the terms, they do serve a purpose.

Labels always serve a purpose to an extent. They can also confuse people and be misleading. The labels in this situation make it easier for the marketing people to accomplish their goals. It doesn't really make it easier for a tennis player to get the right racquet for their game...

Look at the list of "player's racquets" on TW. From a quick look, I would say the majority of them fall in the low 11 ounce weight and are 95 to 105 inch headsize. A few were as low as 10.5 oz strung and several went up to 110 inch headsize. The stiffness level went up to 72. This is the very definition of muddled. (at least in my opinion, certainly some will disagree with me). So, you tell me you want a player's racquet...here are a couple for you:

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCPRINCE-PSDB.html

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBAB-ZTOUR.html

I still say, ignore the labels, pick the right racquet for your game, and have fun. My new slogan is "Every racquet is a game improvement racquet if it is the right racquet for you."

Ruud
08-21-2006, 01:31 PM
I think most of us can play with every racket pretty good, but if you want to play the best you can you will have to have a frame that fits your game. And what fits your ego. If you have the right equipment it can make you play that 5% better. But most of it is in your head. Sometimes it just can help to replace your grip or a your favorite t-shirt.

fastdunn
08-21-2006, 01:56 PM
In my case, it was a question of "balance".

I could use more powerful frames for my forehand but I volley
much better with "player"'s frame.

stevewcosta
08-21-2006, 02:42 PM
Balance, feel, solidity, beam construction (box preferred), weight...

fx101
08-21-2006, 02:55 PM
A more demanding racquet allows you to obtain more control over placment of the ball and allows for more spin than a tweener.

TennsDog
08-21-2006, 03:17 PM
Labels always serve a purpose to an extent. They can also confuse people and be misleading. The labels in this situation make it easier for the marketing people to accomplish their goals. It doesn't really make it easier for a tennis player to get the right racquet for their game...

Look at the list of "player's racquets" on TW. From a quick look, I would say the majority of them fall in the low 11 ounce weight and are 95 to 105 inch headsize. A few were as low as 10.5 oz strung and several went up to 110 inch headsize. The stiffness level went up to 72. This is the very definition of muddled. (at least in my opinion, certainly some will disagree with me). So, you tell me you want a player's racquet...here are a couple for you:

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCPRINCE-PSDB.html

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBAB-ZTOUR.html

I still say, ignore the labels, pick the right racquet for your game, and have fun. My new slogan is "Every racquet is a game improvement racquet if it is the right racquet for you."
I have already wondered about TW's labelling of tennis rackets. I don't understand why W-Line frames are listed as player's frames. To me, anything above 100" head, anything thicker than about 22mm beam, stiffer than high 60's, weight below 11 oz, and certainly anything head heavy should not be considered a player's racket. But, like I say, I think the labels work well enough. I can make a statement such as "I have moved towards player's frame specs each year for the past 5 years" because each head has been smaller, weight higher, and balance more HL. I just think the problem lies with the people and how they treat the labels. There is no shame in being a 4.0+ player playing with a tweener racket if that's what works for you. Remember, actions (i.e. on-court performance) speak louder than words (i.e. racket label).

oldguysrule
08-21-2006, 03:32 PM
I have already wondered about TW's labelling of tennis rackets. I don't understand why W-Line frames are listed as player's frames. To me, anything above 100" head, anything thicker than about 22mm beam, stiffer than high 60's, weight below 11 oz, and certainly anything head heavy should not be considered a player's racket. But, like I say, I think the labels work well enough. I can make a statement such as "I have moved towards player's frame specs each year for the past 5 years" because each head has been smaller, weight higher, and balance more HL. I just think the problem lies with the people and how they treat the labels. There is no shame in being a 4.0+ player playing with a tweener racket if that's what works for you. Remember, actions (i.e. on-court performance) speak louder than words (i.e. racket label).

I think anything above a 95", thicker than 20mm, stiffer than 65, and below 12oz. shouldn't ge considered a player's frame. See the problem? Your comment about a 4.0 player with a tweener shouldn't even be thought, much less said. I agree with your last sentence.

I think consumers would be better served if we compared racquets based on power vs. control. However, I think it would be even better if we were on the tennis court right now.

skraggle
08-21-2006, 03:32 PM
For me, demanding=rewarding. You get so much more out of a player's weight/headsize frame if you have a big swing. No one can overpower you, shots go right where you aimed them, and serves have authority. Plus, there's just that feeling of confidence when you have a hefty weapon at your side...

TennsDog
08-21-2006, 03:43 PM
I think anything above a 95", thicker than 20mm, stiffer than 65, and below 12oz. shouldn't ge considered a player's frame. See the problem? Your comment about a 4.0 player with a tweener shouldn't even be thought, much less said. I agree with your last sentence.

I think consumers would be better served if we compared racquets based on power vs. control. However, I think it would be even better if we were on the tennis court right now.
I would like to agree with your above specs. However, two problems arise to me. The first is the n6.1 95. It has a beam thickness of 21 or 22 mm, and it is certainly a player's frame. Second is the PS 85 with a stiffness of 66, also no doubt a player's frame. So I expanded my range to include rackets that have maybe all of your specs above except for one. The cumulitive effect of the specs are what determine a player's frame, not each one individually. This is why we always run into the hypothetical "all things being equal." We never actually have all other things equal, so it is difficult to very definitively classify rackets. Yes, I realize that sentence seems to agree with you, and I more or less do. However, you can still put labels on rackets. It's not written in stone and it's not a law that you need to buy a specific one. So what I call a tweener frame and another person calls a player's frame, ok, whatever. We can both get an idea for the racket with its specs anyway. That's why there's so many different combinations of specs, because simply 3 or 4 (one for each category) just wouldn't work.

macroscopic
08-21-2006, 04:26 PM
Depends on the definition of "demanding". After growing up playing with wood frames I think the OS composite frames are extremely demanding. I can hardly keep a forehand inside the lines.

The low powered racquets, on the other hand, allow me to swing in a manner comfortable to me and are less demanding for me.

I'd rather have a ball hit 5 feeet short than 5 feet long.

BreakPoint
08-21-2006, 04:44 PM
after trying out many frames i think im going to be going with a tweener (a 100 in or so). but im wondering that if so many of you guys use player's rackets that are demanding and that every shot you hit has to be perfect form or else it will not be the shot you want. when instead you could use an easy to use tweener or forgiving frame and not have to be as precise but still get good results (?).

is it just for pride? :D

im just wondering, dont flame me.

No, not pride at all. Most people who use player's racquets already have pretty good technique or else they would not be very successful using them. Thus, if we use a less demanding racquet that allows us to hit the ball over the net even without good technique, then eventually we'll likely lose that well-honed technique since we'll probably get lazy and stop using so much effort into hitting the ball.

It's like if you don't do calculus everyday, how much calculus will you remember in 10 years? Like they say, "You use it or you lose it." ;)

For many who use demanding racquets, the technique and the effort is a big part of the joy of playing tennis. Otherwise, why not just play a tennis video game on your Playstation? Can't get any less "demanding" than that, right? ;) LOL

tonysk83
08-21-2006, 05:52 PM
Both my racquets(rdx 500 mp) were getting strung so I had to use my old LM Radical OS for two days and those were some of the worst days of my life. I was just poking the ball over because of the power. Now with my rdx 500's I can get a full swing in, place the ball where I want, and not worry about hitting too hard.

couch
08-21-2006, 06:31 PM
It's funny; I would say about 80% of the 5.0 guys I play with play with tweeners. Go figure. Our team went to Southern Sectionals at 5.0 and I would say most of the players down there were using tweeners also.

I would say a lot of it is what you are used to and grew up with but I would say a lot of it is pride. I have tried switching back to a heavier racquet (I grew up playing with the POG Oversize) from my Volkl Tour 8's and have had difficulty since I've used it for so long.

NoBadMojo
08-21-2006, 06:54 PM
It's funny; I would say about 80% of the 5.0 guys I play with play with tweeners. Go figure. Our team went to Southern Sectionals at 5.0 and I would say most of the players down there were using tweeners also.

I would say a lot of it is what you are used to and grew up with but I would say a lot of it is pride. I have tried switching back to a heavier racquet (I grew up playing with the POG Oversize) from my Volkl Tour 8's and have had difficulty since I've used it for so long.

couldnt agree more...one of my regular hits was a 5.0 untill he switched from his old Gamma tweeners to the nCode90 and now he is a 4.5 I would say...he's too proud to switch again. other than that, one guy used a PS6.1 95 (he won national 45 events), and the other guy used PMacs old frame (based on the ps85) and played Wimbledon years ago..other than that, all the better players coming thru here are using MP frames and OS frames and quite a diverse mixture of stuff but nothing too demanding. We do have a so called teaching pro down here using a prestige Mid but i would say he is a 4.0 and he cant even demonstrate the volley let alone teach it. Seems like the people using the very demandng frames are some of the TW posters and mostly 3.5's and 4.0's...this from playing and teaching at racquet clubs where people visit from around the world.a pretty good cross section.

how'd you do at sectionals? were they held at Kiawah?

BreakPoint
08-21-2006, 08:53 PM
If I had to switch to a less demanding racquet to become a 5.0, I'd rather stay with my more demanding racquet and stay a 4.5. Why? Because then I know it wasn't me that got better, it was just the racquet, and I'd rather be a true 4.5 than a 5.0 that's only a 5.0 because of my racquet.

Besides, there's enough tough competiton at 4.5. Going to 5.0 just means you're going to lose more. ;) LOL

jackson vile
08-21-2006, 09:17 PM
Another thing that you have to consider here is that the majority using rackets with large head sizes are using a poly.

That allows you to take those larger swings


Yet another is that lighter rackets just are not as stable when not in full momentum simular to Hammer type rackets, ie not good volley rackets

When it comes down to it what works works, I think that it is strange that smaller head rackets improved my game, never saw it coming.

Steve Huff
08-21-2006, 09:22 PM
Well, I normally use a PK 5g. I tried a less demanding racket about 4 years ago (a PK ti 15g). Within 3 months, my elbow hurt so bad I had to quit playing for a month. I went back to the 5g. Actually, I went back to an older PK Asymmetric 265 (also about 95 sq in) which is very flexible, and most likely, the easiest on the arm racket ever made (save wood). My arm problems didn't return.

The other reason is that I can't consistently keep my groundstrokes in with more powerful rackets. As much as I like the instant pop on volleys that they provide, the groundstrokes just aren't as dependable. The angles are harder to come by, even with a lot of topspin.

Unlike Breakpoint, if I could move up a level AND not have arm pain, I'd gladly go to a less demanding racket. But, playing year round keeps me playing at a higher level than playing 3 out of every 4 month (if even that were possible) and without the pain the stiffer, longer rackets caused.

gb93433
08-21-2006, 09:27 PM
I learned on a Dunlop wood racquet and the new racquets are like cannons compared to a wood racquet. I use a Wilson 61 tour 90. I find them much easier to use. I definitely do not need more power.

chowdhurynaveen
08-21-2006, 09:56 PM
I know many 5.0's that are actually 4.0's using a players racquet. On the same token, i know plenty of 5.0's that are actually 4.0's that are using a tweener. I also play with many people that kill on the courts using both tweeners and player frames.

It all comes down to body mechanics, some people are built to use certain tool better than others. A simple example: the best rock climbers have long bony fingers to help them navigate stoney edges.

Also, one mold does not fit all, i have a freind that can easily rep 250 pounds on the bench who can throw football like no other. But my cousin is a skinny gangily guy that can throw that same football twice as far as the bencher can. Why is this, my skinny freinds joint and bone structure is more adapt to a throwing motion, and he can activate a serious of muscles key to throwing much more consistently and easily than the bencher can. On the flip side, the benchers muscular triangular torso, and cinder block like legs makes him more adapt to anaerobic excersizes (lifting). Im sure you get the idea.

In the end, you just have to find the racquet that best fits your body mechanics.

couch
08-23-2006, 07:24 PM
Breakpoint,

I don't know where your post went from earlier but here it is from my inbox:

---Quote (Originally by couch)---
That makes no sense whatsoever.
---End Quote---

---Quote (Originally by Breakpoint)---
Why not? A true 5.0 should be able to play 5.0-level tennis with just about any racquet IMHO, including so-called "demanding" ones. A 5.0 that can only play 5.0-level tennis with a "less-demanding" racquet, to me, is _not_ a true 5.0 player. Because, obviously it's the racquet that is helping him do a lot of the work and not himself doing the work since if you gave him a "more demanding" racquet he immediately drops down to the 4.5 level. IMO, a player's ability and rating should be independent of the racquet used.

I think Redflea gave a good example in another thread of a 5.5 he hits with that can play equally well with _any_ racquet you put in his hands. Now that's a true 5.5 player. :D
---End Quote---

Breakpoint,
If you are a 5.0, you are a 5.0, it doesn't matter what racquet you use. Last time I checked they kept score in tennis and I thought that's how you got your rating. I could use a more demanding racquet, I just choose not to. Why should I if I like using an 11 oz. racquet and have good success at it? I would say anyone who is playing at a 4.5 level or up has good technique and could play with just about anything "if" they wanted to. So to say that a 5.0 using a tweener or even a "granny" stick is not a 5.0 is ludicrous.

I don't know about you but I play tennis for the enjoyment "and" to win, so why would I not play with a racquet that I feel gives me the best chance, IMHO, to win? Besides, I've been playing with this racquet (Original Tour 8 ) ever since it came out and don't have the time to get used to another racquet; I have three kids at home.

I play with mostly ex-division I tennis players and like I said most of them play with tweeners now. I also play with a guy who was a hitting partner on the Indian Davis Cup team a while back and he uses a 115 sq. in. Prince TT Attitude. Now are you going to tell me he's not atleast a 5.0?

alb1
08-23-2006, 07:59 PM
Using this new formula a former Davis Cup player using a 115 would only rate 3.5. (Deduct .5 for every 5 sq in over 90)

kinsella
08-23-2006, 08:05 PM
I use a low powered, heavier racquet for several reasons.

1. I like to use my strength and still keep the ball in the court. I came to tennis from years of racquetball and squash, where you could not hit the ball so hard you lost the point. I often won points just on hitting really hard.

2. As long as the stick is around 12 oz, I can get plenty of power on serve.

3. Volleying hard hit balls and controlling them is easier with a heavy racquet.

NoBadMojo
08-23-2006, 08:17 PM
There is a certain reverseness about this demanding frame stuff..better players really dont use that sort of gear much anymore because they wish to be better players and wish to compete well and to the best of their abilities, but 3.5's can get away with using them because they are playing other 3.5's and the ball doesnt come whizzing at them with controlled power and loads of spin. Also, UE's don;t really matter so much as each point at the 3.5 level is less significant as the 3.5 on the other side of the net is coughing up plenty of UE's too. The only place you really even hear about obsolete demanding frames being used is here at TW. In the real world they are non issues other than reminiscing about the old days when Sampras USED to play or Courier USED to play. They arent really even used very much at all on the Pro Tours...

TennsDog
08-23-2006, 09:44 PM
So many people make it seem like classic "demanding frames" (i.e. PS 85 and PC) are completely obsolete and even advanced players have nothing to gain from playing with them, that even advanced players would benefit more from playing with more powerful, less demanding frames. Well guess what, that's not true. Do you want to tell the 2002 US Open champion that he was using the wrong racket? Perhaps you want to suggest the number one player in the world switch to a nice Babolat? Yeah, probably not. Say and think what you want, but the instant I switched from the n6.1 to the PS 85 with so little power and so much control, my game jumped up a notch or two. I simply cannot play with a racket with so much power as a tweener or other racket below 11.5 oz. Perhaps if I changed my technique and strategy, yeah, I could. However, as my game has developed, I've moved from the net-fearing, baseline bashing, topspin whipping player to an all-court player using less spin and more solid technique. How many all-court players use light and powerful rackets? I don't think it's so much that any specific racket is obsolete as it is the game style that it complements is fading in popularity. Look at the top players using Babolat (sorry, but I find Babolat to be the easiest and most obvious observation to make in explaining my point), you have Roddick, Clijsters, Nadal, Gonzalez. What percentage of the time would you say they volley? 5%, maybe 10% now that Roddick has found some acceptable percentages up at net? Now who's craftier and uses the court better? Federer, Mauresmo, Henman, Baghdatis. None of whom use light rackets. It's no doubt that there is a correlation between the evolution of the game and the popularity of certain frame types.

P.S. please don't argue about specific examples of players I used. If you don't agree with some of them, that wasn't the point. I made my point clear, I think, and I'm sure there are other examples that could be used that I just didn't think of.

BreakPoint
08-23-2006, 11:35 PM
I would say anyone who is playing at a 4.5 level or up has good technique and could play with just about anything "if" they wanted to.

Yes, I agree. That's what I said and that was my point.

So to say that a 5.0 using a tweener or even a "granny" stick is not a 5.0 is ludicrous.
That's not what I said. I said that if you give that same 5.0 a more demanding racquet, for example a PS 6.0 85, he should still continue to be able to play at the 5.0 level. Only if he immediately drops down a whole level to 4.5, THEN he was never likely a true 5.0 to begin with. Like you said above, a 5.0 should be able to play with just about anything, right? In this case, he couldn't.

Besides, I've been playing with this racquet (Original Tour 8 ) ever since it came out and don't have the time to get used to another racquet; I have three kids at home.
Who said you should switch? Please read my sig below my posts. I've been saying here over and over that people should stick with their racquet and practice more to get better rather than look for a short cut to get better by constantly switching racquets.

I also play with a guy who was a hitting partner on the Indian Davis Cup team a while back and he uses a 115 sq. in. Prince TT Attitude. Now are you going to tell me he's not atleast a 5.0?

Why would I say that? Of course, he's at least a 5.0. As long as he continues to play 5.0 level tennis with whatever racquet you put into his hands, whether that's a TT Attitude OS or a PS 6.0 85. Now if you gave him a PS 6.0 85 and even after months of practice and getting used to it, he drops down to a 3.5 level player, then would you still say that he was at least a 5.0 to begin with? Probably not, right? That's all I'm saying. Ratings are supposed to rate the player himself only, not the player-racquet combination. That's why you don't see asterisks next to people's ratings, as in "John Smith - 5.0*" "* - but only with a Pure Drive."

couch
08-24-2006, 04:57 AM
Yes, I agree. That's what I said and that was my point.

That's not what I said. I said that if you give that same 5.0 a more demanding racquet, for example a PS 6.0 85, he should still continue to be able to play at the 5.0 level. Only if he immediately drops down a whole level to 4.5, THEN he was never likely a true 5.0 to begin with. Like you said above, a 5.0 should be able to play with just about anything, right? In this case, he couldn't.


Who said you should switch? Please read my sig below my posts. I've been saying here over and over that people should stick with their racquet and practice more to get better rather than look for a short cut to get better by constantly switching racquets.



Why would I say that? Of course, he's at least a 5.0. As long as he continues to play 5.0 level tennis with whatever racquet you put into his hands, whether that's a TT Attitude OS or a PS 6.0 85. Now if you gave him a PS 6.0 85 and even after months of practice and getting used to it, he drops down to a 3.5 level player, then would you still say that he was at least a 5.0 to begin with? Probably not, right? That's all I'm saying. Ratings are supposed to rate the player himself only, not the player-racquet combination. That's why you don't see asterisks next to people's ratings, as in "John Smith - 5.0*" "* - but only with a Pure Drive."

Okay, I can accept that. It sounded like you were saying a 5.0 who uses a tweener is not really a 5.0 and that if that same 5.0 would use a more demanding racquet he would immediately drop to a 4.5. Sorry I took your comments out of context but that's what it sounded like you said.

I do agree that a 5.0, for the most part, should be able to play 5.0 level tennis with just about any racquet 11 oz. and up. I just think there are a lot of 3.5's, 4.0's, and even 4.5's that could benefit from using more of a tweener stick than a 12 oz more demanding stick. But I guess that's up to them.

And ratings, I guess, should rate the player alone but we play with racquets and there's no getting around it. Some racquets benefit some people's games more than others and people shouldn't choose a racquet solely based on pride or because so-and-so uses it, etc.

Anyway, sorry if I took your comments out of context.

tom4ny
08-24-2006, 05:53 AM
the % of player's today using a mid these days is very very low. 5% might be an over estimate. but they are very very sensitive and tend to harbor disdain towards the way the game is played today and the pro's who exemplify that game.

tom4ny
08-24-2006, 05:59 AM
if a 5.0 player has a new frame, especially one that is more demanding than their usual frame AND they are playing against another 5.0 player or better player, that first guy's game level COULD very well drop down a level. in that specific match. even very good player's can get off of their game.

bluegrasser
08-24-2006, 07:00 AM
There is a certain reverseness about this demanding frame stuff..better players really dont use that sort of gear much anymore because they wish to be better players and wish to compete well and to the best of their abilities, but 3.5's can get away with using them because they are playing other 3.5's and the ball doesnt come whizzing at them with controlled power and loads of spin. Also, UE's don;t really matter so much as each point at the 3.5 level is less significant as the 3.5 on the other side of the net is coughing up plenty of UE's too. The only place you really even hear about obsolete demanding frames being used is here at TW. In the real world they are non issues other than reminiscing about the old days when Sampras USED to play or Courier USED to play. They arent really even used very much at all on the Pro Tours...


Just curious Mojo, would you consider a mp Prestige a demanding frame, that's what I'm using at present and I'm hitting real well with this stick. Where do you draw the line in a demanding frame.

NoBadMojo
08-24-2006, 07:19 AM
Just curious Mojo, would you consider a mp Prestige a demanding frame, that's what I'm using at present and I'm hitting real well with this stick. Where do you draw the line in a demanding frame.

To me, the term 'demanding frame' varies depending upon the racquet operator. From a teaching standpoint I consider a frame too demanding when it precludes someone from setting up properly with both footwork and racquet work to reliably repeat a technically correct move on the ball. I consider a frame too demandng when the person cant flush hit it 9 times out of 10 when playing someone at least as good as they are, and i consider a frame too demanding when it is too heavy for someone to swing fast enough at the end of their session when playing someone as good as they are. Is your frame demanding? Cant answer that for you, but maybe you can. Also I dont think I've ever hit that frame. but midsized frames ARE too demanding in general for just about everyone with just a few exceptions. The theory of reverseness applies of course, and that may be one of the exceptions

oldguysrule
08-24-2006, 07:37 AM
the % of player's today using a mid these days is very very low. 5% might be an over estimate. but they are very very sensitive and tend to harbor disdain towards the way the game is played today and the pro's who exemplify that game.

You are missing the point and misrepresenting the attitude of most of the posters that you choose to insult.

Yes, the % of player's using a mid is very low, and even lower at the upper level of tennis. That does not mean that those player's are not enjoying the game and accomplishing everything they want to accomplish in tennis.

Most of these threads are started in such way as to insult the few individuals that choose to play with a mid-size racquet. I will grant you that a few of them use a midsize out of pride and are tiresome in their own way. BUT, most of them are just normal folks who enjoy playing with a midsize racquet, and feel it compliments their game.

Just because I have an appreciation for one style of tennis does not mean that I harbor disdain for another style. On the contrary, I have a great deal of respect for those athletes that have the strength, skill, and timing to maximize the benefits of a lighter, midplus size racquet. These racquets are designed to hit the ball hard with lots of topspin. (the one inch theory). I don't/can't/will never be able to play that way. I play an all court game and so I enjoy watching that style more. A midsize racquet is not neccesarily a negative when playing with more controlled, flatter strokes.

Different racquets fit different styles. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

NoBadMojo
08-24-2006, 09:41 AM
You are missing the point and misrepresenting the attitude of most of the posters that you choose to insult.

Yes, the % of player's using a mid is very low, and even lower at the upper level of tennis. That does not mean that those player's are not enjoying the game and accomplishing everything they want to accomplish in tennis.

Most of these threads are started in such way as to insult the few individuals that choose to play with a mid-size racquet. I will grant you that a few of them use a midsize out of pride and are tiresome in their own way. BUT, most of them are just normal folks who enjoy playing with a midsize racquet, and feel it compliments their game.

Just because I have an appreciation for one style of tennis does not mean that I harbor disdain for another style. On the contrary, I have a great deal of respect for those athletes that have the strength, skill, and timing to maximize the benefits of a lighter, midplus size racquet. These racquets are designed to hit the ball hard with lots of topspin. (the one inch theory). I don't/can't/will never be able to play that way. I play an all court game and so I enjoy watching that style more. A midsize racquet is not neccesarily a negative when playing with more controlled, flatter strokes.

Different racquets fit different styles. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

I dont think he missed the point and it is the players frame crowd who have the egos as huge as Buicks but are oh so very frail and quick to attack that cause the problems around here...they are the ones with the disdain..the rest of us are just trying to help people with good solid informed info. these people seem to define themselves as tennis players and people by the racquet they use rather than their abilities and parse really inaccurate information on this board that if people are taking to heart would cause them to buy really inappropriate and potentially harmful gear which is very wasteful on a number of levels.

It's a given that people can play with whatever gear they wish <nobody is disputing that>, but when they insert their huge but frail egos into it, parse mythical information about these magical frames, and when the attitude around here towards a very good ball striker goes something like the following post, people take exception.
<snip>
Originally Posted by BreakPoint
This whole thing sounds like a case of sour grapes to me on the part of NBMJ. It would seem he can't handle using a PS 6.0 85 himself so he's got to go around dissing everyone who can. But what can we expect from someone who can't even handle a 93 sq. in. racquet (DNX 10 Mid), let alone an 85? Yikes!

MasterTS
08-24-2006, 09:47 AM
I think my post got erased with the backup.. but the gist of it was:....

Lots of players that use demanding racquets shouldn't be.. their shots are weak, not penetrating, and often times short. I know a guy that uses the LM Prestige Mid and he us a dink baller with flat lobs.. No his game is not based on touch either.

If you use a demanding racquet and think you're hitting it fine, try an easier racquet you might find your potential groundstrokes to be much improved.

Arafel
08-24-2006, 09:57 AM
I dont think he missed the point and it is the players frame crowd who have the egos as huge as Buicks but are oh so very frail and quick to attack that cause the problems around here...they are the ones with the disdain..the rest of us are just trying to help people with good solid informed info. these people seem to define themselves as tennis players and people by the racquet they use rather than their abilities and parse really inaccurate information on this board that if people are taking to heart would cause them to buy really inappropriate and potentially harmful gear which is very wasteful on a number of levels.

NBM, you aren't, as you say, "trying to help people with good solid informed info." You are trying to help people with info based on your own agenda. That's fine, but call a shovel-shaped thing a shovel-shaped thing OK? :)

You maintain that bigger, lighter, stiffer frames are better for all recreational players and that just isn't the case. I play worse with bigger frames, for instance.

Until you can admit that you have an agenda, I'll continue to take everything you say with a rather large grain of salt.

My perspective is that for some people, a mid-size can be the best choice. It is for me. I play better with a 20-year old Ultra 2 than with any other racquet I've tried. Notice, I don't say EVERYONE else should switch to an Ultra 2 (or PS85 or PC600 or POG MS). You seem very happy with your Volkls in a bigger head size. That's great, for YOU. But you seem to extrapolate from your PERSONAL experience to try to make it universal, and that's wrong. People aren't cookie cutters; not everyone is going to play better with a large head or "modern" frame.

couch
08-24-2006, 09:58 AM
You are missing the point and misrepresenting the attitude of most of the posters that you choose to insult.

Yes, the % of player's using a mid is very low, and even lower at the upper level of tennis. That does not mean that those player's are not enjoying the game and accomplishing everything they want to accomplish in tennis.

Most of these threads are started in such way as to insult the few individuals that choose to play with a mid-size racquet. I will grant you that a few of them use a midsize out of pride and are tiresome in their own way. BUT, most of them are just normal folks who enjoy playing with a midsize racquet, and feel it compliments their game.

Just because I have an appreciation for one style of tennis does not mean that I harbor disdain for another style. On the contrary, I have a great deal of respect for those athletes that have the strength, skill, and timing to maximize the benefits of a lighter, midplus size racquet. These racquets are designed to hit the ball hard with lots of topspin. (the one inch theory). I don't/can't/will never be able to play that way. I play an all court game and so I enjoy watching that style more. A midsize racquet is not neccesarily a negative when playing with more controlled, flatter strokes.

Different racquets fit different styles. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

couch
08-24-2006, 09:59 AM
I think my post got erased with the backup.. but the gist of it was:....

Lots of players that use demanding racquets shouldn't be.. their shots are weak, not penetrating, and often times short. I know a guy that uses the LM Prestige Mid and he us a dink baller with flat lobs.. No his game is not based on touch either.

If you use a demanding racquet and think you're hitting it fine, try an easier racquet you might find your potential groundstrokes to be much improved.

Yes.

oldguysrule
08-24-2006, 10:25 AM
I dont think he missed the point and it is the players frame crowd who have the egos as huge as Buicks but are oh so very frail and quick to attack that cause the problems around here...they are the ones with the disdain..the rest of us are just trying to help people with good solid informed info. these people seem to define themselves as tennis players and people by the racquet they use rather than their abilities and parse really inaccurate information on this board that if people are taking to heart would cause them to buy really inappropriate and potentially harmful gear which is very wasteful on a number of levels.

It's a given that people can play with whatever gear they wish <nobody is disputing that>, but when they insert their huge but frail egos into it, parse mythical information about these magical frames, and when the attitude around here towards a very good ball striker goes something like the following post, people take exception.
<snip>
Originally Posted by BreakPoint
This whole thing sounds like a case of sour grapes to me on the part of NBMJ. It would seem he can't handle using a PS 6.0 85 himself so he's got to go around dissing everyone who can. But what can we expect from someone who can't even handle a 93 sq. in. racquet (DNX 10 Mid), let alone an 85? Yikes!

Several points:
1. I grant you that BP's statement was insulting and inaccurate. However, it did not occur in this thread and you have taken it out of the context of the other insulting posts that were occuring.

2. He missed the point because this thread is not about how many individuals use "demanding" frames, but why they use them. His post was an off-topic insult.

3. If you go back and read this thread not a single post could be considered attacking until post #37. Up to this point, responders were answering the OP's question based on their individual experiences. Your post did not answer the OP's question but instead contained subtle insults directed at users of midsize frames.

4. There were no talks of disdain or disrespect to anyone until tom4ny's post and now your response to my post. And you did not respond to the points I made but instead insulted those who do not agree with you. Which, by the way, were the second insults in this thread. (the first being tom4ny's)

5. And if you really want to get technical, the one inch advantage refers to midsize racquets. The n6.1 90 is 10.25 inches wide. This being the ideal width as per the article. I did not point this out earlier because I did not want to get into debates and insults, but...

6. I agree with you that midplus racquets contain features that most tennis players would benefit from. However, some people find just what they want from a midsize. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

tom4ny
08-24-2006, 10:29 AM
i also notice that the few mid users i know do not want to put the time in to work on their game and improve their ability to spin the ball. they stick with their 'classic' strokes and flattish eastern grip 1 hbh game. ironic that some call tweener users lazy and not willing to work on their game - i find 'some' midusers to be rigid in attitude and lazy at working to incorporate new elements into their game. modern gear just being one of those elements.

NoBadMojo
08-24-2006, 11:23 AM
oldguys, you asked for my opinion in another thread about the one inch, this thread was related, so i gave it to you. i dont care that breakpoints post didnt happen in this thread..it is something that happened however <one of many similar examples> and was pertaining to the point i was making so i posted it. tom didnt attack anyone..he made a general statement and if someone takes something like that personally, they may be one of the ones with the huge but frail egos ....conversely breakpoint did and does attack me..surely you can discern the difference between a personal assault and a general statement. if people with the huge but frail egos are also going to be hypersensitive and attack when their advice gets corrected or someone makes a general statement, i think you can see how that creates a lot of trouble around here..again..nobody is saying people shouldnt use whatever they want..thats never been an issue..it's the atitude and arrogance and snobbery that many of them have about the whole thing which creates the disdain around here, especially when they are discussing racquets which arent really even used anymore and dishing out lots of inaccuracies..i did answer the the OP's question by sayin that many of the TW posters use demanding frames because they define themselves as a 'player' not by how well they play but by what racquet they use. hope you like your day

newnuse
08-24-2006, 11:34 AM
Low power rackets allow me to maintain my aggressive swing. It allows me to hit out on the ball. Using a powerful racket, I get tentative because my balls are flying long.

BreakPoint
08-24-2006, 12:11 PM
i also notice that the few mid users i know do not want to put the time in to work on their game and improve their ability to spin the ball. they stick with their 'classic' strokes and flattish eastern grip 1 hbh game. ironic that some call tweener users lazy and not willing to work on their game - i find 'some' midusers to be rigid in attitude and lazy at working to incorporate new elements into their game. modern gear just being one of those elements.

But you say that as if there was something wrong with classic strokes, flattish shots, eastern grips, and 1HBH's. Why? I've seen people who play exactly this way absolutely destroy players with modern strokes, topspin shots, western grips, and 2HBH's. So who's to say which style is better?

I don't believe there's really such a thing as "obsolete" strokes.

oldguysrule
08-24-2006, 12:46 PM
oldguys, you asked for my opinion in another thread about the one inch, this thread was related, so i gave it to you. i dont care that breakpoints post didnt happen in this thread..it is something that happened however <one of many similar examples> and was pertaining to the point i was making so i posted it. tom didnt attack anyone..he made a general statement and if someone takes something like that personally, they may be one of the ones with the huge but frail egos ....conversely breakpoint did and does attack me..surely you can discern the difference between a personal assault and a general statement. if people with the huge but frail egos are also going to be hypersensitive and attack when their advice gets corrected or someone makes a general statement, i think you can see how that creates a lot of trouble around here..again..nobody is saying people shouldnt use whatever they want..thats never been an issue..it's the atitude and arrogance and snobbery that many of them have about the whole thing which creates the disdain around here, especially when they are discussing racquets which arent really even used anymore and dishing out lots of inaccuracies..i did answer the the OP's question by sayin that many of the TW posters use demanding frames because they define themselves as a 'player' not by how well they play but by what racquet they use. hope you like your day

1. Yes, I did ask your opinion regarding my comment that a midsize frame is not neccesarily counter-productive if your playing style relies on a more controlled, flatter swing path rather than than the faster, low-to-high swing path that was made possible by the additional one inch increase in frame width. You did not respond to that, so feel free to now, or not.

2. I also explained that prior to your post and tom4ny's, nobody commented on the motivations, ego, stubborness, or arrogance of any group of people. The posts were based on personal experience. You may agree or disagree with the conclusions, but nobody was insulting anyone.

3. As far as arrogance and snobbery, most people who choose to use a mid-size racquet acknowledge the benefits that others achieve in their game from a midplus. As of yet, I have not seen the same acknowledgement from those that choose to use a midplus.

4. You had no comment about the fact that the article you provided was extolling the virtues of mid-sized frames.

Most people think that I am a fairly level-headed, rational individual. I typically can see positives and negatives in both sides of a disagreement. What I don't understand is why we are even having a disagreement in the first place. Some people play better with and like a midsize racquet. Some people play better with and like a midplus racquet. To each his own. Who is anyone to say that one group is right and the other group is wrong. We all have different styles of play and different approaches to the game. That's why there are so many different types of racquets. I still don't understand why this is such a hard concept to understand.

MasterTS
08-24-2006, 12:47 PM
Low power rackets allow me to maintain my aggressive swing. It allows me to hit out on the ball. Using a powerful racket, I get tentative because my balls are flying long.

Try putting a lot more spin on the ball.. Catch the contact early and you won't hit anything long, no matter how 'powerful' the racquet is.

chowdhurynaveen
08-24-2006, 01:10 PM
i understand the comments about putting more spin on the ball to keep the ball in, but what if i dont want to put more topspin on the ball. A topspinned ball has less velocity than a flat ball. If i can effectively take the ball early, and consistently hit hard, heavy, driving, penetrating flat shots with out hitting outside the lines...then whats wrong with that. You can also learn to consistently hit the ball in using flat shots as well....you arent required to only use topspin. There are many techniques that can be used to play tennis, let people choose what fits them best (thats including the gear as well).

drakulie
08-24-2006, 01:21 PM
Guess what, around here, when I see a serve and volleyer play a baseliner on hardcourts, the serve and volleyer usually wins. Even at the Open level.

Ditto! I just played a guy yesterday who challenged me through an internet tennis site. he placed himself at the 4.5 level, describing himself as a strong baseliner.

Anyways, he showed up with a Babolat Pure Drive. He looked at my racket and said, "you still play with that dinosaur?, and then snickered"

I beat him 6-1, 6-0. He did not win one point off my serve in the second set. Not one point!

After the match he told me I had a great serve. I asked him who rated him 4.5? He said, "well I didn't play very well".

Odd thing is, I kicked his butt off the baseline too against his service games.

MasterTS
08-24-2006, 01:22 PM
i understand the comments about putting more spin on the ball to keep the ball in, but what if i dont want to put more topspin on the ball. A topspinned ball has less velocity than a flat ball. If i can effectively take the ball early, and consistently hit hard, heavy, driving, penetrating flat shots with out hitting outside the lines...then whats wrong with that. You can also learn to consistently hit the ball in using flat shots as well....you arent required to only use topspin. There are many techniques that can be used to play tennis, let people choose what fits them best (thats including the gear as well).


Any time you unload on the ball for a flat shot, it will sail way long for the big home run unless you're hitting down on the ball, period. Spin is the only way to keep the ball in the court. Hence what I said earlier.. if you cant keep the ball in with a powerful racquet, then you arent gonna do it with a demanding raqcuet.

So to hit flat and big, you gotta have very good timing to catch the ball at the right spot. If its sailing long with a powerful racquet, you prolly aren't catching it at the right time.

NoBadMojo
08-24-2006, 01:22 PM
1. Yes, I did ask your opinion regarding my comment that a midsize frame is not neccesarily counter-productive if your playing style relies on a more controlled, flatter swing path rather than than the faster, low-to-high swing path that was made possible by the additional one inch increase in frame width. You did not respond to that, so feel free to now, or not.

2. I also explained that prior to your post and tom4ny's, nobody commented on the motivations, ego, stubborness, or arrogance of any group of people. The posts were based on personal experience. You may agree or disagree with the conclusions, but nobody was insulting anyone.

3. As far as arrogance and snobbery, most people who choose to use a mid-size racquet acknowledge the benefits that others achieve in their game from a midplus. As of yet, I have not seen the same acknowledgement from those that choose to use a midplus.

4. You had no comment about the fact that the article you provided was extolling the virtues of mid-sized frames.

Most people think that I am a fairly level-headed, rational individual. I typically can see positives and negatives in both sides of a disagreement. What I don't understand is why we are even having a disagreement in the first place. Some people play better with and like a midsize racquet. Some people play better with and like a midplus racquet. To each his own. Who is anyone to say that one group is right and the other group is wrong. We all have different styles of play and different approaches to the game. That's why there are so many different types of racquets. I still don't understand why this is such a hard concept to understand.

oldguys i didnt wish to bail on this without a response. i can respond to all of your points, but i think we've gone round the block with this, and we're now into the semantics and the nitpicking and the redundency..i apprecate your playing the role of peacemaker/keeper. again, i have no problem at all with people using whatever they want to, however i hate to see people given really bad advice about what these old obsolete frames do. By the way, flat hitting and midsize dont have to go together..that;s another myth. you can play a flatter trajectory style with a larger headed frame and have the luxury of far fewer misshits and more ready access to spin if you <general term> are able to mix it up..Agassi sure does..later on, NBM

oldguysrule
08-24-2006, 01:32 PM
oldguys i didnt wish to bail on this without a response. i can respond to all of your points, but i think we've gone round the block with this, and we're now into the semantics and the nitpicking and the redundency..i apprecate your playing the role of peacemaker/keeper. again, i have no problem at all with people using whatever they want to, however i hate to see people given really bad advice about what these old obsolete frames do. By the way, flat hitting and midsize dont have to go together..that;s another myth. you can play a flatter trajectory style with a larger headed frame and have the luxury of far fewer misshits and more ready access to spin if you <general term> are able to mix it up..Agassi sure does..later on, NBM

To borrow a phrase from KK..NWIP. But that's OK. I had fun working out some of these points and learned something about human nature in the process. Have a good one, OGR

Ultra2HolyGrail
08-24-2006, 01:32 PM
Guess what, around here, when I see a serve and volleyer play a baseliner on hardcourts, the serve and volleyer usually wins. Even at the Open level.

You aint kiddin and being a baseliner as a junior myself the guys that gave me the most trouble were the serve and volleyers.. It definatley takes you out of your comfort zone and makes you hit tough shots.. This could be the reason american tennis is doing so poor as most of the kids are strictly baseline and coaches lead them to believe the only way to compete is use top spin shots (only because you have to keep the ball in play) and play baseline.

just imagine how awesome roddick could be if he actually could volley and maybe used a more control racquet..

BreakPoint
08-24-2006, 01:32 PM
Any time you unload on the ball for a flat shot, it will sail way long for the big home run unless you're hitting down on the ball, period. Spin is the only way to keep the ball in the court. Hence what I said earlier.. if you cant keep the ball in with a powerful racquet, then you arent gonna do it with a demanding raqcuet.

So to hit flat and big, you gotta have very good timing to catch the ball at the right spot. If its sailing long with a powerful racquet, you prolly aren't catching it at the right time.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Flat shots sail long only if you're using a racquet that's too powerful. If you're using a demanding, low powered, control oriented racquet, like a PS 6.0 85 or other Mid, the ball will not sail long on a flat shot. I hit flat balls all the time with my nCode 90 and the balls rarely sail long. And I don't even use poly strings.

BTW, you never, ever hit "down" on the ball from the baseline.

MasterTS
08-24-2006, 01:38 PM
Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Flat shots sail long only if you're using a racquet that's too powerful. If you're using a demanding, low powered, control oriented racquet, like a PS 6.0 85 or other Mid, the ball will not sail long on a flat shot. I hit flat balls all the time with my nCode 90 and the balls rarely sail long. And I don't even use poly strings.

BTW, you never, ever hit "down" on the ball from the baseline.

I never said you hit down on the ball in the baseline. The only balls you're suppose to hit flat on are short or midcourt balls that are higher than the net. If you hit pure flat on the baseline as you claim (and I know theres some type of spin on it anyway), then you have absolutely no control over where the ball will go.. If you had that type of control, you'd be a pro.

chowdhurynaveen
08-24-2006, 01:40 PM
to masterts:

thank you for elaborating on my point.....i believe timing and footwork are the most important aspect of the game everyone should try to master.

I have played extensively with everything from a pure drive to the ps 6.0 85. I almost never hit out using either of these racquets because i have put so much emphasis on these two attributes over the past 15 years. But as a personal point/opinion, i still prefer the feel of a players racquet.....just my humble opinion...thats just me.

Ps-i didnt say "unload," I agree its foolish to do that on every shot, i gauge and adjust my power according to the situation so it results most of the time in a hard flat shot.

AngeloDS
08-24-2006, 01:57 PM
People use demanding frames mostly for ego. That's not a bad thing. You can feel hyped and may play better due to confidence. It gives you a reason to say, "I'm better than you." lol :p.

You can learn strokes and what-not with any racquet; heck even a broom stick would work. Though, at the 4.0 level you should have every stroke you need; there will be extremely minor tweaks here and there to make your strokes better past it but not by much. Past that, it's just on court mentality - adjusting to the pace in games, experience, consistency, accuracy and other things.

The difference in strokes between true 4.5's and a 5.0's are not noticble. The difference is in the footwork & mental part of the game.

For me at lower levels, racquets don't make that much of a difference in a physical sense. It has to do more with strings (type & tension), form and the ball.

Ultra2HolyGrail
08-24-2006, 02:12 PM
Pat rafter also proved you dont actually need a demanding frame to be a serve and volleyer. So its doable. What bugs me is the mentality of some peaple that in because THEY play a certain way or need a lighter bigger head racquet that EVERYONE should be playing like that. Who's to say you should just play baseline and use a minumum of 98in racquet and just play baseline with lots of spin... Might work for older players who are too old to compete with a more demanding frame, same with serve and volley and all court game, but to teach it as religion even to young players is wrong imho.

BreakPoint
08-24-2006, 02:26 PM
I never said you hit down on the ball in the baseline. The only balls you're suppose to hit flat on are short or midcourt balls that are higher than the net. If you hit pure flat on the baseline as you claim (and I know theres some type of spin on it anyway), then you have absolutely no control over where the ball will go.. If you had that type of control, you'd be a pro.

Of course, no ball has zero spin on it. That would be impossible. When people refer to "flat" shots, they mean relative to heavy topspin shots that loop very high over the net and then dip before it bounces and then bounces high. All the while giving your opponent time to get to the ball. Flat shots have a much flatter trajectory and move through the air much faster robbing your opponent of time. It's a great putaway shot.

If your flat shots have no control or if they mostly sail long, then I'd say you're using a racquet that's too powerful. Try using a low-powered, high control midsized racquet and I'd bet you'll have more control over your flat shots and they will be less likely to sail long. This is one of the reasons a lot of better players do not like high-powered and/or big headed racquets.

NoBadMojo
08-24-2006, 02:27 PM
Pat rafter also proved you dont actually need a demanding frame to be a serve and volleyer. So its doable. What bugs me is the mentality of some peaple that in because THEY play a certain way or need a lighter bigger head racquet that EVERYONE should be playing like that. Who's to say you should just play baseline and use a minumum of 98in racquet and just play baseline with lots of spin... Might work for older players who are too old to compete with a more demanding frame, same with serve and volley and all court game, but to teach it as religion even to young players is wrong imho.

good TP's get people into the right gear for the lessons' skillset and have the ability to teach and play all styles of tennis, and should end up teaching a certain playing style to the lesson based upon a number of factors. sounds like you've been around some less than good TP's

BreakPoint
08-24-2006, 02:31 PM
People use demanding frames mostly for ego.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I think only people who actually do do this or people who use less demanding frames say this. Many people who use demanding frames do so because they play better and/or more satisfying tennis with them. It has nothing to do with ego.

The nCode 90 is a pretty demanding frame, right? Do you think Federer plays with it because he plays well with it or only for his ego?

Ultra2HolyGrail
08-24-2006, 02:39 PM
good TP's get people into the right gear for the lessons' skillset and have the ability to teach and play all styles of tennis, and should end up teaching a certain playing style to the lesson based upon a number of factors. sounds like you've been around some less than good TP's

I agree, but dont that contradict what you been preaching about large head racquets and inferior obsolete strokes?

stevewcosta
08-24-2006, 02:41 PM
Yeah, that ego explanation is ridiculous. I use the PS b/c it's a thin, solid, box beam with great feedback (not to mention the Wilson grip shape and 16 X18 open pattern). I'm going to demo the DNX 10 mid b/c some say it's like the PS but bigger/more power (highly doubt it, but will give it a shot despite the horrible Volkl grip shape).

NoBadMojo
08-24-2006, 02:46 PM
I agree, but dont that contradict what you been preaching about large head racquets and inferior obsolete strokes?

no it doesnt..not at all, and i figured your post was a snide way to attack me, but you were lacking the courage to do so directly. i dont preach large headed racquets..i keep saying over and over again that i preach people using the right swingweight for their skillset and the right headsize for their skillset. you dont seem to understand that there are racquets in between midsized frames and largeheaded lightweight frames, and that's where most of the people should find their niche

AngeloDS
08-24-2006, 03:12 PM
Nothing could be further from the truth. I think only people who actually do do this or people who use less demanding frames say this. Many people who use demanding frames do so because they play better and/or more satisfying tennis with them. It has nothing to do with ego.

The nCode 90 is a pretty demanding frame, right? Do you think Federer plays with it because he plays well with it or only for his ego?
I hate how people compare such.

The regular player or even a highly competitive club player is really nothing compared to atp players. Americas top junior gets bagel'd by lower ATP players.

The difference in skill between Federer and most here is beyond anything. And even the difference between a low ATP player and such are still so far apart.

If you think a racquet makes you better at lower levels; then you're kidding yourself. It's the technique, footwork, mental game etc. All of which you can train with or without a racquet.

Getting more reach, such as the drill where you have to catch the balls with your hand -- catching out in front to improve coordination. Improve reach and footwork. Stroke improvements can be done without a racquet. Footwork as well. Court sense can be done as well.

Though, it doesn't hurt to have talent.

Keifers
08-24-2006, 03:44 PM
Nothing could be further from the truth. I think only people who actually do do this or people who use less demanding frames say this. Many people who use demanding frames do so because they play better and/or more satisfying tennis with them. It has nothing to do with ego.

The nCode 90 is a pretty demanding frame, right? Do you think Federer plays with it because he plays well with it or only for his ego?
BreakPoint, I do agree with AngeloDS that your invoking a comparison with Federer -- when the discussion hasn't been about ATP players -- is gratuitous. I realize it's a common thing to do on these boards, but it's my sincere wish that you refrain from doing it or do it much less in future. My concern is that arguing points and positions this way leads to a cheapening of the debates here and opens the door to even further distorted arguments, emotionalism and chest-pounding.

(Yes, yes, I know that door is wide open already and has been for some time, but I hope you'll take it positively when I say I think you are capable of better and I'd like to see better from you.)

Ultra2HolyGrail
08-24-2006, 03:59 PM
I think the whole point in comparing pros in these debates is just proof that demanding frames are still viable and the best in the world can use them. Are we suppose to teach up and comming juniors that small headed frames are just for big headed peaple? The next pete sampras will never come around because of this baseline babolat bashing, and big top spins crazy western grips mentality.

oldguysrule
08-24-2006, 04:12 PM
This quote:
"...Might work for older players who are too old to compete with a more demanding frame, same with serve and volley and all court game..."

and this one:

"I agree, but dont that contradict what you been preaching about large head racquets and inferior obsolete strokes?"

and this one:

"it's no point in arguing. we all know your view on smaller frames which DOES contradict what your saying now. From your posts i take it you believe it's impossibe to be a 5.0-5.5 or open player with a small headed frame. And you also said in order to use those frames technique is also obsolete to make them work. Im also sure if you feel so much hatred toward the 85, you feel the same way about 90in ,93in frames and also the style those who use them have."

make it difficult to have a reasonable discussion with someone on this topic. NBM's comments were completely reasonable and not arguementative. When someone meets you in the middle it is not neccesary to start an arguement. Your first quote above shows a total misunderstanding of this whole thread. It will be much better if you stick to sharing your experience and stop making assumptions about what others are capable of and thinking.

mucat
08-24-2006, 04:20 PM
I don't understand why people use small head size racket. You can find and/or customize a bigger head size racket with same flex, same weight, same distribution with the benefit of bigger sweetspot. Bigger sweetspot allow bigger cut at the ball means bigger topspin. Bigger topspin alllow more pace, it is all good.

The only argument is control. But I am not convince. I hit with both PS 6.0 85 and Rad OS. The PS85 is definitely more accurate, I notice it especially hit against the wall. But not by much, I can hit the line just as good with both. Moreover, the OS allow me to hit good shots in bad situation, sometimes very bad situation, which the smaller head PS85 never allows me to do.

I do not agree with using what feels good but plays bad. I believe everyone should play with a racket that maximize his/her performance (without cause health risk of course). Playing with a racket that hinder your performance is cheating your opponent out of the enjoy of the game, unless you are way better than your opponent, of course. It is boring playing with someone who wants to feel good instead of wants to win, IMO.

acetennisman
08-24-2006, 04:38 PM
I think the biggest thing is hitting heavy. When i use my racquet, i can rip the ball as hard as i want and it doesn't go long. When i hit with a tweener i have to make my technique way more extreme to hit the ball in the court. If you hit flat, it doesn't as matter as much if you hit a lot of spin.

BreakPoint
08-24-2006, 04:40 PM
BreakPoint, I do agree with AngeloDS that your invoking a comparison with Federer -- when the discussion hasn't been about ATP players -- is gratuitous.

Yes, I admit it was a bit of hyperbole, but I do it to make sure that my point gets across. Here was AngeloDS's exact quote:

People use demanding frames mostly for ego.

He did not say "lower level people" nor "amatures" nor "recreational players" nor "3.5 players" nor "5.5 players", etc., he just said "People", and since I would include Federer in that category of "People" (although some may consier him a god ;) ), I used him as the most visible and well-known example since we have all seen how he plays. I could have named some obscure 5.0 player but he wouldn't know who I was talking about so he wouldn't know how he plays, and thus, wouldn't know if he is or is not using a demanding frame for his ego or not. Do you see what I mean?

NoBadMojo
08-24-2006, 05:00 PM
I don't understand why people use small head size racket. You can find and/or customize a bigger head size racket with same flex, same weight, same distribution with the benefit of bigger sweetspot. Bigger sweetspot allow bigger cut at the ball means bigger topspin. Bigger topspin alllow more pace, it is all good.

The only argument is control. But I am not convince. I hit with both PS 6.0 85 and Rad OS. The PS85 is definitely more accurate, I notice it especially hit against the wall. But not by much, I can hit the line just as good with both. Moreover, the OS allow me to hit good shots in bad situation, sometimes very bad situation, which the smaller head PS85 never allows me to do.

I do not agree with using what feels good but plays bad. I believe everyone should play with a racket that maximize his/her performance (without cause health risk of course). Playing with a racket that hinder your performance is cheating your opponent out of the enjoy of the game, unless you are way better than your opponent, of course. It is boring playing with someone who wants to feel good instead of wants to win, IMO.

nice one Mucat. you've a good understanding of things tennis i think

Taking it one step farther, often midsized frames actually give people less control and not more..i'm talking depth control here..the more important type of control..the slightest misshit with a midsize results in a short weak ball and because it is harder to spin the ball it is much harder to create those controlled angles...also midsized frames are usually higher swingweighted frames and people are more likley to make late contact with such a frame, and doing that results in serious lack of control, with the ball usually flying long. there just are so few REAL upsides (like none) to use a midsized frame and so many downsides in my estimation......

I'm laughing here because even if i was a bad enough TP to suggest midsized demanding frames, none of the pro shoppes at the last 4 or 5 clubs I taught at stocked one anyway...message in there for sure

tennisguy11
08-24-2006, 05:03 PM
So do you suggest the DNX 10 MP over the mid?

NoBadMojo
08-24-2006, 05:18 PM
So do you suggest the DNX 10 MP over the mid?

not necessarily...the Mid is an exception and is much easier to flush hit than other mids and in fact is easier to flush hit than most of the Wilson 95's and SlazX1, etc. By the way, the 95 headsized frames are being referred to as Midsizes now in some knowledgable circles. The MP having a dense stringbed makes the sweetspot feel pretty similar in size to the Mid and reduces the juice level depending upon tension of course....i believe the swingweights on these two are different enough that if a person likes one he wouldnt like the other..they also have different feels to them..they're both nice and designed for pretty advanced players

drakulie
08-24-2006, 05:19 PM
People use demanding frames mostly for ego.

LOL!

I started using the PS85 when I was 15/16. I am now 36. I hardly think I was/am using this racquet because of ego.

To the contrary, most people who buy the racquets being sold today do it because of ego. They want to buy the racquet they see the pros using...Babolat Pure Drives, Ncodes, Etc, etc, etc....

Another example....The greatest selling racquet line is the Head Radical. Each time AA is seen with a new paintjob, people using the former radical go out and buy the "new one", becasue AA is using it. That is EGO!!

fastdunn
08-24-2006, 05:31 PM
My usage of player's frame was never out of ego.

When I started out, I played with player's frame simply because
I thought I could learn tennis in right way with player's frame.

Then later I switched to tweener(extended length) for more power, especially for
my weakest shot, forehand.

Recently I switched back to player's frame, since I play doubles
mostly and I control volleys much better with player's frame...
I sacrified some power off ground strokes for better net play...

Ultra2HolyGrail
08-24-2006, 06:08 PM
I actually almost consider tweener frames more demanding than player's frames because they make me think more about my shots while I'm hitting them. They have too much power so I have to make sure I don't swing too hard and get enough topspin, etc. With the racket I have now, I can focus on just hitting the way I want. I was always told I was swinging too hard and going for winners when I wasn't, that was just my natural stroke. Since changing rackets, that natural stroke I like is what is required to put weight into shots, so it works out well. I was never able to hit very consistently when I had to think about slowing down my swing speed to not lose control.

So an overall answer to your question is because that's what fits our games, just like why anyone buys any frame. You buy what works for you. An added bonus for demanding frames is that they're more stable to hit and handle heavy shots.

Pretty excellent post.

Mick
08-24-2006, 06:26 PM
i don't know about other people but i like using a demanding frame because it makes me work harder to accomplish what I could do with a less demanding frame and sports are all about improving one's performance.

tennis_nerd22
08-24-2006, 06:54 PM
my last post on tw... NBM can you send me an email please.

magilligan
08-24-2006, 07:09 PM
So do you suggest the DNX 10 MP over the mid?


Having hit with both, I prefer the mid because of the easier access to spin and slightly softer feel with it. Serves were good with both, but my kicker with the mid was RIDICULOUS. I think I hit something like 5 second serve aces over 3 or 4 practice sets on friday. I might end up going with that fly swatter though since my shoulder isn't too happy right now, but we'll see.

tennisguy11
08-24-2006, 07:12 PM
for doubles do you think the mp would be better than the mid during quick exchanges at net due to the larger head size? Thanks for the help

magilligan
08-24-2006, 07:18 PM
for doubles do you think the mp would be better than the mid during quick exchanges at net due to the larger head size? Thanks for the help

It's all up to you, both are AMAZING at net, and just about everywhere else for that matter, I just prefer the feel and stringpattern of the mid. If you wanted a really maneuverable frame from volkl, try the DNX9, I prefer the feel to both of the 10's, but the 10 mid is similar and I like the added stability. NBMJ can definitely add to what I've stated.

tennisguy11
08-24-2006, 07:21 PM
I found the 9 way too powerful

magilligan
08-24-2006, 07:25 PM
I found the 9 way too powerful


I'm switching from the 9 to the 10 mid for that little bit of control(or less pop) and added stability. The 9 has a sweet feel though

couch
08-24-2006, 07:41 PM
And im sure you noticed quite a few pro all courters and even some baseliners use these demanding frames 85in-93. Why? Maybe they have some notion these racquets are better suited for their game. Crazy as it may sound they know these racquets are proven performers and takes a lot of the guesswork out of demoing 90% of the crappy frames on the market today.

What? If you looked at the pro game lately most of them are using racquets that are 95 sq. in. or larger. Last time I checked that Pure Drive thing was pretty popular. I would guess most of the guys that use the smaller frames used them when they were younger and continue to use them. Most new/younger pros use larger racquets. Is this not true or am I missing something?

couch
08-24-2006, 07:46 PM
nice one Mucat. you've a good understanding of things tennis i think

Taking it one step farther, often midsized frames actually give people less control and not more..i'm talking depth control here..the more important type of control..the slightest misshit with a midsize results in a short weak ball and because it is harder to spin the ball it is much harder to create those controlled angles...also midsized frames are usually higher swingweighted frames and people are more likley to make late contact with such a frame, and doing that results in serious lack of control, with the ball usually flying long. there just are so few REAL upsides (like none) to use a midsized frame and so many downsides in my estimation......

I'm laughing here because even if i was a bad enough TP to suggest midsized demanding frames, none of the pro shoppes at the last 4 or 5 clubs I taught at stocked one anyway...message in there for sure

This is so true; it's ashame some people don't realize it.

Richie Rich
08-24-2006, 08:07 PM
What? If you looked at the pro game lately most of them are using racquets that are 95 sq. in. or larger. Last time I checked that Pure Drive thing was pretty popular. I would guess most of the guys that use the smaller frames used them when they were younger and continue to use them. Most new/younger pros use larger racquets. Is this not true or am I missing something?
there's only a handful that use anything smaller than 90 sq inch these days. prestige mids still seem fairly popular though but you are right, MP are the norm on the pro tour these days.

Ultra2HolyGrail
08-24-2006, 08:16 PM
What? If you looked at the pro game lately most of them are using racquets that are 95 sq. in. or larger. Last time I checked that Pure Drive thing was pretty popular. I would guess most of the guys that use the smaller frames used them when they were younger and continue to use them. Most new/younger pros use larger racquets. Is this not true or am I missing something?

Its all about the player really.. The ncodes are pretty popular and their 95in.
I've seen peaple who use them beat on babolat guys plenty of times.
Also just because most kids play baseline only is that the ONLY way one should play? It's ridiculous to play with a racquet because everyone else is playing with them. The racquet should match the player, not the other way around.

oldguysrule
08-24-2006, 08:41 PM
HA! oh c'mon Oldguys..be a sport....you could be just like Jerry Springer, but in an online metaphor. ;O....There are good guests for the show available right here in this thread..they put the FUN in dysFUNction

Yes...this is my first experience in online chat stuff. Dysfunction is a good description.

You know what? When you are not insulting someone or making a gross generalization (like, a midsize has no advantages...) you actually make your arguement better than the midsize crowd. (But see the next paragraph for the fly in your soup.) I agree with your stated philosophy on racquet selection, but I think you apply it inconsistently when it comes to midsize racquets.

I mentioned this before but you didn't respond...The one inch that changed tennis was the change to MIDSIZE racquets. The author goes on to state that increasing the width of the racquet does not provide a corresponding bump in performance. So, someone sees the value in midsize racquets besides the crazy people on this forum.

Anyway, it's been fun. I think I may cut back on this online stuff though. Kind of promotes a certain isolation and it can get addictive. However, it is fun knowing that I can find folks to hit with all over the country.

rosenstar
08-24-2006, 08:53 PM
I use to have a tweener frame, and it was so light that I ended up throwing out my shoulder trying to add pace on the ball... also, u don't get the same kind of work out with a tweener racquet...

BreakPoint
08-24-2006, 09:11 PM
..also midsized frames are usually higher swingweighted frames and people are more likley to make late contact with such a frame, and doing that results in serious lack of control, with the ball usually flying long.
Actually, I'd say you've got that reversed. With some lightweight, big-headed, wide-beamed, ultra-powerful tweeners, hitting the ball can result in a serious lack of control with the ball usually flying long, no matter how soon or late you hit it.
...there just are so few REAL upsides (like none) to use a midsized frame and so many downsides in my estimation......

I do hope KK reads this thread, as he didn't believe me when I told him recently that that's been the gist of what you've been preaching here over the years.

NoBadMojo
08-24-2006, 09:15 PM
Actually, I'd say you've got that reversed. With some lightweight, big-headed, wide-beamed, ultra-powerful tweeners, hitting the ball can result in a serious lack of control with the ball usually flying long, no matter how soon or late you hit it.

.


lol....hahahahahaha! what's really funny is that you arent even trying to be funny..and you couldnt be more wrong <as usual>.

DX_Psycho
08-24-2006, 09:56 PM
simple. some people find the frame demanding, but i find that there is no frame that's too demanding for me.

AngeloDS
08-24-2006, 10:02 PM
Problem is that players frames are only good if you have incredible swing speed. Produced by the upper body rotation, good form and technique and what-not. Players frames require a lot to be good at them at a highly competitive level. At the social level, you can get away with using players frames -- heck even a wood racquet you can get away with.

The strokes while all the same pretty much past 4.0, the speed and execution of these strokes changes at higher levels. At the pro level they're swinging their racquets with incredible speed (but have control).

A lot of club players, social players and what not cannot match that speed. A lot are swinging wildly with no control and still not matching the speeds of pros. To go with that they have no control in their stroke. Leading to loss in accuracy.

chowdhurynaveen
08-24-2006, 10:44 PM
I agree with angelods....there are the some players out there that should not be using players frames. Specifically those that have no mind for mechanics and technique and just swing wildly in the hopes that they will produce a fedex god like shot. This is my cousin, easily a 2.0 who refuses to give up his ncode tour 90. Hes a tall strong guy, and once in a while (1 in 20) he'll pull out an amazing shot, but in a game scenario, its a bagel all the way. Under pressure, he loses all knowledge of the physics of tennis and hits everything out. By the way, hes been swinging so wildly lately, he pulled his deltoids and lats at the same time and is out of commision.

On the hand, if you have grooved/defined strokes, theres nothing wrong with using a demanding racquet in the same way theres nothing wrong with using a more demanding heavier weight in strength training (at the correct time in the progression of training). Its is human nature to adapt, whether you make it easy (larger headsize) or hard (smaller headsize)on yourself....adaptation will occur, and both are equally gratifying, just go with the one that tickles your pickle.

Ps- I think intermediates can use a players frame as well, as long as they focus on theyre strokes, and gradually learn the frame instead of making every hitting session into a slug fest.

Rysty
08-24-2006, 10:49 PM
Two reasons: Weight and flex.

I don't want to use tons of lead in my racquet, and I have had arm and shoulder problems, which I don't have with flexy racquets. Tweeners with flex rate 60 or less don't seem to exist.

AngeloDS
08-24-2006, 10:58 PM
The Fischer M Speed Pro 105 is a pretty soft feeling racquet at 56 stiffness and at 11.8 Ounces unstrung (12+ when it's strung) it's good; it's incredibly arm friendly. One of the softest tweeners I've had the chance to hit with; the assistant college tennis coach owns a tennis shop and I got the chance to hit with a few -- really good racquets. Just keep your elbowed tucked on your side when hitting forehands to help your arm.

I found this racquet to be incredibly friendly stringing it with this --> http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageACGAMMA-TNT16.html

Gamma TNT2 16, strung at 60 lbs.

It feels like a 95 racquet strung at 50 lbs. It has a really soft feeling but pretty good accuracy and control.

TaintedWisdom
08-24-2006, 11:25 PM
chowdhurynaveen,
He pulled his deltoids and lat
thats some crazy injury, I didn't even think it was possible in tennis hehe.

I workout, and I noticed that when I play tennis my lats actually feel sore the day after almost like I did some straight arm pulldown at the gym.

I wonder if this is normal since I'm just starting. I don't think I'm doing something wrong (I dont swing like a maniac, so take that one out of the picture, and I workout 5 times a week for many years so I',m in good shape lol)

I never isolate the lats that much at the gym (mostly pull ups and cable rows etc.) I should probably do more straight arm pulldowns and see if it helps.

Note: sorry if that post was a bit out of context but I did not want to make a whole thread just for this...

chowdhurynaveen
08-24-2006, 11:40 PM
hey there tainted wisdom!

Your Latimuss is comprised of many different smaller muscles, your probably just activating ones that you dont use to often, so no need to worry. As long as you take it easy, eat plenty of protein, get your rest, and it does not become cronic, youll be fine. Just an FYI, when i first started playing tennis hardcore (4 hours a day), my traps, lats, delts, obliques, and quadriceps all hurt at the same time.....so your right on track! Have fun!:mrgreen:

rosen88
08-25-2006, 05:34 AM
Ask Federer why he uses a demanding racket.

Well, I use a PS85 and I have tried all sorts of rackets. I even get sponsored if I want but I still play with the PS85. I feel that I get more precise shots and that I can really "feel" the ball. If you call the PD a tweener as just want to tell you that I can't play with it. I don't get more power, control, feel or anything else. I tell you that I will play with "demanding" rackets untill I will retire.

couch
08-25-2006, 06:57 AM
Its all about the player really.. The ncodes are pretty popular and their 95in.
I've seen peaple who use them beat on babolat guys plenty of times.
Also just because most kids play baseline only is that the ONLY way one should play? It's ridiculous to play with a racquet because everyone else is playing with them. The racquet should match the player, not the other way around.

It is true that it's all about the player and he/she should use what matches their game but the game has changed to more of a baseline game with fewer serve and volleyers out there. And I think most serve and volleyers out there at least on the pro tour use a 95 sq. in. head or above. This really is splitting hairs I guess.

And I'm also not saying that just because most of the younger kids and pros are playing from the baseline that the baseline is the only way to play; it just seems harder to play serve and volley these days. Heck, I play a lot of doubles and I definitely need to know how to volley.

And actually, I think the future tennis players that will be most successful will be mostly all-court players that can "finish" points at the net. I don't think a lot of these baseline bashers take advantage of the great shots they hit and let their opponents off the hook by staying back. I know I do this sometimes because I don't have as much confidence at the net as I do at the baseline.

But to re-iterate, I do agree that the stick needs to match the player the best it can. Some players hit better with heavier, more demanding frames and some people hit better with tweener frames. It doesn't make one right or wrong it just makes it different. I just think some people who use heavier racquets could possibly benefit from a lighter easier to use racquet but for whatever reason continue to use a heavy frame.

oldguysrule
08-25-2006, 07:10 AM
bye oldguys..thanks so much for insulting me out of the blue like that..hope it makes you feel nice

Hey, I am sorry NoBad...I really meant it in a friendly way. You have to admit you do get your digs in. But at the same time, I think you truly care about the game of tennis and helping people get better. So, while we may disagree on this minor issue of racquets (that gets blown out of proportion by many) I still enjoy your posts and look forward to your opinions. I also think you would be a fun doubles partner or opponent. When I was typing that post, I was not intending to insult. Hope this clears it up a little bit.

frekcles
08-25-2006, 07:36 AM
Because I'm a poser and chicks dig it.....:D

Seriously I don't know why you guys are flaming each other over this. If a person wants to use a more demanding frame then I say by all means go ahead.


Ps- I think intermediates can use a players frame as well, as long as they focus on theyre strokes, and gradually learn the frame instead of making every hitting session into a slug fest.

Back to your post chowdhurynaveen. An intermediate player can gradually learn how to use a player's frame. But how will you go about learning it's nuances when your hitting partner turns a simple rallye into a slugfest? The idea is to hit the ball back and forth and concentrate on hitting the sweet spot. But this guy wants to hit down the line winners and cross-court shots after every third shot.:confused:

nViATi
08-25-2006, 08:36 AM
Why does it matter? If somebody is using too demanding of a racquet for their playing ability/skill then it'll be easier for you to beat them! :)

NoBadMojo
08-25-2006, 08:59 AM
.

4. You had no comment about the fact that the article you provided was extolling the virtues of mid-sized frames.

.

oldguys,
if this is the question you said i never responded to a few times even though i did, i will respond. my response earlier was that we were starting to go round and round about this and stuck in semantics and nuance, and you even said it was a technicality, so i told you that while i could respond, i didnt think it was right to do so

i didnt get that the article was extolling the virtues of midsized frames. i got that it was about telling how wider frames changed tennis, and that when you reached OVERSIZED frames, the extra width was not an advantage ONLY from a spin point of view. it didnt get into other advantages of larger headed frames such as a larger sweetspot. it was comparing wood vs modern, not wood vs midsize in my opinion. seems obvious to me that applying what the guy says, and i think you would agree that a MP frame has a larger hiting area than a Mid, that a MP frame has a spin advantage over a Mid and that was the whole point of this exercise....HOW THE EASY ACESS TO SPIN HAS CHANGED THE GAME. Clearly, if Nadal was forced to use a midsized frame, his level of play would drop significantly if he used the a midsized frame. The guy needs every bit of his 100 sq in headsize because of his very steep angle of attack. In fact, when he breaks strings <not that i've seen him break many>, he breaks them alarmingly close to the frame rather than to the center of the stringbed...Sampras , on the other hand, broke his slightly above center and usually a couple mains over. I think we can agree theer are many more Nadal style players out there than Sampras players if you are talking tennis on some sort of advanced level. Could Nadal change his game to use a MidSized frame..of course he could...it would take him a long time..would he ever be as effective? no way.....the point is that the little extra width has changed the game in a remarkable way..i agreed with the article, so i posted, and it had nothing to do with the Midsize vs MP 'discussion' that people around here are angry enough to personally attack about..i hope you midsizers dont start bleeding from your ears ;)

drakulie
08-25-2006, 09:08 AM
oldguys,
i hope you midsizers dont start bleeding from your ears ;)

I wonder if Van Gogh was a midsize user?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v736/drakulie/bleede1.jpg

oldguysrule
08-25-2006, 09:14 AM
no worries oldguys..i'll give you the benefit of doubt on this one and thanks for the clarification. perhaps you can see that within the tenor of this thread and the streaming attacks when someone sez i go around insulting people, i may take it to mean that you said i go around insulting people...i just wasnt getting friendly, warm, and fuzzy out of that one, as you can see lots of my posts are spent responding to creeps in attack mode , and as you mentioned ; some posters are 'people with serious problems' and 'children'. even though i reponded to the query you asked me about 3 times or so, i'll go back and give you my opinon on it because it interests me, and maybe we can learn something tennis from it...will get back to you....the rest of you..carry on with what you do

Great...I probably got carried away with rhetoric and trying to be cute.

There are two specific points that I wanted your response to.

1. The fact that the article extols the benefits of going from a 9" wide frame (wood) to a 10" wide frame (midsize). AND goes on to say that to add another inch does not provide a corresponding increase in spin and power potential. (I am not saying that a midsize is better than a midplus because there are other considerations, just saying that the difference might not be staggering)

2. It occured to me that to fully realize the benefits of a this larger headsize, it almost requires a style of play that rewards an athlete that can swing harder, with better timing, on a more aggressive low to high swing path. For someone who has a more controlled, flatter swing (doesn't require as much strength and power) it seems a mid-size racquet would not be counter-productive. Again, I am not saying it is required for this style, or even better for everyone, or that you can't play this style with a mid-plus. Just that some people may prefer it and not find that the midsize is a disadvantage for them because of this style of play.

One could argue that it takes a better athlete who is stronger, with better timing, and thus able to take a more violent swing at the ball, to fully realize the benefits that a larger head provides. Of course, one could also argue that if that better athlete benefits, then everyone would benefit. I can't find a conclusion to this debate, but the journey is fun

War, Safin!
08-25-2006, 09:31 AM
The only way to stop the debating for sure is for 'hardcore' users of older, smaller racquets to playtest some modern-day frames and vice-versa, surely?
:confused:

oldguysrule
08-25-2006, 09:44 AM
oldguys,
if this is the question you said i never responded to a few times even though i did, i will respond. my response earlier was that we were starting to go round and round about this and stuck in semantics and nuance, and you even said it was a technicality, so i told you that while i could respond, i didnt think it was right to do so

i didnt get that the article was extolling the virtues of midsized frames. i got that it was about telling how wider frames changed tennis, and that when you reached OVERSIZED frames, the extra width was not an advantage ONLY from a spin point of view. it didnt get into other advantages of larger headed frames such as a larger sweetspot. it was comparing wood vs modern, not wood vs midsize in my opinion. seems obvious to me that applying what the guy says, and i think you would agree that a MP frame has a larger hiting area than a Mid, that a MP frame has a spin advantage over a Mid and that was the whole point of this exercise....HOW THE EASY ACESS TO SPIN HAS CHANGED THE GAME. Clearly, if Nadal was forced to use a midsized frame, his level of play would drop significantly if he used the a midsized frame. The guy needs every bit of his 100 sq in headsize because of his very steep angle of attack. In fact, when he breaks strings <not that i've seen him break many>, he breaks them alarmingly close to the frame rather than to the center of the stringbed...Sampras , on the other hand, broke his slightly above center and usually a couple mains over. I think we can agree theer are many more Nadal style players out there than Sampras players if you are talking tennis on some sort of advanced level. Could Nadal change his game to use a MidSized frame..of course he could...it would take him a long time..would he ever be as effective? no way.....the point is that the little extra width has changed the game in a remarkable way..i agreed with the article, so i posted, and it had nothing to do with the Midsize vs MP 'discussion' that people around here are angry enough to personally attack about..i hope you midsizers dont start bleeding from your ears ;)

Thanks, you posted while I was trying to post and make phone calls at the same time.

I think you got close enough to both of my points though that any further discussion should take place on a deck with an adult beverage in hand.

As you can see, I agree with you that most pros benefit from the larger headsize, a la Nadal. There are a number of recreational players though that are stuck in "Sampras" mode, either through choice or ability limitations. A midsize is not neccesarily a hindrance to this style and some see it as a positive. From a physchological standpoint, the "attacks" could be taken as a sign that your acceptance of this piont of view is greatly desired.

Ok, now it is really time to get outside and actually play tennis.

NoBadMojo
08-25-2006, 09:53 AM
Great...I probably got carried away with rhetoric and trying to be cute.

*** No worries

There are two specific points that I wanted your response to.

1. The fact that the article extols the benefits of going from a 9" wide frame (wood) to a 10" wide frame (midsize). AND goes on to say that to add another inch does not provide a corresponding increase in spin and power potential. (I am not saying that a midsize is better than a midplus because there are other considerations, just saying that the difference might not be staggering)

*** My DNX9's are a MP frame and are 10 1/8 wide. you can pick away at the diff betwen 10" and 10 1/8" as you like. Dont have a mid here just now to measure but my Snauweart woodies were slightly smaller headed than a standard wood and are 8 7/8 rather than 9.. an oversized frame would be 11, which was my earlier point, and they say oversize (11") is overkill from a spin standpoint. Think you are really splitting hairs

2. It occured to me that to fully realize the benefits of a this larger headsize, it almost requires a style of play that rewards an athlete that can swing harder, with better timing, on a more aggressive low to high swing path. For someone who has a more controlled, flatter swing (doesn't require as much strength and power) it seems a mid-size racquet would not be counter-productive. Again, I am not saying it is required for this style, or even better for everyone, or that you can't play this style with a mid-plus. Just that some people may prefer it and not find that the midsize is a disadvantage for them because of this style of play.

*** My feeling is that smaller headed more demanding frames take a more advanced skillset to operate than do less demanding frames...seems logical to me, and that is why the Manfacturers, TW, and people like me, consider more demanding frames as being for better players, altho there are people here who disagree with this and play old obsolete frames for other reasons, and we've gone full circle once again. also i mentioned the reverseness of midsized users, and that applies.

One could argue that it takes a better athlete who is stronger, with better timing, and thus able to take a more violent swing at the ball, to fully realize the benefits that a larger head provides. Of course, one could also argue that if that better athlete benefits, then everyone would benefit. I can't find a conclusion to this debate, but the journey is fun

***there is no denying the racquets have changed the game and have also corespondingly changed the technique. i am reminded of this whenever i do a wine and wood exhibition.....to hit the wooden frames and smaller headed midsized, my grips become more neutral, play more square stanced than open, use more small muscles and tendons (wrist) for spin, play with weight transfer more so than with a big shoulder turn against an open hip, hit flatter, end the points more quickly because ue's are much more and it is more exhausting to play with the highswingweight, play more serve/volley because the returner loses the advantage of a larger headed frame on the service return but i can serve about as well altho it is much more tiring, and so forth

it's more than the width for added spin..it's the lighter weight for more racquethead speed and more racquetheadspeed allows you more spin and the bigger swetspot helps flush contact, and the stiffer frames give more bal speed, etc etc. we've beaten this to death....

In D Zone
08-25-2006, 10:08 AM
you need to stop playing against 11&12 year olds.

and a S&V game is pretty obsolete these days at competetive levels.


I think you are one who is obsolete.... you need to check out Roddick, Federer,Muresmo, Justine and even Davenport game recently in the US Open Series. All are incorporating S&V into their game.

Roddick has resurrected his game by playing S&V to complement his cannon serves. He totally destroy everyone that came his way.

tom4ny
08-25-2006, 10:49 AM
I think you are one who is obsolete.... you need to check out Roddick, Federer,Muresmo, Justine and even Davenport game recently in the US Open Series. All are incorporating S&V into their game.

Roddick has resurrected his game by playing S&V to complement his cannon serves. He totally destroy everyone that came his way.


hehe, well S&V ala Mcenroe/Martina era but an allcourt game includes S&V so I stand corrected, as my statement wasnt qualified and that post was rushed. I'll be working kids day tomorrow (weather permitting) and will pass the kudo's to Andy and Lindsay (I know Serena's there not 100% sure about Lindsay) if i get the chance.

Keifers
08-25-2006, 10:54 AM
hehe, well S&V ala Mcenroe/Martina era but an allcourt game includes S&V so I stand corrected, as my statement wasnt qualified and that post was rushed. I'll be working kids day tomorrow (weather permitting) and will pass the kudo's to Andy and Lindsay (I know Serena's there not 100% sure about Lindsay) if i get the chance.
Thanks for the correction. Hope you'll post here about kids day afterwards.

oldguysrule
08-25-2006, 11:09 AM
***there is no denying the racquets have changed the game and have also corespondingly changed the technique. i am reminded of this whenever i do a wine and wood exhibition.....to hit the wooden frames and smaller headed midsized, my grips become more neutral, play more square stanced than open, use more small muscles and tendons (wrist) for spin, play with weight transfer more so than with a big shoulder turn against an open hip, hit flatter, end the points more quickly because ue's are much more and it is more exhausting to play with the highswingweight, play more serve/volley because the returner loses the advantage of a larger headed frame on the service return but i can serve about as well altho it is much more tiring, and so forth

it's more than the width for added spin..it's the lighter weight for more racquethead speed and more racquetheadspeed allows you more spin and the bigger swetspot helps flush contact, and the stiffer frames give more bal speed, etc etc. we've beaten this to death....

The holy grail of midsize users, n6.1 90 is 10 1/4 inches wide. I thought MP frames would be wider...of course, I do recognize the other benefits you mentioned above.

I, like you, will now let others continue to beat this to death.

bad_call
08-25-2006, 11:16 AM
in response to thread title - cause that was all that was available at the time...yes i am old...

couch
08-25-2006, 12:01 PM
Wow so your a nadal fanboy and actually approve of the way he hits the ball, good for you. Sure he would not play as good with a mid sized racquet, so does that mean the whole sport has changed because of how nadal plays (only a factor on clay) and that everyone should incorporate crazy strokes like his becuase he was taught the "new technique" and that everyone should change their racquets to mid-plus is crazy. Just as you mention if nadal switched to a mid size i can name a bunch of players who if switched to a mid-plus from their mid's their game would not be as effective either.

Um, Nadal's crazy strokes got him to the final of Wimbledon so I don't think you can say he's just a clay courter anymore. I know, I know, the grass is playing more like a hardcourt but it is still the fastest surface there is.

I think NBMJ was generalizing. I don't think he's telling everyone to switch to MP frames he's just saying that some people who use heavier frames could benefit from lighter, less demanding frames. I thnk that was said from the beginning.

Let's face it; tennis has changed and styles and equipment change along with it (or maybe vice versa). Just like golf: I don't see too many people using persimmon woods anymore.

Ultra2HolyGrail
08-25-2006, 12:22 PM
Let's face it; tennis has changed and styles and equipment change along with it (or maybe vice versa). Just like golf: I don't see too many people using persimmon woods anymore.

the best golfer's like tiger woods and many pros still use regular sized clubs, forged irons, tiger could still play with a 1960's set of clubs imo and also hit wood drivers accurately. Tigers drivers are also not super huge like the Big Mama Bertha's pushed on to the mass market. Interesting analogy though. But the fact is most advanced golfers use regular sized clubs and drivers, probably for accuracy huh?

oldguysrule
08-25-2006, 12:49 PM
the best golfer's like tiger woods and many pros still use regular sized clubs, forged irons, tiger could still play with a 1960's set of clubs imo and also hit wood drivers accurately. Tigers drivers are also not super huge like the Big Mama Bertha's pushed on to the mass market. Interesting analogy though. But the fact is most advanced golfers use regular sized clubs and drivers, probably for accuracy huh?

I just can't resist a train wreck. Tiger's driver is the absolute biggest legal driver available. Have you seen it? It looks like a frying pan. Also, the irons are bigger than what they used to use, even Tiger's. Almost every pro has a hybrid club or two in their bag, and a large number use Ping's and Callaway's...easy to hit clubs.

NoBadMojo
08-25-2006, 12:56 PM
oldguys,
thanks for the banter...and also thanks to couch and any other people here capable of having reasoned discourse whether we agree or not. couch clearly knows tennis and it becomes obvious to people who really know tennis, who else does and who is just defining themselves through the racquet they use and making noise..........frosty beverages sound good oldguys..let's bring CabernetJunkie...he's a most excellent drinker it seems and knows of a good source for some red. Hey Cabernet, if you're in here, do you agree the Spanish reds are coming on strong...Rioja/Crianza and such with the Tempranillo grape?

wishing all the decent people in here a stellar weekend, and for the rest of you , I leave you with this quote:


You guys have serious problems.

newnuse
08-25-2006, 01:03 PM
I just can't resist a train wreck. Tiger's driver is the absolute biggest legal driver available. Have you seen it? It looks like a frying pan. Also, the irons are bigger than what they used to use, even Tiger's. Almost every pro has a hybrid club or two in their bag, and a large number use Ping's and Callaway's...easy to hit clubs.

That's true, Tiger switched to a bigger driver I think it was last year. But it's also true, he hits it only when he has to. He avoids it whenever he can get away with it ;)

Not sure about his irons, last I heard, they were standard players irons.

Ultra2HolyGrail
08-25-2006, 01:06 PM
Hmm thanks oldguy, i diddnt recall tiger using a big driver years ago but i dont keep much on golf. Maybe he is using new technique :) So scratch the golf analogy.

How about baseball? Why does pro baseball still use wood bats? I dont think technology changed there since the 20's. Why dont they use oversize bats? Im sure some peaple feel some tennis racquets should be illegal.

Ultra2HolyGrail
08-25-2006, 01:10 PM
Im going to have to excuse myself from this thread now :)

BreakPoint
08-25-2006, 01:23 PM
It sounds like some of you are saying (NMBJ in particular), that it was the modern racquets that changed players into using modern techniques (e.g., Nadal, etc.), not the other way around. It wasn't that people wanted to change their techniques that forced the racquet manufacturers to design and make more modern racquets. This tells me that nobody thought there was anything wrong with the way tennis was played 30 years ago. Nobody complained that the techniques were not "modern" enough. It was the manufacturers that threw all these modern racquets at us in the hopes of selling more racquets and making more profits that compelled people to change their games and techniques in order to even be able to use these overly powerful racquets. This has all been forced upon us and stuffed down our throats by the racquet companies in their never ending effort to squeeze more dollars out of us. :(

So I have a simple solution. Ban all of these modern racquets so that we get rid of players like Nadal and Roddick and have more players like Federer and Sampras. I mean, what has the "modern game" done for tennis other than cause a decline in interest, participation, and viewership in the sport (at least in the U.S. and Japan)? Perhaps if we went back to the way the game used to be played, we could reverse this trend? I mean, I don't recall anyone ever saying at the time that Borg or McEnroe or Connors or Laver had boring games or were using obsolete techniques or were boring to watch or that there was anything wrong with the game that needed to be changed by introducing "modern" equipment. Why do we need to fix something that wasn't broken? :confused:

couch
08-25-2006, 04:50 PM
Hmm thanks oldguy, i diddnt recall tiger using a big driver years ago but i dont keep much on golf. Maybe he is using new technique :) So scratch the golf analogy.

How about baseball? Why does pro baseball still use wood bats? I dont think technology changed there since the 20's. Why dont they use oversize bats? Im sure some peaple feel some tennis racquets should be illegal.

They don't use aluminum bats in pro baseball because they would probably kill someone. I hope you were kidding about that. But then again based on some of the quotes around here you probably weren't

couch
08-25-2006, 05:01 PM
It sounds like some of you are saying (NMBJ in particular), that it was the modern racquets that changed players into using modern techniques (e.g., Nadal, etc.), not the other way around. It wasn't that people wanted to change their techniques that forced the racquet manufacturers to design and make more modern racquets. This tells me that nobody thought there was anything wrong with the way tennis was played 30 years ago. Nobody complained that the techniques were not "modern" enough. It was the manufacturers that threw all these modern racquets at us in the hopes of selling more racquets and making more profits that compelled people to change their games and techniques in order to even be able to use these overly powerful racquets. This has all been forced upon us and stuffed down our throats by the racquet companies in their never ending effort to squeeze more dollars out of us. :(

So I have a simple solution. Ban all of these modern racquets so that we get rid of players like Nadal and Roddick and have more players like Federer and Sampras. I mean, what has the "modern game" done for tennis other than cause a decline in interest, participation, and viewership in the sport (at least in the U.S. and Japan)? Perhaps if we went back to the way the game used to be played, we could reverse this trend? I mean, I don't recall anyone ever saying at the time that Borg or McEnroe or Connors or Laver had boring games or were using obsolete techniques or were boring to watch or that there was anything wrong with the game that needed to be changed by introducing "modern" equipment. Why do we need to fix something that wasn't broken? :confused:

All sports are about controlled power. If you can hit it farther or harder without sacrificing control, in more cases than not, you are going to win. I can't remember who or what company said it, but power is nothing without control.

That's what technology is all about. You either embrace it or get left behind. It's usually guys who embrace technology that adapt and continue to succeed. Why did Federer switch to a larger head? Probably because it gave him a little larger margin for error without sacrificing control. I'm not necessarily saying that he's taking advantage of technology but he is adapting.

I personally don't think tennis is broken, I watch it and play it all the time. There's just more things for people to do these days but that's another thread for another day.

Everyone have a great weekend and swing your racquet, whatever it is, well.

BreakPoint
08-25-2006, 05:54 PM
All sports are about controlled power. If you can hit it farther or harder without sacrificing control, in more cases than not, you are going to win.
But that's just it. Tennis is a game in which hitting "further" loses you the point because the ball goes out. People had no problem hitting the ball deep inside the court with wood racquets. You don't need a "modern" racquet to hit the ball deep, they just make you hit long past the baseline. Just about every adult has the strength to hit the ball within a foot inside the opposite baseline with a wood racquet. More power just makes you hit the ball long.
Why did Federer switch to a larger head? Probably because it gave him a little larger margin for error without sacrificing control. I'm not necessarily saying that he's taking advantage of technology but he is adapting.
He switched to a larger head because his opponents are using Pure Drives and blasting the ball at him and putting ridiculous amount of spin on the ball that kick high all over the place. I can guarantee that if all of his opponents were using 85 sq. in. racquets that Federer would still be using his PS 6.0 85., and winning even more than he does now. (That's a scary thought, isnt it? ;) ).

Now if you got rid of all the "modern" racquets, nobody would feel the need to have to use one because none of their opponents would have one either. Everyone would be on an equal footing. Just like in the days of wood racquets in which everyone's racquet was pretty much equal so no one had an advantage over anyone else due to their equipment and people's natural tennis skills and athletic abilities shown through and wasn't masked by their high-tech modern weapons, and everyone lived in peace and harmony and arguments like this on a message board would never exist. :D

couch
08-25-2006, 07:01 PM
But that's just it. Tennis is a game in which hitting "further" loses you the point because the ball goes out. People had no problem hitting the ball deep inside the court with wood racquets. You don't need a "modern" racquet to hit the ball deep, they just make you hit long past the baseline. Just about every adult has the strength to hit the ball within a foot inside the opposite baseline with a wood racquet. More power just makes you hit the ball long.

I'm not saying hitting the ball further in tennis is a good thing, obviously it's not. Like you said, anyone can hit the ball further with wood racquets. The thing with technology and the new racquets is that they allow you to put a huge amount of spin on the ball and allow you to swing harder and control the ball with more spin. Thus you can take control of power.

He switched to a larger head because his opponents are using Pure Drives and blasting the ball at him and putting ridiculous amount of spin on the ball that kick high all over the place. I can guarantee that if all of his opponents were using 85 sq. in. racquets that Federer would still be using his PS 6.0 85., and winning even more than he does now. (That's a scary thought, isnt it? ;) ).

As I said, he's adapting. Players have to adapt and either take advantage of technology or training or something if they are going to stay on top. In this case, like you said, he more or less had to do it to keep up with all the players using Babolats, etc.

Now if you got rid of all the "modern" racquets, nobody would feel the need to have to use one because none of their opponents would have one either. Everyone would be on an equal footing. Just like in the days of wood racquets in which everyone's racquet was pretty much equal so no one had an advantage over anyone else due to their equipment and people's natural tennis skills and athletic abilities shown through and wasn't masked by their high-tech modern weapons, and everyone lived in peace and harmony and arguments like this on a message board would never exist. :D

Damn racquet technology makin' everybody hate :))

AndrewD
08-26-2006, 12:44 AM
People had no problem hitting the ball deep inside the court with wood racquets. You don't need a "modern" racquet to hit the ball deep, they just make you hit long past the baseline. Just about every adult has the strength to hit the ball within a foot inside the opposite baseline with a wood racquet. More power just makes you hit the ball long.

That is absolute rubbish.

More power does not make you hit the ball long. Players manage that through poor technique, poor timing or not having enough skill to control their shots. Modern racquets allow players to hit the ball deeper and more offensively - something that wooden racquets didn't allow the majority to do. In offering more power than wooden racquets, players - with a modicum of talent- are able to commit far less unforced errors than in days gone by because they have don't have to press so hard to generate pace on their shots (a stat widely reported at present).

BreakPoint
08-26-2006, 01:00 AM
That is absolute rubbish.

More power does not make you hit the ball long. Players manage that through poor technique, poor timing or not having enough skill to control their shots. Modern racquets allow players to hit the ball deeper and more offensively - something that wooden racquets didn't allow the majority to do. In offering more power than wooden racquets, players - with a modicum of talent- are able to commit far less unforced errors than in days gone by because they have don't have to press so hard to generate pace on their shots (a stat widely reported at present).

I'll tell you what. You take a wood racquet and a Pure Drive and you take a huge, full, long, plow-through swing at the ball. With which racquet is the ball more likely to go long? Enough said.

And don't say you have to change your technique to hit with the Pure Drive. Why should we?

BTW, I hit plenty deep with my wood racquet. I certainly didn't need any more help. And why do I have to be more offensive with my wood racquet if my opponent is also using a wood racquet?

I don't know how many people here have said they switched away from racquets like the Pure Drive because they have too much power and they kept hitting long with them. People even have to put poly in them to tame the power and help them keep the ball in the court. So people buy these high powered frames which they can't control so have to put in low-power strings to "de-power" the racquet. How silly does that sound? That's like buying a high-powered sports car and then filling the trunk with cement bricks to slow it down. :confused:

AngeloDS
08-26-2006, 01:41 AM
I'll tell you what. You take a wood racquet and a Pure Drive and you take a huge, full, long, plow-through swing at the ball. With which racquet is the ball more likely to go long? Enough said.
You make so many assumptions as such like that are incredibly broad.

There's a lot of different grips that produce different results. Different swing paths that produce different results. Different heights you must swing at and each produces different results. There are difference stances that produce different results. This is the modern game; there is no "one" way to do things and the body is used a lot more in shots.

There's still the serve & volley game; go watch college tennis or such. Go watch college doubles or high level high school tennis. At the pro level they hit the ball so much harder, with so much more spin, with so much more precision -- the volley game is incredibly difficult.

I feel the racquets now make the game beautiful. Beautiful long strokes that produce really clean tennis balls with good amount of pace and spin; no need to force it. The only time I really see ugly tennis is social, low high school players or crappy club players. For me, I feel you have such a narrow view of tennis that's why you dont appreciate the modern game.

Having been a HS girls tennis manager (V & JV), assistant coach for the girls team (V & JV), played college tennis at a low level and played competitive tennis at a medium level. I've seen Division I tennis and even Division III; it's amazing. I've seen a lot of tennis up close and even in game. I only see real bad tennis at low club levels, low high school levels and at the social level (or people not really playing on a competitive level).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwxKxozLGPM <-- A good video. She doesn't swing that fast but her balls are so cleanly hit and they have good pace where she can create beautiful angles.

BreakPoint
08-26-2006, 01:56 AM
There's a lot of different grips that produce different results. Different swing paths that produce different results. Different heights you must swing at and each produces different results. There are difference stances that produce different results.
But as I stated above, I'm talking about taking the exact same swing at the ball, but just with two different racquets: one wood, the other a Pure Drive. So everything else is the same, the only difference is the racquet. With which would you more likely hit the ball long?

Players racquets are only good at a competitive if you have the swing speed, technique and all that stuff pat down.
Yes, and some of us actually do. That's the point. Most people who learned to play using wood racquets have the technique necessary to use low-powered player's racquets.

Richie Rich
08-26-2006, 02:05 AM
But as I stated above, I'm talking about taking the exact same swing at the ball, but just with two different racquets: one wood, the other a Pure Drive. So everything else is the same, the only difference is the racquet. With which would you more likely hit the ball long?

have you actaully done this or is all just speculation on your part? just wondering

BreakPoint
08-26-2006, 02:13 AM
have you actaully done this or is all just speculation on your part? just wondering

I played with wood racquets for over 12 years, and I've used modern racquets, including the Pure Drive, for longer than that. Since neither the ball nor my strokes have changed, I can confidently say that the Pure Drive has more power than a wood racquet and that with the same exact swing, the ball travels further with the Pure Drive than with the wood racquet. Why? Is that really hard for you to believe?

chowdhurynaveen
08-26-2006, 02:17 AM
Freckles post:

"Back to your post chowdhurynaveen. An intermediate player can gradually learn how to use a player's frame. But how will you go about learning it's nuances when your hitting partner turns a simple rallye into a slugfest? The idea is to hit the ball back and forth and concentrate on hitting the sweet spot. But this guy wants to hit down the line winners and cross-court shots after every third shot."

In response to freckles post:

Theyre will always be players like this. Continue to play with him or pick a more compatable partner, dont get frustrated, have patience, get some coaching, and do some work....and youll end up kicking his butt in the end. Dont focus on beating him, focus on getting better, and the winning will come naturally.

AngeloDS
08-26-2006, 02:38 AM
Yes, and some of us actually do. That's the point. Most people who learned to play using wood racquets have the technique necessary to use low-powered player's racquets.
Wrong, modern low powered racquets require a lot upper body rotation and strength. Not only this but also an incredibly loose & relaxed or layed back wrist.

Which is a common problem with a lot of people who also use such a demanding frame. The common problem being lower back pain because of the upper body rotation. If not that it's shoulder pain due to lack of upper body rotation & fitness. They require such to get the most out of them now at a competitive level.

Wood racquets are different. As you can watch from old videos and the "classic" technique is firm wrist, eastern grip, not much if any upper body rotation. Though, opening the body helps (not the same as upper body rotation) which is what was commonly done.

I know first hand because I started off learning the classic old school methods from my JV Coach, and it's what I also teach to the JV when I do assistant coaching. I know the modern game as well because the Varsity Coach taught us 90s tennis (power, variety and using the body more). My college coach teaches a hybrid but focuses more on mental game & volleying.

But as I stated above, I'm talking about taking the exact same swing at the ball, but just with two different racquets: one wood, the other a Pure Drive. So everything else is the same, the only difference is the racquet. With which would you more likely hit the ball long?
You created a moot point. If I used a western with an angled face the ball according to what you said(being the key) the Babolat would do fine but the Wood would most likely hit the net. On the other hand with an eastern and a completely open face the wood would do fine and the babolat would most likely hit out.

What do most people use these days? Semi-western forehand grip, with an angled face at about 45 degrees (swinging low to high) and some that choose to hit more flat at 90 degrees (swinging across their body more vertically around chest height). So it's perfectly fine in those conditions. A lot of people also use the western grip due to the fact some can't take the ball at hip height; it's better for higher balls and keeping them in due to spin.

Bill Tilden, Bill Johnston (considered to have a wonderful forehand) and others all from the 1920s used such used more extreme grips. Bill Johnston mostly because balls would come to shoulder height (which is what we see now in tennis today).

Richie Rich
08-26-2006, 02:43 AM
I played with wood racquets for over 12 years, and I've used modern racquets, including the Pure Drive, for longer than that. Since neither the ball nor my strokes have changed, I can confidently say that the Pure Drive has more power than a wood racquet and that with the same exact swing, the ball travels further with the Pure Drive than with the wood racquet. Why? Is that really hard for you to believe?
no, not hard to believe - just wondering if you had done the comparison at the same time (hit with wood, put frame down, pick up pure drive, hit with pure drive). looks like you haven't and are just making an assumption.

neo
08-26-2006, 05:41 AM
So I have a simple solution. Ban all of these modern racquets so that we get rid of players like Nadal and Roddick and have more players like Federer and Sampras.

Nadal's game is actually quite entertaining to watch, especially on clay. And Rodick's game is not entertaining to watch because of his overwhelming advantage on serve which has nothing to do with rackets. Sampras also had such advantage with his PS85. The solution to that problem would be changing service rules, like eliminating second serve, for example.

I am on your side of the argument in a sense that I personally prefer rackets with more control and less power, but I am totally opposed to the idea of restricting everyone else to using only such rackets. Manufacturers offer wider selection of rackets these days and wider selection of playing styles appear as a result, and I think that is good, not bad. As long as there are no power sources in the racket to propel it :)

Another thing I wanted to mention, just because your opposition in this argument (NBMJ) is completely obsessed with the subject and as a result resolves to absurd arguments and personal insults, doesn't mean you have to do the same. You are winning this argument as it is, and he just continues to embarrass himself.

BreakPoint
08-26-2006, 10:15 AM
Wrong, modern low powered racquets require a lot upper body rotation and strength. Not only this but also an incredibly loose & relaxed or layed back wrist.

Which is a common problem with a lot of people who also use such a demanding frame. The common problem being lower back pain because of the upper body rotation. If not that it's shoulder pain due to lack of upper body rotation & fitness. They require such to get the most out of them now at a competitive level.

Wood racquets are different. As you can watch from old videos and the "classic" technique is firm wrist, eastern grip, not much if any upper body rotation. Though, opening the body helps (not the same as upper body rotation) which is what was commonly done.

This coming from someone that has NEVER used a wood racquet other than to hit a few balls for fun. Use a wood racquet exclusively for 12 years in competiton first and THEN come back here with your analysis. No body rotation nor strength needed to play with wood racquets? Gimme a break!! :rolleyes:


You created a moot point. If I used a western with an angled face the ball according to what you said(being the key) the Babolat would do fine but the Wood would most likely hit the net. On the other hand with an eastern and a completely open face the wood would do fine and the babolat would most likely hit out.

What do most people use these days? Semi-western forehand grip, with an angled face at about 45 degrees (swinging low to high) and some that choose to hit more flat at 90 degrees (swinging across their body more vertically around chest height). So it's perfectly fine in those conditions. A lot of people also use the western grip due to the fact some can't take the ball at hip height; it's better for higher balls and keeping them in due to spin.

Did you even read what I said? I said some of us don't want to change our techniques. Why should we? If someone has been using the same technique for 30 years, why should they change? I'm talking about using the Pure Drive in the EXACT same way that you use a wood racquet. Would you agree that if you took a massive swing with an eastern grip, hitting the ball flat, that the ball is more likely to go long with the PD? Do you think Sampras would hit the ball long if he switched to a Pure Drive and continued to take big cuts with his forehand with his eastern grip and flattish shots?

BreakPoint
08-26-2006, 10:22 AM
no, not hard to believe - just wondering if you had done the comparison at the same time (hit with wood, put frame down, pick up pure drive, hit with pure drive). looks like you haven't and are just making an assumption.
Does that make a difference? Sounds like you're just trying to nit pick at what I've said and to find holes in everything I say.

If you test drove a Toyota Corolla, and then a year later, test drove a Porsche 911 Turbo, is it safe to assume that the Porsche has more power and is faster than the Corolla even though you didn't test drive them side-by-side?

Just making an assumption....Puleeeeeze :rolleyes: It sounds like you don't have a whole lot of experience with wood racquets. :(

Richie Rich
08-26-2006, 10:33 AM
Does that make a difference? Sounds like you're just trying to nit pick at what I've said and to find holes in everything I say.

If you test drove a Toyota Corolla, and then a year later, test drove a Porsche 911 Turbo, is it safe to assume that the Porsche has more power and is faster than the Corolla even though you didn't test drive them side-by-side?

Just making an assumption....Puleeeeeze :rolleyes: It sounds like you don't have a whole lot of experience with wood racquets. :(
it does make a difference to some people (i could really care less). an assumption is just that - an assumption. wasn't saying it was wrong (or right either). you made it sound like you were using the 2 racquets side by side. the fact that you were not should be noted. didn't realize you had such a problem with that.

for someone who nit picks other posters i'm surprised you are getting upset about this.

BreakPoint
08-26-2006, 10:39 AM
it does make a difference to some people (i could really care less). an assumption is just that - an assumption. wasn't saying it was wrong (or right either). you made it sound like you were using the 2 racquets side by side. the fact that you were not should be noted. didn't realize you had such a problem with that.

for someone who nit picks other posters i'm surprised you are getting upset about this.

Sorry, but I never explicitly said I played with them "side-by side". I never gave any sort of time frame. I said "you hit with a wood racquet and then hit with a Pure Drive in the same way, which is more likely to hit the ball long?" You can do that at the same time, after a week, a month, a year, I don't think it really matters as long as you're using the same stroke.

AngeloDS
08-26-2006, 10:48 AM
Sampras changed his technique, why not? One of the greats -- yes, he said, "I want to win Wimbledon." And switched to a one-handed backhand. So don't give me that or use it as an excuse.

If you're going to play competitively and play seriously. There are going to be changes. Unless you want to just play social tennis or whatever where it doesn't matter. Which sounds like what you do, talking about "Aww the game is so ugly now. No serve & volleying. Ahh this... Ahh that." Just complaining with such a narrow view. I've seen a lot of tennis and I've played a lot of tennis and I've only encountered what you've said at low levels. And you only talk about that, which makes me really doubt what you say.

Like I said go out and watch college tennis, college doubles, high school doubles or even A4 high school singles tennis. Heck even in USTA tournaments at higher levels is really fun to watch; to a point where watching matches makes me nervous! You'll see serve & volleying, beautiful angles & beautiful tennis. There's amazing tennis out there; but you fail to neglect that/never talk about it.

For me it seems like you play with crappy players (pointing to social tennis), watch tennis on television and such. Not much outside of that small view.

If you want to pull out that card that you've used a wood racquet for 12 years competitively. You need to come up with the proof. Until then, I won't believe what you claim. When you show me various awards, plaques, medals, trophies and such of what you claim. Then I'll give you that credit; I can show my various managing & assistant coaching awards, certificates and what not. I can show you my low level college matches I've played and lost or won. I can show my various trophies, medals and such that I've won from tournaments.

You act as if I'm naive; I'm not -- I know the game & the history of the game. I've learned the classic method & drilling first hand from a classic coach (who never even touched upon the modern game). It's what I also teach when I do assistant coaching for the new players on JV. I also know the modern game from my coaches (Varsity & College), and it's what I teach to V or higher JV players.

There's a difference between practical and impractical. You're on the fringes.

BreakPoint
08-26-2006, 10:58 AM
Sampras changed his technique, why not? One of the greats -- yes, he said, "I want to win Wimbledon." And switched to a one-handed backhand. So don't give me that or use it as an excuse.

If you want to pull out that card that you've used a wood racquet for 12 years competitively. You need to come up with the proof. Until then, I won't believe what you claim. When you show me various awards, plaques, medals, trophies and such of what you claim. Then I'll give you that credit; I can show my various managing & assistant coaching awards, certificates and what not. I can show you my low level college matches I've played and lost or won. I can show my various trophies, medals and such that I've won from tournaments.

I've learned the classic method & drilling first hand from a classic coach (who never even touched upon the modern game). It's what I also teach when I do assistant coaching for the new players on JV. I also know the modern game from my coaches (Varsity & College), and it's what I teach to V or higher JV players.

So you're telling me that Sampras had been hitting with a two-handed backhand for 30 years when he was 12 years old? :rolleyes: And who said anything about switching from a 2HBH to a 1HBH? I'm talking about switching racquets. If Sampras switched from his PS 6.0 85 to a Pure Drive and hit his trademark whipping, flattish, eastern grip forehand, would the ball more likely go long than before?

BTW, I played on my high school tennis team with a wood racquet and also played tournaments with one when I was a teenager. Here's my trophy. See isn't that nice and shiny? ;) LOL

Midlife crisis
08-26-2006, 11:08 AM
Did you even read what I said? I said some of us don't want to change our techniques. Why should we? If someone has been using the same technique for 30 years, why should they change?

Because things evolve.

Would you go to a doctor who says he's been doing things the same way for 30 years?

Would you go to a car mechanic who's been fixing things the same way for 30 years?

Would you go to a tennis instructor who's been teaching the game the same way for 30 years? (Yeah, this is admittedly a little bit of a dig.)

Just because you've been doing something the same way for a long time does not make it the best way.

AngeloDS
08-26-2006, 11:17 AM
Prove that you played High School tennis with a wood racquet, that you played competitively with a wood racquet for 12 years. Until then I won't give you that credit.

I said some of us don't want to change our techniques. Why should we?And who said anything about switching from a 2HBH to a 1HBH? I'm talking about switching racquets.

Which is it? Technique or racquets?
No body rotation nor strength needed to play with wood racquets?
While Wood Racquets were heavier. The techniques such as an eastern forehand grip, firm wrist and lack of upper body rotation is what allowed kids and even women to play tennis with them.

That's why the eastern forehand grip and the classic methods are usually taught first to new players. They're not as complex as modern techniques. And usually new players lack stability, strength and other various aspects needed for a foundation in tennis.

I can't say for sure 100% BreakPoint if Sampras used a Pure Drive. Neither can you. But if you're going to use that argument, you have to prove it. Show me a clip of Sampras hitting with a Pure Drive and hitting a ball out and what-not.

I'm not claiming -- just going with what you claim. You're the one claiming; and if you're going to claim something you need the proof.

BreakPoint
08-26-2006, 11:19 AM
Just because you've been doing something the same way for a long time does not make it the best way.

But I never said that it was the best way. I said I'd rather stick with my low-powered, player's racquet and hit the ball the same way that I have been for 30 years rather than switch to a modern, big-headed, high-powered racquet and be forced to completely change my technique or re-learn a new technique just in order to use the new racquet. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

At 35, Sampras will not change his technique on his eastern grip forehand nor his serve motion, right? McEnroe, at 47, still uses the same continental grip on all of his shots that he always has and still hits the ball the same way. These guys will never change their techniques so they're not good candidates for racquets like the Pure Drive. Can you imagine Sampras or McEnroe switching to a Pure Drive and completely changing their techniques to start hitting the ball like Nadal? It's never going to happen. Do you get what I mean?

BreakPoint
08-26-2006, 11:26 AM
Prove that you played High School tennis with a wood racquet, that you played competitively with a wood racquet for 12 years. Until then I won't give you that credit.

While Wood Racquets were heavier. The techniques such as an eastern forehand grip, firm wrist and lack of upper body rotation is what allowed kids and even women to play tennis with them.

That's why the eastern forehand grip and the classic methods are usually taught first to new players. They're not as complex as modern techniques. And usually new players lack stability, strength and other various aspects needed for a foundation in tennis.

I can't say for sure 100% BreakPoint if Sampras used a Pure Drive. Neither can you. But if you're going to use that argument, you have to prove it. Show me a clip of Sampras hitting with a Pure Drive and hitting a ball out and what-not.

I'm not claiming -- just going with what you claim. You're the one claiming; and if you're going to claim something you need the proof.

Prove to me that you even know how to play tennis. :rolleyes: I don't need to "prove" anything to you.

BTW, it's precisely because wood racquets were heavy that body rotation was necessary to generate power. Not everyone has arm and shoulder muscles like Nadal does.

You know what? I've realized that you've got no clue what you're talking about. :(

AngeloDS
08-26-2006, 11:34 AM
Watch 1980s tennis, I'm pretty sure you have the Wimbledon DVDs. So much lack of upper body rotation on forehands and even backhands. Heck, if you want to see it if you don't have it.

http://www.youtube.com -- type in the search 1980 Wimbledon.

They opened up their bodies, but it's not the same as upper body rotation.

I know the classic methods, drilling and technique first hand. I teach them as an assistant coach to new players on the JV Team.

I'm not going to be name calling but I'm just asking you to prove it; once you do I'll give you the credit. You really sink to a low level and attack people when cornered.

BreakPoint
08-26-2006, 11:50 AM
Which is it? Technique or racquets?



Did Sampras switch from a 2HBH to a 1HBH because of the racquet? No!!!! He switched to become a better serve and volley player. Thus, it had NOTHING to do with changing his technique to accomdate a new, more powerful racquet. Besides, he hadn't been using a 2HBH for 30 years when he switched since he was only 12 years old. What are the chances that you can convince Agassi to switch from a 2HBH to a 1HBH or McEnroe to switch from a 1HBH to a 2HBH today? Like zilch!

AngeloDS
08-26-2006, 12:21 PM
You see that's the difference. I don't need to watch '80's tennis because I was there and I did it. I played 70's and 80's tennis with a wood racquet and I know exactly how I hit the ball. Not too different from how I hit the ball today. I used to go watch the US Open live from courtside in the late 70's/early 80's, so no need for me to watch DVD's. You weren't even alive then but yet you somehow claim to be an expert on how to hit the ball with wood racquets. :confused:
PROVE IT. You have yet to prove anything.

Until then, I think you're lying through your teeth. Only when you do prove it, I will give you that credit.

Don't claim something with no evidence or proof to back it up.

I can say, "I was actually a pro tennis player from the 1950s. I was actually the #1 player in the world!" but where is the proof to back it up. There is none, so please stop claiming unless you have the proof.

This is how you act: "I played tennis for so long! It means I'm so good! It means I'm so much better. It means I'm too good!"

cabernetjunkie
08-26-2006, 12:45 PM
oldguys,
thanks for the banter...and also thanks to couch and any other people here capable of having reasoned discourse whether we agree or not. couch clearly knows tennis and it becomes obvious to people who really know tennis, who else does and who is just defining themselves through the racquet they use and making noise..........frosty beverages sound good oldguys..let's bring CabernetJunkie...he's a most excellent drinker it seems and knows of a good source for some red. Hey Cabernet, if you're in here, do you agree the Spanish reds are coming on strong...Rioja/Crianza and such with the Tempranillo grape?

wishing all the decent people in here a stellar weekend, and for the rest of you , I leave you with this quote:


NBM,, I'm all for that. I have had alot of practice and yes I know of a great place that makes some really good wine.;) As far as the Tempranillo grape goes I have tried it a couple diff. times and if my memory serves me right it is real similar to a Sangiovese. The ones I tried were a little to acidic for my taste. You are right about the spanish reds they are coming on strong. I still have a weak spot for wines made in Austrailia(when i'm not drinking local wines)

As far as tennis goes i've noticed alot of attacks on you lately. Please dont pay them any attention, alot of us here like reading your posts and you help out alot around here. Hope all is well,
Take care
CJ

anirut
08-26-2006, 01:08 PM
Hey, Cabernet, I'm learning about wines. May be I should get your help sometimes ...

As of now ... I just had two bottles of beer ... HAHA ... cheap me!

newnuse
08-26-2006, 02:46 PM
Anirut,

Just stick with White Zinfandel, people who know their wines drink that stuff almost exclusively :)

Besides the foam, did you customize you Redondo in any other way???

AndrewD
08-26-2006, 05:41 PM
I'll tell you what. You take a wood racquet and a Pure Drive and you take a huge, full, long, plow-through swing at the ball. With which racquet is the ball more likely to go long? Enough said.

And don't say you have to change your technique to hit with the Pure Drive. Why should we?

BTW, I hit plenty deep with my wood racquet. I certainly didn't need any more help. And why do I have to be more offensive with my wood racquet if my opponent is also using a wood racquet?



Seriously, all you do in any of these comments is reinforce that you lack one of the most basic skills in tennis - the ability to control the ball. You haven't got the simple talent to apply some degree of spin in order to keep the ball in the court so you label any racquet too demanding for your abilities as uncontrollable.

If your technique is built around you taking a big swipe at the ball and applying no spin to allow a margin of error then of course you need to make some adjustments to use a racquet like the Pure Drive. Doesn't matter what you use, if you play like that you're going to have to make some adjustments. Personally, I'd be suggesting you take some lessons but I very much doubt they'd help.

All of that makes me seriously question the reviews you've written for TW. If, as seems apparent, you lack the skill to control any racquet with a modicum of power and find the notion of using spin to create a margin for error too challenging how can you write a well-reasoned piece on anything built in the last 30 years.

i very much doubt you could be more offensive if you tried and I seriously do think you need help. As far as tennis goes, if you want to stick with a wooden racquet and think that is all you need to use then, please, knock yourself out.

anirut
08-26-2006, 06:37 PM
Newnuse,

Thanks for the info on White Zinfadel.

Besides the foam, I'm experimenting with 'swing weight' and 'balance' now. I think I'm coming to realize that I'm more suited to high swingweight rackets. Will let you know more.

maverick1
08-26-2006, 07:32 PM
I think I'm coming to realize that I'm more suited to high swingweight rackets.

You could get tennis elbow from increasing swingweight.

Last year I kept adding lead to the racket and kept getting more power. I went upto about 30 grams. Then I got Tennis elbow.
After that I peeled off all the lead, stopped playing for about a month. I now have only a very mild TE and it isn't get any worse.

BreakPoint
08-26-2006, 08:20 PM
Seriously, all you do in any of these comments is reinforce that you lack one of the most basic skills in tennis - the ability to control the ball. You haven't got the simple talent to apply some degree of spin in order to keep the ball in the court so you label any racquet too demanding for your abilities as uncontrollable.

If your technique is built around you taking a big swipe at the ball and applying no spin to allow a margin of error then of course you need to make some adjustments to use a racquet like the Pure Drive. Doesn't matter what you use, if you play like that you're going to have to make some adjustments. Personally, I'd be suggesting you take some lessons but I very much doubt they'd help.

All of that makes me seriously question the reviews you've written for TW. If, as seems apparent, you lack the skill to control any racquet with a modicum of power and find the notion of using spin to create a margin for error too challenging how can you write a well-reasoned piece on anything built in the last 30 years.

i very much doubt you could be more offensive if you tried and I seriously do think you need help. As far as tennis goes, if you want to stick with a wooden racquet and think that is all you need to use then, please, knock yourself out.

I never said that no one can control racquets like the Pure Drive. I said that if you swing at the ball in the EXACT way with the EXACT same technique as a wood racquet, you are more likely to hit the ball long with the Pure Drive than with the wood racquet. Are you seriously disputing that? I said that some people DO NOT want to change their technique, the same technique that they've been using for 30 years, in order to accomodate a tweener racquet like the Pure Drive. They prefer to stick with their trusted, honed techniques and use lower powered player's racquets instead. Is that so hard to understand? Have you seen Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Edberg, or Sampras change their techniques recently?

You keep talking about controlling the Pure Drive using spin. Well some people don't want to hit with spin because they would have to change their techniques to hit with spin. Is that so hard for you to swallow? The last time I checked, Davenport, Agassi, Connors, Blake, Sampras and others made a pretty good living hitting the ball relatively flat.

I'll tell you what, after you've convinced Sampras and McEnroe to switch to Pure Drives and to completely change their techniques to hit more like Nadal, come back to me and perhaps I'll do the same.

BTW, I do hit with spin, not to the degree that Nadal does, but I do use spin to control the ball. I'm just making the point that a Pure Drive is much more powerful than a wood racquet. And to make a logical comparison of the inherent power in each, of course you have to use the same technique for both. If you have to change the technique in order to tame or reduce the power in one of them, it's no longer an apples-to-apples comparison, since other variables were introduced. If you can't tell the difference in power between a wood racquet and a Pure Drive, then I seriously doubt you have ever hit with a wood racquet before.

This has nothing at all to do with all the other racquets I've playtested for TW and how I use spin to control them. I test them using my own technique because that's what makes sense. Do you completely change your technique from more like Sampras' to more like Nadal's depending on which racquet you're demoing? Of course, not!! You're going to play your usual game with your usual technique to see how that frame fits in with your game. You look for a racquet that fits your game and technique, you don't change your game and technique to fit the racquet, do you? That's why you may like a certain racquet, but I'll hate that same racquet if our techniques are completely different. Do you seriously think Nadal would like the nSix-One Tour 90? But Federer obviously does. So who's right and who's wrong?

mucat
08-26-2006, 11:59 PM
BreakPoint, why don't you just say you don't want to change, don't want to adapt and don't want to learn new techniques? That's what I got from your last post. :(

chowdhurynaveen
08-27-2006, 12:17 AM
I dont think breakpoint wants change his technique, in the same way federer does not want to change to nadals technique/style of play, or vice versa. Just my humble interpretation.

I think we all need to relax a little bit or im afraid things will end up becoming personal. If that happens, its just going to push more posters away from this valuable forum. :(

BreakPoint
08-27-2006, 12:53 AM
I dont think breakpoint wants change his technique, in the same way federer does not want to change to nadals technique/style of play, or vice versa. Just my humble interpretation.

I think we all need to relax a little bit or im afraid things will end up becoming personal. If that happens, its just going to push more posters away from this valuable forum. :(

That's exactly right, Naveen! You are one astute individual. :D

Federer doesn't want to change his technique so he found a midsize racquet that works for his game. He doesn't want to change to a Pure Drive and be forced to completely change his technique to be more like Nadal's. He doesn't want to have to adapt to the new racquet by having to put excessive spin on the ball in order to control it, like Nadal does. Instead, he uses a racquet that works with his existing technique. There are lots of people in the same boat. Not everyone wants or needs so-called "modern techniques", thus, not everyone needs "modern" racquets. Those of us that use "old-school" techniques do just fine using "old-school" racquets. Just ask Federer. I find his technique to be much more "old-school" than it is "modern".

chowdhurynaveen
08-27-2006, 01:04 AM
Thanx BP!:D

dragonxking
08-27-2006, 02:07 AM
people use demanding racquets because they are capable of satisfying its demands

AngeloDS
08-27-2006, 03:05 AM
Federer doesn't want to change his technique? He has, and it's prevalent; but also he's stated that he's been working on technique and such with his coach in interviews. Recently with his backhands with the help of Tony; making him do various drills and changing a few things here and there (as stated in various interviews with roger). His backhands are a lot stronger. Not only this but he uses a lot more knee bend now in his serves than in the past.

Federer uses a lot of topspin; there's a reason why Nadal stands back further than normal when he plays Federer (5+ feet and sometimes even near the back of the wall heh). His forehands are like kick serves, if you don't step back or take them on the rise they will be at the shoulders or higher. Not only this but they pack power.

It's like Sampras's serve; deceiving but it has a lot of RPMs behind it.

Federer is more modern than classic. His grips aren't extreme nor' are they classic; a hybrid. What allows him to hit the way he does is the modern techniques. Hitting with a straight arm is not classic, hitting with an incredibly laid back wrist/loose wrist is not classic. Jumping on most of his forehands is not classic, nor are his sqush shots. His educated wrist flick & pronation during his forehand is not classic. His open stance is not classic (he uses an open stance more than he does a closed on forehands), and even the semi-open stance is modern (as it came more popular around the 90s). He uses a lot of upper body rotation in his shots, which is also not classic but modern (as it also came popular around the 90s. I'm pretty sure you know the story about the player who got injured and trained in a specialized chair and had to use upper body rotation. When he recovered and came back on the tour -- he dominated. And thus the era of the different stances to increase power + spin. Prior to that there wasn't such.). Federer while he can play almost any game -- he's been playing baseline a higher percentage of the time and that's his game; baseline tennis is not classic. He hasn't been too hot at the net and hasn't come to the net 50% or more of the time or served and volley a great percentage compared to his baseline tennis.

BreakPoint, if you're going to claim something like that or say something like that -- atleast be correct about it and have support. I'm not attacking you or calling you names (as you've done to several posters here); I'm asking for simple things. Proof, support and/or fact to what you say or claim.

chowdhurynaveen
08-27-2006, 03:29 PM
Originally Posted by AngeloDS
Federer doesn't want to change his technique? He has

I dont think "change" is the correct word...too extreme. I believe improved or refined would be more accurate. Just my humble opinion. :)

FitzRoy
08-27-2006, 04:52 PM
I think BP is trying to make a relatively simple point, though it may have become lost somewhere in this debate. What he's trying to say is that there are a variety of racquets available, all of which are made to suit various styles of swinging and different levels of skill. Low-powered racquets with small head sizes are now being called demanding frames, and the OP wanted to know why some people prefer to play with such frames. If I understand BreakPoint correctly, his point is that he's been playing tennis for a very long time, to the degree that his strokes are, for the most part, going to stay the same for as long as he continues to play. He likes a racquet type that suits this classical swing style - IE, a racquet that plays more like a wood frame. These frames are considered to be demanding frames, so BP prefers demanding frames. In short, BreakPoint's answer to the original question would be something like, "I use demanding frames because they're very similar to the racquets I've been using for most of my tennis life, and I'm comfortable with that style of play."

Semantics aside, how could anyone really have an issue with such a preference?

NoBadMojo
08-27-2006, 05:33 PM
Seriously, all you do in any of these comments is reinforce that you lack one of the most basic skills in tennis - the ability to control the ball. You haven't got the simple talent to apply some degree of spin in order to keep the ball in the court so you label any racquet too demanding for your abilities as uncontrollable.

If your technique is built around you taking a big swipe at the ball and applying no spin to allow a margin of error then of course you need to make some adjustments to use a racquet like the Pure Drive. Doesn't matter what you use, if you play like that you're going to have to make some adjustments. Personally, I'd be suggesting you take some lessons but I very much doubt they'd help.

All of that makes me seriously question the reviews you've written for TW. If, as seems apparent, you lack the skill to control any racquet with a modicum of power and find the notion of using spin to create a margin for error too challenging how can you write a well-reasoned piece on anything built in the last 30 years.

i very much doubt you could be more offensive if you tried and I seriously do think you need help. As far as tennis goes, if you want to stick with a wooden racquet and think that is all you need to use then, please, knock yourself out.

aye..well said Andrew...very accurate

jonolau
08-27-2006, 05:41 PM
Seriously, all you do in any of these comments is reinforce that you lack one of the most basic skills in tennis - the ability to control the ball. You haven't got the simple talent to apply some degree of spin in order to keep the ball in the court so you label any racquet too demanding for your abilities as uncontrollable.

If your technique is built around you taking a big swipe at the ball and applying no spin to allow a margin of error then of course you need to make some adjustments to use a racquet like the Pure Drive. Doesn't matter what you use, if you play like that you're going to have to make some adjustments. Personally, I'd be suggesting you take some lessons but I very much doubt they'd help.

All of that makes me seriously question the reviews you've written for TW. If, as seems apparent, you lack the skill to control any racquet with a modicum of power and find the notion of using spin to create a margin for error too challenging how can you write a well-reasoned piece on anything built in the last 30 years.

i very much doubt you could be more offensive if you tried and I seriously do think you need help. As far as tennis goes, if you want to stick with a wooden racquet and think that is all you need to use then, please, knock yourself out.

Very well laid out, Andrew.

NoBadMojo
08-27-2006, 05:41 PM
NBM,, I'm all for that. I have had alot of practice and yes I know of a great place that makes some really good wine.;) As far as the Tempranillo grape goes I have tried it a couple diff. times and if my memory serves me right it is real similar to a Sangiovese. The ones I tried were a little to acidic for my taste. You are right about the spanish reds they are coming on strong. I still have a weak spot for wines made in Austrailia(when i'm not drinking local wines)

As far as tennis goes i've noticed alot of attacks on you lately. Please dont pay them any attention, alot of us here like reading your posts and you help out alot around here. Hope all is well,
Take care
CJ

thanks for the good words.

i dont like Sangiovese's either for the reason you say..too harsh and acidic, and I dont enjoy the aftertaste. My pallete is running more towards reds lighter than Cabs these days, maybe having someting to do with living in Forida, and thats a reason why I have been liking the Riojas and also Pinot Noirs..merlots dont stand up enough for my pallete usually and seem 'watery' to me. some blends of cab/merlot I like...now this stuff is all subjective...kind of like comparing the ball feel of diferent racquets...with most everythng else tennis, it is possible to be objective about i think...be well.
NBM

ps - the Crianza/Rioja I've been enjoying is Condeza de Leganza and the last time I bought a case, it was running around 8 bucks per bottle. Where can we try your wines?

jonolau
08-27-2006, 05:50 PM
All of that makes me seriously question the reviews you've written for TW. If, as seems apparent, you lack the skill to control any racquet with a modicum of power and find the notion of using spin to create a margin for error too challenging how can you write a well-reasoned piece on anything built in the last 30 years.
I also have my strong reservations about the objectivity in his racquet reviews for TW. It is particularly disturbing to read his extreme disdain for certain brands (Volkl, in particular) and skewed support of others.

BreakPoint
08-27-2006, 06:26 PM
I think BP is trying to make a relatively simple point, though it may have become lost somewhere in this debate. What he's trying to say is that there are a variety of racquets available, all of which are made to suit various styles of swinging and different levels of skill. Low-powered racquets with small head sizes are now being called demanding frames, and the OP wanted to know why some people prefer to play with such frames. If I understand BreakPoint correctly, his point is that he's been playing tennis for a very long time, to the degree that his strokes are, for the most part, going to stay the same for as long as he continues to play. He likes a racquet type that suits this classical swing style - IE, a racquet that plays more like a wood frame. These frames are considered to be demanding frames, so BP prefers demanding frames. In short, BreakPoint's answer to the original question would be something like, "I use demanding frames because they're very similar to the racquets I've been using for most of my tennis life, and I'm comfortable with that style of play."

Semantics aside, how could anyone really have an issue with such a preference?

Bingo, FitzRoy!! :D

I couldn't have said it better myself! Those are exactly my points! Thanks! :D But somehow you were able to summarize them in one simple paragraph, whereas, it's taken me countless posts and I still think half of the posters here still don't get it. :(

NoBadMojo
08-27-2006, 07:08 PM
Don't prefer the dirt but I will play on it. I do have to play on it in the summer a lot so I've gotten used to it. The older I get, the better the dirt feels though. :)

Keep up the good work NBMJ. I'll have to take you up on the frosty beverage if I'm in your neck of the woods again. It's been a lot of fun going to Charleston the last couple of years; great city.

ya man..Charleston is a great place to visit. Do they play the sectionals at Kiawah? I remember they have the Southern Open there right? The other tourney not so far way is on Jekyll Island. They get some good players and this year Donald Young played in it which was quite a shock since it's just an open tourney with some good college players in it..i guy i play occassionally was in it and drew him in the 2nd round!
i too have come to appreciate the dirt, and it's never been my best surface until now. it;s been a fun challenge being a serve/volleyer hardcourter all these years to change my game to work best on hartru.., i think i'm about there and my body thanks me for it..thank you for the good wishes but pls watch those typos and run on sentences or folks will think your typing is even worser than mine ;)

couch
08-27-2006, 07:32 PM
ya man..Charleston is a great place to visit. Do they play the sectionals at Kiawah? I remember they have the Southern Open there right? The other tourney not so far way is on Jekyll Island. They get some good players and this year Donald Young played in it which was quite a shock since it's just an open tourney with some good college players in it..i guy i play occassionally was in it and drew him in the 2nd round!
i too have come to appreciate the dirt, and it's never been my best surface until now. it;s been a fun challenge being a serve/volleyer hardcourter all these years to change my game to work best on hartru.., i think i'm about there and my body thanks me for it..thank you for the good wishes but pls watch those typos and run on sentences or folks will think your typing is even worser than mine ;)

I don't think they played any Sectionals matches at Kiawah, not sure though. We played our matches mainly in Mt. Pleasant. I think the best courts we played on were at the College of Charleston.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go back and check "all" my posts for "typos"; you never know where Yoda is going to be hiding. And I stated that I was no English major to start with. All I know is that if I had anything in my signature it would be grammatically correct.:)

couch
08-27-2006, 08:00 PM
I'm sorry Drakulie, I'm lowering myself to your level. I will try to quit now and be the bigger person. And by the way it would be "worst".

BreakPoint
08-27-2006, 08:05 PM
I also have my strong reservations about the objectivity in his racquet reviews for TW. It is particularly disturbing to read his extreme disdain for certain brands (Volkl, in particular) and skewed support of others.

You obviously either have not even read my reviews or you don't know how to read:

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/playtests/BREAKP01.html

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/playtests/BREAKP04.html

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/playtests/BREAKP06.html

These are all the Volkl racquets I've playtested for TW. Look at the "Overall Rankings" at the bottom of each review.

Here's a quote for your enjoyment:

If I had to choose one of these three racquets to switch to from my PS 6.0 95, it would be the Volkl Tour 10 MP Gen II. It plays the closest to the PS 6.0 95, with similar static and swingweights, very headlight balances, and stiff throats and flexible hoops. This racquet almost feels like a modern version of the Dunlop Maxply Fort wood racquet that I grew up playing tennis with!

If I were you (and I thank God I'm not), I'd be a helluva lot more concerned about the objectivity of someone sponsored by Volkl (NBMJ) in praising and pushing all things Volkl on this board, as is contractually obligated. :rolleyes:

Nice try in trying to discredit me. How ironic coming from someone who has ZERO credibility on these boards and who only a few months ago didn't even know what "stability" means in a tennis racquet (yes, I saw that thread, too). :rolleyes:

BreakPoint
08-27-2006, 08:20 PM
Seriously, all you do in any of these comments is reinforce that you lack one of the most basic skills in tennis - the ability to control the ball. You haven't got the simple talent to apply some degree of spin in order to keep the ball in the court so you label any racquet too demanding for your abilities as uncontrollable.

If your technique is built around you taking a big swipe at the ball and applying no spin to allow a margin of error then of course you need to make some adjustments to use a racquet like the Pure Drive.

So what you're saying is that you need to be a more advanced player, one who has mastered the art of spin, in order to control the Pure Drive? I thought the Pure Drive was a tweener, one originally designed for old housewives that only play occasionally, and is meant for less advanced and intermediate players? :confused: Perhaps then these less advanced players should be using the PS 6.0 85 as then they do not have to develop and master the spin technique (which takes a lot of time) in order to control it? Maybe the Pure Drive is just too "advanced" of a racquet for me then and the PS 6.0 85 should be called the "tweener"? :confused:

Here's a quote from Kreative's comparative playtest for TW which included the PD+:

Babolat Pure Drive +: Definitely the most powerful of the 3 racquets tested. Balls would sail beyond the baseline if I didn't consciously hit with a lot of spin to keep it in the court. Power was overwhelming on volleys.

Perhaps the PD+ is too advanced for this 3.5 player?

BTW, both playtesters rated the PD last out of the racquets they tested:

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/playtests/KREATIVE01.html

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/playtests/LEN01.html

BTW2, I've never written a playtest for TW on the PD, so how would you know how much spin I would use to control the racquet? Again, why adapt your technique to your racquet? Why not use the racquet that adapts to your technique?

MasterTS
08-27-2006, 08:31 PM
I don't really care how demanding or undemanding the O3 Hybrid Tour... I'm using it cause it looks coooolio!

Theres a thing called style in tennis.. thats why I have a one handed backhand.. thats why I'm gonna use the O3 Hybrid Tour..

fielders_80
08-27-2006, 09:39 PM
big hug everyone... big hug......

FitzRoy
08-27-2006, 09:48 PM
I do have my eye sight set on my college coaches Prince Original Graphites OS's he's had for decades :). I hit with them and found them to be amazing; but he strings it so high -- I didn't like that. He strings at 78 lbs or something :s. But he's had them for so long they've lost their stiffness and some properties which makes it feel really raw when you play. Also due impart that him and I are the same when it comes to grips; we prefer no under grip and just an overgrip to get that feel.

What college do you play for?

I love the POG OS, especially leaded up at 9 and 3.

mucat
08-27-2006, 10:04 PM
That's exactly right, Naveen! You are one astute individual. :D

Federer doesn't want to change his technique so he found a midsize racquet that works for his game. He doesn't want to change to a Pure Drive and be forced to completely change his technique to be more like Nadal's. He doesn't want to have to adapt to the new racquet by having to put excessive spin on the ball in order to control it, like Nadal does. Instead, he uses a racquet that works with his existing technique. There are lots of people in the same boat. Not everyone wants or needs so-called "modern techniques", thus, not everyone needs "modern" racquets. Those of us that use "old-school" techniques do just fine using "old-school" racquets. Just ask Federer. I find his technique to be much more "old-school" than it is "modern".

I don't think it works this way. While different racket will require a player to adapt to hit in certain way, it would never be as extreme as from Federer to Nadal, heck, they are not even using the same grip. Federer is not "old school" at all, he hit far out in front, with all shoulder rotation and almost no arm (from looking at this famous slow motion video). Try hit that with a wood racket, the ball will have difficulty to get pass the net.

To adapt to different racket means adjusting swing path slightly to compensate for more or less spin and more or less pace. Most player has been doing it in a match, hitting deep ground, hitting short angle passing shot, flatten out the ball, heavy topspin moonball...etc. Those can be acomplish by adjusting the swing path slightly one way or the other.

MasterTS
08-27-2006, 10:27 PM
Trust me, man, I'm not BreakPoint. I wasn't asking what college you went to because I wanted you to prove that you played in college. If you say you do, I have no reason to doubt you. I was just curious.

Well I'm neutral here.. but if I recall correctly Angelo plays for some none-NCAA school.. i think it's equivlant to a DIII school.. nothing much to talk about just cause he's a 'college player'

mucat
08-27-2006, 10:29 PM
So what you're saying is that you need to be a more advanced player, one who has mastered the art of spin, in order to control the Pure Drive? I thought the Pure Drive was a tweener, one originally designed for old housewives that only play occasionally, and is meant for less advanced and intermediate players? :confused: Perhaps then these less advanced players should be using the PS 6.0 85 as then they do not have to develop and master the spin technique (which takes a lot of time) in order to control it? Maybe the Pure Drive is just too "advanced" of a racquet for me then and the PS 6.0 85 should be called the "tweener"? :confused:


I will answer this.

Most recreational players using powerful racket, they usually do not employ full swing and body rotation into their shot, so a powerful racket can create deep flat groundstrokes for them even they don't have proper techinque because of the power level of the racket.

However, when a player does employ full swing using a powerful racket, the ball will go out if not hitting with enough topspin. So the answer is more topspin, but it is very difficult to tame the power, because with a fullswing, slight mishit or slightly wrong angle of attack, the ball will be flying pass the baseline. So, it takes skills to control the power hitting with full swing.

The PS85 is a different animal to tame. Its small headsize and heavier weight will create problem to player with poorer hand-eye coordination, or weaker physique, etc. It is a totally diffierent problem.

Don't judge a player or yourself by the racket. Player's racket, tweeners, beginner's racket, they are all just names. Personally, I don't not like these definition, it gives players wrong ideas about rackets.

JoostT
08-28-2006, 04:29 AM
But I never said that it was the best way. I said I'd rather stick with my low-powered, player's racquet and hit the ball the same way that I have been for 30 years rather than switch to a modern, big-headed, high-powered racquet and be forced to completely change my technique or re-learn a new technique just in order to use the new racquet. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

At 35, Sampras will not change his technique on his eastern grip forehand nor his serve motion, right? McEnroe, at 47, still uses the same continental grip on all of his shots that he always has and still hits the ball the same way. These guys will never change their techniques so they're not good candidates for racquets like the Pure Drive. Can you imagine Sampras or McEnroe switching to a Pure Drive and completely changing their techniques to start hitting the ball like Nadal? It's never going to happen. Do you get what I mean?

Ever hit with a dunlop maxply, the new version McEnroe is using now? It is a lot closer to a babolat pure drive than a midsize players frame. It's a stiff frame and midplus (97). Didn't change his technique one bit...

j3d0
08-28-2006, 04:55 AM
I will answer this.

Most recreational players using powerful racket, they usually do not employ full swing and body rotation into their shot, so a powerful racket can create deep flat groundstrokes for them even they don't have proper techinque because of the power level of the racket.

However, when a player does employ full swing using a powerful racket, the ball will go out if not hitting with enough topspin. So the answer is more topspin, but it is very difficult to tame the power, because with a fullswing, slight mishit or slightly wrong angle of attack, the ball will be flying pass the baseline. So, it takes skills to control the power hitting with full swing.

The PS85 is a different animal to tame. Its small headsize and heavier weight will create problem to player with poorer hand-eye coordination, or weaker physique, etc. It is a totally diffierent problem.

Don't judge a player or yourself by the racket. Player's racket, tweeners, beginner's racket, they are all just names. Personally, I don't not like these definition, it gives players wrong ideas about rackets.

You have a point man. I'm with you.

JoostT
08-28-2006, 05:05 AM
I played with wood racquets for over 12 years, and I've used modern racquets, including the Pure Drive, for longer than that. Since neither the ball nor my strokes have changed, I can confidently say that the Pure Drive has more power than a wood racquet and that with the same exact swing, the ball travels further with the Pure Drive than with the wood racquet. Why? Is that really hard for you to believe?
I don't think you can make the exact same swing with a woodie and a pure drive (and know for sure that you did). The weight and balance and swingweight are so far apart, that it would be impossible to match a stroke exactly.

The comparison is also meaningless, yes a pure drive is more powerfull, no it doesn't matter that much, because the specs of a racquet will force you to change your technique to get the same results. Just find some specs that match your technique. But it is clear that a pure drive has specs that fit a lot of people, more than a woodie (or ps85).

BreakPoint
08-28-2006, 08:57 AM
I don't think it works this way. While different racket will require a player to adapt to hit in certain way, it would never be as extreme as from Federer to Nadal, heck, they are not even using the same grip. Federer is not "old school" at all, he hit far out in front, with all shoulder rotation and almost no arm (from looking at this famous slow motion video). Try hit that with a wood racket, the ball will have difficulty to get pass the net.


Federer hits the ball with no arm? :confused: Exactly which Federer are you talking about? That guy Joe Federer that lives next door to you? ;) LOL Because how does Roger Federer's arm end up wrapped across his body after his forehand swing if he hardly used his arm? :confused:

BTW, most people who use Pure Drives tend to use full Western grips. Thus, if Federer were forced to use a Pure Drive, he would most likely have to also change to a full Western Grip in order to generate the topspin needed to control all that power. That's why I said what I said, and that's why you'll never see Federer switching to a Pure Drive.

BTW, how often have you ever played with a wood racquet?

BreakPoint
08-28-2006, 09:14 AM
Ever hit with a dunlop maxply, the new version McEnroe is using now? It is a lot closer to a babolat pure drive than a midsize players frame. It's a stiff frame and midplus (97). Didn't change his technique one bit...

The simple answer is that the Maxply McEnroe that McEnroe uses is a paintjob. It's much heavier than the stock model and perhaps flexier, too. Even with the stock model, people that have played with it report that it's closer to an old school racquet than it is to a Pure Drive. I haven't seen anyone mention that it's anything like a Pure Drive.

cabernetjunkie
08-28-2006, 09:29 AM
thanks for the good words.

i dont like Sangiovese's either for the reason you say..too harsh and acidic, and I dont enjoy the aftertaste. My pallete is running more towards reds lighter than Cabs these days, maybe having someting to do with living in Forida, and thats a reason why I have been liking the Riojas and also Pinot Noirs..merlots dont stand up enough for my pallete usually and seem 'watery' to me. some blends of cab/merlot I like...now this stuff is all subjective...kind of like comparing the ball feel of diferent racquets...with most everythng else tennis, it is possible to be objective about i think...be well.
NBM

ps - the Crianza/Rioja I've been enjoying is Condeza de Leganza and the last time I bought a case, it was running around 8 bucks per bottle. Where can we try your wines?

NBM, shoot me an email and I can get you hooked up with some of my wines. dohabwine@bellsouth.net. If not, the only states we are in are GA. and SC. Hoping to be able to distribute in FL. within the next year.
Take care
CJ

Kaptain Karl
08-28-2006, 05:28 PM
Most people who use player's racquets already have pretty good technique or else they would not be very successful using them. Thus, if we use a less demanding racquet that allows us to hit the ball over the net even without good technique, then eventually we'll likely lose that well-honed technique since we'll probably get lazy and stop using so much effort into hitting the ball.This is just ... nonsense. I don't know ANY of my peers (I'm 50) who have allowed their technique to falter / break down / whatever you call it by using the "modern" frames they use today. As AndrewD indicated, the technique involves ball control. If one cannot control the ball with the newer frames, it's their own fault.

(I still prefer certain frames over others -- and I expect everyone does. But finding a frame which suits your game and gives you psychological confidence is important too.) If you gain that suitability and psychological comfort from a T-2000, a FlexPoint or a Babolat ... more power to you.

People use demanding frames mostly for ego.If you'd posted, "Most people use demanding frames to satisfy their own egoes" I'd probably have agreed. (Emphasis on "most".)

What amazes me is the people who stubbornly insist on satisfying *only* the psychological comfort part of the equation ... and won't listen to those who give them good counsel about better matching other frames' characteristics to their games. "Oh well...."

- KK

jonolau
08-28-2006, 06:17 PM
You obviously either have not even read my reviews or you don't know how to read:

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/playtests/BREAKP01.html

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/playtests/BREAKP04.html

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/playtests/BREAKP06.html

These are all the Volkl racquets I've playtested for TW. Look at the "Overall Rankings" at the bottom of each review.

Here's a quote for your enjoyment:

If I had to choose one of these three racquets to switch to from my PS 6.0 95, it would be the Volkl Tour 10 MP Gen II. It plays the closest to the PS 6.0 95, with similar static and swingweights, very headlight balances, and stiff throats and flexible hoops. This racquet almost feels like a modern version of the Dunlop Maxply Fort wood racquet that I grew up playing tennis with!

If I were you (and I thank God I'm not), I'd be a helluva lot more concerned about the objectivity of someone sponsored by Volkl (NBMJ) in praising and pushing all things Volkl on this board, as is contractually obligated. :rolleyes:

Nice try in trying to discredit me. How ironic coming from someone who has ZERO credibility on these boards and who only a few months ago didn't even know what "stability" means in a tennis racquet (yes, I saw that thread, too). :rolleyes:



If only you could see yourself from an outsiders point of view, Breakpoint.

You write all these reviews which appear objective, but on the message boards, you get yourself tangled up in these types of heated exchanges with a very condescending/patronising attitude. You may win over some, but you won't win over most of us.

One look at the attitude in your replies on this board, and you've immediately lost a fair amount of objectivity and credibility. You obviously can't see this fact as you're blinded by anger, ego and aloofness.

Until you're able to keep your emotions in check and your attitude neutral and objective, there'll be no end to questions on your objectivity.

One good look at someone who is able to stay objective is DireDesire. He has done a great job as a moderator, but is also able to dish out objective advice without being condescending or patronising.

drakulie
08-28-2006, 06:42 PM
This messaage board is filled with people/zombies who simply repeat what racauet manufacturers say. Myths that promise to give a player more power and control, and more importantly make them a better player.

Take the radical line as an example. Since it's conception there has been the 260, titanium, i radical, liquid metal, flex point, etc, etc etc. More radicals than I can count or remember. Each one has promised the same thing..."more power and more control", than it's predecessor.

If each radical through its history delivers on what Head promises, then logically Agassi would be hitting 250 MPH serves by now. When he first started with Head he was already hitting 120 MPH serves. Yet, for some inexplicable reason his serve speed has not improved with each and every "racquet change" he has made. Neither has the pace on his groundstrokes.

Sure some racquets are more powerful than others. But quite frankly, I have yet to use a racquet that makes my current serve speed of 85 to 100 MPH go to 130 MPH. Even with a Babolat PD, my serve speed did not improve more than 5 to 10 MPH. For me, that is hardly a monumental "technological" improvement, to give up playing with a "20 year old racquet" that is considered "old technology and obsolete".

Nor for that matter, has any racquet assisted me in improving on topspin, groundstrokes, volleys, or control.

Oddly enough, one racquet I enjoyed was the Dunlop 300g. However, it is no longer sold because.........Yup, there is a new and improved Dunlop version of this racquet. I also enjoyed the Wilson Hyper Pro Staff.........yup, there has been several new and improved versions of this racquet--the tour, ncode, etc.

If I would have switched to either of these racquets, I would be spending more time searching the internet in hopes of finding some to buy them up, than being on the tennis courts and playing.

Of course if I cant find used ones, I would have to go through the whole process again, then again, etc.

So, why on earth would I change? In my case, there has been no positives, and only negatives in switching. I could always find used PS85's. In garage sales, internet, etc.

Quite frankly, until I play with a racquet that feels as good or better in my hands than the current racquet I am playing with---I am going to stick to playing tennis, and not worry about "buying a new and improved" racquet.

From my experience the two biggest changes in equipment over the last 20 years has been "larger head sizes", and strings. New technology hasn't made racquets more powerful, or improved a players control.

Guys were hitting 130+ MPH serves 20 years ago and 90+ forehands.

drakulie
08-28-2006, 07:05 PM
If you'd posted, "Most people use demanding frames to satisfy their own egoes" I'd probably have agreed. (Emphasis on "most".) - KK

No matter what anyones choice of racquet is, someone is going to be playing with a "less" demanding frame. Therefore, everyone is playing with a "demanding" frame.

AndrewD
08-28-2006, 08:03 PM
BTW2, I've never written a playtest for TW on the PD, so how would you know how much spin I would use to control the racquet?
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

No-one said you had and the idea is to control the ball, not the racquet.

Look, I know you have a mighty struggle with reading comprehension but it's really not too difficult. I'm sure if you put in the effort you'll work it out, eventually.

When you've got that sorted you might like to work on adding some variety to your posts. To date, your contributions can be summed up as:

1. BreakPoint is right/good)
2. NBMJ is wrong/evil/biased/sponsored by Volkl (they all mean the same to you)
3. PS95 is a good racquet
4. I use(d) the PS95 (insert racquet name) so it’s a really, really good racquet
5. I have such beautiful strokes people come to watch me play (translation: people stare and laugh when I play tennis)
6. Big headed racquets are bad
7. Small headed racquets are good
8. Big headed racquets make my backhand go ouch :(
9. Small headed racquets make me feel pretty :)
10.


Congratulations! It must have been darn tough to string together over 8,000 posts when all you do is say those same things ad nauseum (with emphasis on the nauseum). Imagine how good it would be if you'd strung together 8,000 posts that actually made sense (I'd have been happy if you'd managed 10).

BreakPoint
08-28-2006, 08:51 PM
I also have my strong reservations about the objectivity in his racquet reviews for TW. It is particularly disturbing to read his extreme disdain for certain brands (Volkl, in particular) and skewed support of others.

This coming from Volkl fanboy junior on these boards who obviously is very strongly skewed toward Volkls and who has stated that he hates all other brands that he's tried. :rolleyes:

Here are my objective opinions. Sure looks like I disdain Volkls and am biased towards other brands, huh? :rolleyes:

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/playtests/BREAKP01.html

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/playtests/BREAKP04.html

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/playtests/BREAKP06.html

These are all the Volkl racquets I've playtested for TW. Look at the "Overall Rankings" at the bottom of each review.

Here's a quote for your enjoyment:

If I had to choose one of these three racquets to switch to from my PS 6.0 95, it would be the Volkl Tour 10 MP Gen II. It plays the closest to the PS 6.0 95, with similar static and swingweights, very headlight balances, and stiff throats and flexible hoops. This racquet almost feels like a modern version of the Dunlop Maxply Fort wood racquet that I grew up playing tennis with!

You are so owned!

BreakPoint
08-28-2006, 08:55 PM
No-one said you had and the idea is to control the ball, not the racquet.

Look, I know you have a mighty struggle with reading comprehension but it's really not too difficult. I'm sure if you put in the effort you'll work it out, eventually.

When you've got that sorted you might like to work on adding some variety to your posts. To date, your contributions can be summed up as:

1. BreakPoint is right/good)
2. NBMJ is wrong/evil/biased/sponsored by Volkl (they all mean the same to you)
3. PS95 is a good racquet
4. I use(d) the PS95 (insert racquet name) so it’s a really, really good racquet
5. I have such beautiful strokes people come to watch me play (translation: people stare and laugh when I play tennis)
6. Big headed racquets are bad
7. Small headed racquets are good
8. Big headed racquets make my backhand go ouch :(
9. Small headed racquets make me feel pretty :)
10.


Congratulations! It must have been darn tough to string together over 8,000 posts when all you do is say those same things ad nauseum (with emphasis on the nauseum). Imagine how good it would be if you'd strung together 8,000 posts that actually made sense (I'd have been happy if you'd managed 10).

And you and NBMJ are any different? :rolleyes:

newnuse
08-28-2006, 09:08 PM
"Volkl Fanboy JR" ... :) .... stop it man... I just had dinner

NoBadMojo
08-28-2006, 09:08 PM
And you and NBMJ are any different? :rolleyes:

when will this stuff ever end..this 2 years or more of badgering and stalking of me has gone beyond creepy and dysfunctional and morphed into something which isnt even possible to describe. he connects me with anything he doesnt like no matter how unrelated. it really is beyond obsessive behaviour..anyone can see.

Marius_Hancu
08-28-2006, 10:20 PM
They use them because they win with them.

Heck, my 6.0 85 is 415g heavy, 432g swingmass (no error, measured recently on a Babolat machine; which is explained by about 40g lead total at 3 and 9 only), but I am playing S-V with it. Simply very solid and powerful in this configuration. And controllable, at 68lbs string tension. For me, that is.

Not the most maneuverable, of course, but I am not playing a la Fed, slashing and dashing, but a la Sampras, blocking and guiding the volleys, of course.

I have over 10 other racquets (PC 600, Babolat Pure Drive+, 6.1 Hyper ProStaff, Fischer 98 Retro, Mitt 97, POG Mid, Estusa, etc) , and I train and use them in matches too, but I can't play the same with them. I prefer this howitzer, it generates a heavy ball on all shots. But I need to use my legs and the inertia of the racquet, to use the wrist-release, the rocking motion on serve, the whole set of useful techniques which you know very well.

Matter of preference, not of superman-icity.

I experimented many times, during matches in which I was in critical situations, or which I lost, to switch to other racquets. Didn't bring a lot of improvement.

The answer: the racquet isn't the essential ingredient. It's myself, my conditioning, my tactics, my training, my focus on the ball, etc. This is where I should concentrate and work on.

The racquet is just a matter of preference. But don't hurt yourself with inappropriate choices (too stiff, too light, you know my tune by now:-))

newnuse
08-28-2006, 10:23 PM
Personally I played with a PS 85" because of my ego.

Plus, I find that all the tennis groupies that hang at the local courts really dig man that use PS85"

Two Fister
08-28-2006, 11:25 PM
I have to admit, it's kind of like a bad car accident on the side of the freeway. You don't want to look, but you can't help yourself.

Been around this board long enough to know that BOTH parties (or should I say fundamentalist "teams") have some culpability in this war. Neither side is completely innocent.

Interesting how the anonymity of the internet allows people to be very uncivil to each other. I'm willing to bet that if locked in the same room for a couple of hours, Breakpoint and NBMJ would be nowhere near as aggressive with each other and would actually come to agreement about things and be able to get along just fine.

Anyway, I use a "mid-sized" racquet (the DNX 10 mid) cuz it is pretty easy on my bum elbow, it seems to generate more spin than the dnx 10 mp version, and it has a good combo of power and control for my game, and just about the right static and swingweight for me. Could care less if it is mid-sized or not (actually a big mid at 93). Not willing to say that it is more "demanding" than my AeroProDrive+. Maybe more difficult to hit as hard with the dnx 10 mid, but easier to keep the ball in the court. Just my two cents.

chowdhurynaveen
08-28-2006, 11:59 PM
Originally Posted by Marius Hancu
The answer: the racquet isn't the essential ingredient. It's myself, my conditioning, my tactics, my training, my focus on the ball, etc. This is where I should concentrate and work on.


Well said Marius Hancu!! :D

BreakPoint
08-28-2006, 11:59 PM
I also have my strong reservations about the objectivity in his racquet reviews for TW. It is particularly disturbing to read his extreme disdain for certain brands (Volkl, in particular) and skewed support of others.

Yes, I have strong opinions about racquets. I think just about everyone here does. But the difference between you and me is that I do not allow my personal opinions, preferences, biases, or whatever you want to call it, influence my objectivity when conducting and writing playtest reviews on behalf of TW. I have no hidden agendas nor any ulterior motives. I have no obligations nor incentives to promote or support certain brands. Thus, there is no benefit to me whatsoever to tout or slam one brand over another.

The concrete proof of that is, although I may not personally like most Volkl racquets, my personal sentiment is not reflected in any way in my TW reviews. Because I know that although I may not like that Volkl feel nor appreciate some of the qualities that Volkl has to offer, there are many other people who do.

jonolau
08-29-2006, 12:50 AM
Yes, I have strong opinions about racquets. I think just about everyone here does. But the difference between you and me is that I do not allow my personal opinions, preferences, biases, or whatever you want to call it, influence my objectivity when conducting and writing playtest reviews on behalf of TW. I have no hidden agendas nor any ulterior motives. I have no obligations nor incentives to promote or support certain brands. Thus, there is no benefit to me whatsoever to tout or slam one brand over another.

The concrete proof of that is, although I may not personally like most Volkl racquets, my personal sentiment is not reflected in any way in my TW reviews. Because I know that although I may not like that Volkl feel nor appreciate some of the qualities that Volkl has to offer, there are many other people who do.
We have seen the way you have strongly attacked or defended certain racquets and brands in this forum, and that's fine. Each one of us is entitled to our personal opinions.

However, no matter how much you claim to be objective in your reviews, the fact that you have strong views and a personal dislike for most Volkl racquets already puts a discount on half of what you say in your reviews regardless of how positive or negative the review. The fact that you hold these views would already plant a seed of doubt in your subconcious mind and may affect your decisions/findings with or without your conscious knowledge.

You may not see this fact yourself, but people in this forum perceive it differently. It is akin to asking a judge who has publicly aired his anti-abortion views to preside over an abortion case because even if he claims to be objective there is a clear conflict of interest.

Please think about this carefully before replying.

jonolau
08-29-2006, 12:57 AM
This coming from Volkl fanboy junior on these boards who obviously is very strongly skewed toward Volkls and who has stated that he hates all other brands that he's tried. :rolleyes:

You are so owned!
Whoa, don't make such sweeping scathing statements and attacks.

I do like Prince and bought an O3 White for my wife. I also like Dunlop and will be buying an M-Fil 300. I also own a Head TXE and do like that racquet. I also own a Wilson PS 7.5 and Hyper Hammer 6.3 and do take those out to hit once in a while.

So, do I hate all other brands that I've tried? No. I only do not like certain models that I've tried.

In my mind, only my parents, wife and kids have the unconditional right to claim they own me and I'm happy with this fact.

So, please don't get personal.

JoostT
08-29-2006, 01:41 AM
The simple answer is that the Maxply McEnroe that McEnroe uses is a paintjob. It's much heavier than the stock model and perhaps flexier, too. Even with the stock model, people that have played with it report that it's closer to an old school racquet than it is to a Pure Drive. I haven't seen anyone mention that it's anything like a Pure Drive.

Specs of the Maxply McEnroe (tennis-warehouse website)

Head Size:
98 sq. in. / 632 sq. cm.Length: 27 inches / 69 cmStrung Weight: 11.3oz / 320gBalance: 3pts Head LightSwingweight: 327Stiffness: 68Beam Width: 21 mm Straight BeamComposition: Hot Melt GraphitePower Level: Low-MediumSwing Speed: Moderate-FastGrip Type: LeatherString Pattern:
16 Mains / 19 Crosses
Mains skip: 8T,8H
One Piece
No shared holes

Racquets similar to Dunlop Maxply McEnroe Racquets Babolat Drive Z-Tour Racquets (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBAB-ZTOUR.html)
A solid Midplus racquet well suited to intermediate to advanced level players. Continues the trend of light, powerful and spin friendly offerings from Babolat. 100 sq. inches, 10.7 ounces, 16/19 string pattern, 27 inch length.
Price: $169.00, Customer Feedback (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/feedback.html?pcode=ZTOUR), Babolat Pure Control Team Standard Racquets (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBAB-BPC.html)
Traditional weight and balance in a standard, 27-inch length. Ideal for 4.5-7.0 level players who generate their own power and are seeking enhanced control. 11.8 ounces, 98 sq. inch head.
Price: $179.00, Customer Feedback (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/feedback.html?pcode=BPC), http://rs.tennis-warehouse.com/tw/thumbs/BPD-thumb.jpg (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBAB-BPD.html) Babolat Pure Drive Team Standard Racquets (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBAB-BPD.html)
Babolat's best selling racquet offers a high level of stability and comfort. Racquet choice of many touring pros including Carlos Moya and 2005 US Open Champ, Kim Clijsters.
Price: $179.00, Review (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/BPD/BPDReview.html), Customer Feedback (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/feedback.html?pcode=BPD), Babolat Pure Storm Team Racquets (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBAB-PSTRM.html)
A lightweight control racquet that provides a solid feel at impact and is suited to a variety of playing styles. 11 ounces, 98 square inch headsize and 16/20 string pattern.
Price: $179.00, Customer Feedback (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/feedback.html?pcode=PSTRM)
:rolleyes:

BreakPoint
08-29-2006, 02:06 AM
Specs of the Maxply McEnroe (tennis-warehouse website)

Head Size:
98 sq. in. / 632 sq. cm.Length: 27 inches / 69 cmStrung Weight: 11.3oz / 320gBalance: 3pts Head LightSwingweight: 327Stiffness: 68Beam Width: 21 mm Straight BeamComposition: Hot Melt GraphitePower Level: Low-MediumSwing Speed: Moderate-FastGrip Type: LeatherString Pattern:
16 Mains / 19 Crosses
Mains skip: 8T,8H
One Piece
No shared holes

Racquets similar to Dunlop Maxply McEnroe Racquets Babolat Drive Z-Tour Racquets (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBAB-ZTOUR.html)
A solid Midplus racquet well suited to intermediate to advanced level players. Continues the trend of light, powerful and spin friendly offerings from Babolat. 100 sq. inches, 10.7 ounces, 16/19 string pattern, 27 inch length.
Price: $169.00, Customer Feedback (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/feedback.html?pcode=ZTOUR), Babolat Pure Control Team Standard Racquets (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBAB-BPC.html)
Traditional weight and balance in a standard, 27-inch length. Ideal for 4.5-7.0 level players who generate their own power and are seeking enhanced control. 11.8 ounces, 98 sq. inch head.
Price: $179.00, Customer Feedback (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/feedback.html?pcode=BPC), http://rs.tennis-warehouse.com/tw/thumbs/BPD-thumb.jpg (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBAB-BPD.html) Babolat Pure Drive Team Standard Racquets (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBAB-BPD.html)
Babolat's best selling racquet offers a high level of stability and comfort. Racquet choice of many touring pros including Carlos Moya and 2005 US Open Champ, Kim Clijsters.
Price: $179.00, Review (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/BPD/BPDReview.html), Customer Feedback (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/feedback.html?pcode=BPD), Babolat Pure Storm Team Racquets (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/descpageRCBAB-PSTRM.html)
A lightweight control racquet that provides a solid feel at impact and is suited to a variety of playing styles. 11 ounces, 98 square inch headsize and 16/20 string pattern.
Price: $179.00, Customer Feedback (http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/feedback.html?pcode=PSTRM)
:rolleyes:

Huh? So where are the people that play with the Maxply McEnroe who say that it plays like a Pure Drive? :confused:

JoostT
08-29-2006, 02:33 AM
Huh? So where are the people that play with the Maxply McEnroe who say that it plays like a Pure Drive? :confused:
That is called a strawman;

I haven't seen anyone mention that it's anything like a Pure Drive.

And if you look at the specs, it is very close to a Pure Drive. It plays a lot closer than a max 200g...

BreakPoint
08-29-2006, 02:42 AM
And if you look at the specs, it is very close to a Pure Drive. It plays a lot closer than a max 200g...

I never said it plays close to a Max 200G. No racquet in the world does nor ever did. I just said that out of all the reviews written by posters on this board and other comments from people that actually play with the racquet, I've never heard of anyone saying that the Maxply McEnroe plays like a Pure Drive.

Here's the customer feedback for the Maxply McEnroe. I haven't read it all but I doubt anyone mentions it plays like a Pure Drive.

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/feedback.html?pcode=DMMC

BTW, don't ever just go by specs. Having played with hundreds of racquets over the years, I've learned that one can never just go by the specs. You have to play with it yourself as many racquets will play quite differently from what their specs may indicate.

BTW, do you play with both the Maxply McEnroe and the Pure Drive? If not, how do you know they play very similar?

AngeloDS
08-29-2006, 02:48 AM
The assistant college tennis coach who owns a tennis shop and is a dunlop dealer (and deals other brands too like Fischer); dunlops are pretty good. The guy who won the conference championships was playing with a dunlop (incredible game). I tried out the Maxply McEnroe, it was an alright racquet but it felt really stiff and backhand slices didn't feel the same.

I'd say the Maxply McEnroe strung at 55 lbs plays like a Pure Drive strung at 60 lbs to be honest. At 60 the woofer affect isn't there but it feels a bit soft. At 55 lbs the Maxply McEnroe feels soft and has a good deal of power behind it.

One thing I didn't like about the Maxplay McEnroe is where the head is placed and its shape. I find the head to be too oval for my tastes. So I don't like it too much for one-handed backhands. I prefer more rounder heads.

JoostT
08-29-2006, 03:03 AM
I never said it plays close to a Max 200G. No racquet in the world does nor ever did. I just said that out of all the reviews written by posters on this board and other comments from people that actually play with the racquet, I've never heard of anyone saying that the Maxply McEnroe plays like a Pure Drive.

Here's the customer feedback for the Maxply McEnroe. I haven't read it all but I doubt anyone mentions it plays like a Pure Drive.

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/feedback.html?pcode=DMMC

BTW, don't ever just go by specs. Having played with hundreds of racquets over the years, I've learned that one can never just go by the specs. You have to play with it yourself as many racquets will play quite differently from what their specs may indicate.

BTW, do you play with both the Maxply McEnroe and the Pure Drive? If not, how do you know they play very similar?

Yes I have owned and played with them both. These are not demanding frames and quite comparable powerwise. Now the Max 200g is a demanding frame, both in specs and how it plays.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BreakPoint
But I never said that it was the best way. I said I'd rather stick with my low-powered, player's racquet and hit the ball the same way that I have been for 30 years rather than switch to a modern, big-headed, high-powered racquet and be forced to completely change my technique or re-learn a new technique just in order to use the new racquet. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

At 35, Sampras will not change his technique on his eastern grip forehand nor his serve motion, right? McEnroe, at 47, still uses the same continental grip on all of his shots that he always has and still hits the ball the same way. These guys will never change their techniques so they're not good candidates for racquets like the Pure Drive. Can you imagine Sampras or McEnroe switching to a Pure Drive and completely changing their techniques to start hitting the ball like Nadal? It's never going to happen. Do you get what I mean?


Ever hit with a dunlop maxply, the new version McEnroe is using now? It is a lot closer to a babolat pure drive than a midsize players frame. It's a stiff frame and midplus (97). Didn't change his technique one bit...

You state that McEnroe's technique has not changed. He is however using very different frames. So you don't have to change your technique, to play with a modern big-headed, high powered frame, at least.

It does make me wonder if you ever tried a pure drive.

NoBadMojo
08-29-2006, 07:15 AM
I.

Interesting how the anonymity of the internet allows people to be very uncivil to each other. I'm willing to bet that if locked in the same room for a couple of hours, Breakpoint and NBMJ would be nowhere near as aggressive with each other and would actually come to agreement about things and be able to get along just fine.

.

This isnt true at all..

couch
08-29-2006, 08:15 AM
http://lost-forum.com/images/smilies/deadhorse.gif Haven't we beat this one to death?

Can't we all just hug and make up? Okay, maybe just get along. I think both Breakpoint and NBMJ have good points in most of their threads/replies.

What's the big deal if NBMJ is a Volkl rep or even owns a part of the company? Actually, I think he's probably just a sponsored pro that uses Volkls and likes them, so what. I could be wrong, but I don't think NBMJ puts down any other racquet companies he just pushes Volkl. If you like what he has to say about Volkl then go out and demo the racquet(s) yourself and make your own decision. We're all big boys around here. I personally like to hear what he has to say about Volkl because I play with one.

And I don't think Breakpoint dislikes Volkl, I think he and NBMJ dislike each other and it seems he's dissing Volkl everytime he gets in an argument with NBMJ when in fact he's not. I've read some of Breakpoint's reviews and find them quite informative. He has had some nice things to say about the Volkl Tour 10 VE.

Back to the original post and I've gotta get out of this one--

I think some people who use traditional strokes and grips could also benefit from tweener or lighter racquets. I play with a few guys who have absolutely no weapons and yet play with racquets like the ncode 6.1 90 sq. in. and could probably benefit from a lighter frame with a little more pop. I also play with some guys who use prestiges, etc. who hit the absolute crap out of the ball. I'm not going to tell them to change a thing because it's obviously working. And then there are guys who use powerful racquets who could probably benefit from a more control-oriented frame but choose not to because they like to hit the crap out of the ball and guess where it's going.

Who's right? I guess everyone is right because everyone plays with what frame they like for whatever reason.

And Drakulie- http://lost-forum.com/images/smilies/whiteflags.gifI give up, you win. Can we try and be civilized from now on out?

Offshore
08-29-2006, 08:29 AM
http://lost-forum.com/images/smilies/deadhorse.gif Haven't we beat this one to death?

Can't we all just hug and make up? Okay, maybe just get along. I think both Breakpoint and NBMJ have good points in most of their threads/replies.

What's the big deal if NBMJ is a Volkl rep or even owns a part of the company? Actually, I think he's probably just a sponsored pro that uses Volkls and likes them, so what. I could be wrong, but I don't think NBMJ puts down any other racquet companies he just pushes Volkl. If you like what he has to say about Volkl then go out and demo the racquet(s) yourself and make your own decision. We're all big boys around here. I personally like to hear what he has to say about Volkl because I play with one.

And I don't think Breakpoint dislikes Volkl, I think he and NBMJ dislike each other and it seems he's dissing Volkl everytime he gets in an argument with NBMJ when in fact he's not. I've read some of Breakpoint's reviews and find them quite informative. He has had some nice things to say about the Volkl Tour 10 VE.

Back to the original post and I've gotta get out of this one--

I think some people who use traditional strokes and grips could also benefit from tweener or lighter racquets. I play with a few guys who have absolutely no weapons and yet play with racquets like the ncode 6.1 90 sq. in. and could probably benefit from a lighter frame with a little more pop. I also play with some guys who use prestiges, etc. who hit the absolute crap out of the ball. I'm not going to tell them to change a thing because it's obviously working. And then there are guys who use powerful racquets who could probably benefit from a more control-oriented frame but choose not to because they like to hit the crap out of the ball and guess where it's going.

Who's right? I guess everyone is right because everyone plays with what frame they like for whatever reason.

And Drakulie- http://lost-forum.com/images/smilies/whiteflags.gifI give up, you win. Can we try and be civilized from now on out?

Great post to, hopefully, end this thread on a positive note. I agree that NoBadMojo has posted some great information and feedback, mainly regarding Volkl frames. His input is greatly appreciated. Breakpoint has also made some good contributions on the board and is obviously passionate about tennis and has his own views on many subjects...that doesn't make him right or wrong - just opinions.

Hopefully we can all be more positive and less personal in future threads. Remember.....Its just tennis!!!. :)

oldguysrule
08-29-2006, 08:46 AM
No-one said you had and the idea is to control the ball, not the racquet.

Look, I know you have a mighty struggle with reading comprehension but it's really not too difficult. I'm sure if you put in the effort you'll work it out, eventually.

When you've got that sorted you might like to work on adding some variety to your posts. To date, your contributions can be summed up as:

1. BreakPoint is right/good)
2. NBMJ is wrong/evil/biased/sponsored by Volkl (they all mean the same to you)
3. PS95 is a good racquet
4. I use(d) the PS95 (insert racquet name) so it’s a really, really good racquet
5. I have such beautiful strokes people come to watch me play (translation: people stare and laugh when I play tennis)
6. Big headed racquets are bad
7. Small headed racquets are good
8. Big headed racquets make my backhand go ouch :(
9. Small headed racquets make me feel pretty :)
10.


Congratulations! It must have been darn tough to string together over 8,000 posts when all you do is say those same things ad nauseum (with emphasis on the nauseum). Imagine how good it would be if you'd strung together 8,000 posts that actually made sense (I'd have been happy if you'd managed 10).

Ok, for good or bad, I am jumping back in.

AndrewD, I have never a seen you make a post that was disrespectful, or insulting. I also have rarely disagreed with one of your opinions. This post is beneath you.

If we remove the personality clashes, insults, hyperbole, defensiveness, pettiness, self-righteousness, personal attacks from these threads this is what we are left with.

Group A: Right or wrong, they like a small-headed, heavier, flexier frame and think there is still a place for this frame in tennis. Most of these posters, BP included, recognize that there are different styles of tennis and different racquets to statisfy those styles. Most of them say use what works for you. This is a valid viewpoint.

Group B: Right or wrong, they think that the above frames are obsolete and tennis players would be better served by using a frame that is to some degree lighter, stiffer, with a bigger head. Most of them do not acknowledge any benefits from a so-called "player's" frame. This is a valid viewpoint, although a bit exclusive.

In my observation, most of the posters in Group A sound a bit immature and have, at times, silly reasons for using a player's frame. However, they recognize that not everyone will want to. The posters in Group B sound more mature and reasonable, but typically think that they are right and everyone else is wrong. This is the attitude that starts the flame wars, in my opinion. At that point, nobody is right.

Breakpoint's entire message is that there is a place for the "player's" frame as well as the "modern" frame. This is his opinion. I think he initially presents it well. I think there is an attempt to shout him down and discredit him. And I will be the first to say that he can sound immature, condescending, and insulting with the best of them. To his credit though, he does not try to tell others that they should not use what they want to use. If you truly read this thread from the beginning, BP did not start this nonsense.

The posters in Group B have their opinion and many of them present it well. My only complaint is that instead of just presenting their opinion, they present it as a fact that everyone should agree with. (there are exceptions). Anyone who does not agree is "wrong".

jonolau
08-29-2006, 08:52 AM
Mongo, Santa Maria ... ;)

NoBadMojo
08-29-2006, 09:00 AM
Ok, for good or bad, I am jumping back in.

AndrewD, I have never a seen you make a post that was disrespectful, or insulting. I also have rarely disagreed with one of your opinions. This post is beneath you.

.

This is a valid point. For someone of Andrews' caliber to post something like this <even tho obviously true> it is an indication of the really adverse effect Breakpoint has on this forum...Andrew has clearly had enough of him..message in there for anyone choosing to listen.

oldguysrule
08-29-2006, 09:18 AM
We have seen the way you have strongly attacked or defended certain racquets and brands in this forum, and that's fine. Each one of us is entitled to our personal opinions.

However, no matter how much you claim to be objective in your reviews, the fact that you have strong views and a personal dislike for most Volkl racquets already puts a discount on half of what you say in your reviews regardless of how positive or negative the review. The fact that you hold these views would already plant a seed of doubt in your subconcious mind and may affect your decisions/findings with or without your conscious knowledge.

You may not see this fact yourself, but people in this forum perceive it differently. It is akin to asking a judge who has publicly aired his anti-abortion views to preside over an abortion case because even if he claims to be objective there is a clear conflict of interest.

Please think about this carefully before replying.

I have to respond...This is ridiculous. You could direct this post at 90% of the reviewers here. Everyone has strong views and personal dislikes. Did you even read his reviews? Please think carefully before posting something like this again.

Does anyone here have a shred of common sense? (I should include myself in this because I am still here reading and posting)

Also, please forgive the bluntness. You are probably a fine individual.

BreakPoint
08-29-2006, 09:26 AM
You state that McEnroe's technique has not changed. He is however using very different frames. So you don't have to change your technique, to play with a modern big-headed, high powered frame, at least.

It does make me wonder if you ever tried a pure drive.

Yes, I have tried a Pure Drive. And like I said, who knows what's really under the paintjob of McEnroe's Maxply McEnroe. Besides, how many of us here have the talent, timing, and eye-hand coordination of John McEnroe?

jonolau
08-29-2006, 09:40 AM
I have to respond...This is ridiculous. You could direct this post at 90% of the reviewers here. Everyone has strong views and personal dislikes. Did you even read his reviews? Please think carefully before posting something like this again.

Does anyone here have a shred of common sense? (I should include myself in this because I am still here reading and posting)

Also, please forgive the bluntness. You are probably a fine individual.
No worries, oldguysrule, at least you have provided a complimentary bandaid along with the slash of your blade. ;)

I have already said what I wanted to say, and that has been removed by TW staffers along with the other nonsense he was spewing, so that is fine by me.

I do not wish to perpetuate this any longer. But if you would like an explanation, please feel free to drop me an email as I would like to show some respect to TW and not post personal views here.

Jon

BreakPoint
08-29-2006, 09:41 AM
However, no matter how much you claim to be objective in your reviews, the fact that you have strong views and a personal dislike for most Volkl racquets already puts a discount on half of what you say in your reviews regardless of how positive or negative the review. The fact that you hold these views would already plant a seed of doubt in your subconcious mind and may affect your decisions/findings with or without your conscious knowledge.


Does anyone else find the above post by jonolau make any sense at all? Or did you laugh until it hurt like I did?

Here's a self-confessed Volkl lover accusing a reviewer of being anti-Volkl and biased against Volkl because he's been giving Volkl racquets the top rating in almost all of his reviews over the past two years. :rolleyes:

That's like saying that movie critic must be anti-Spielberg because he's been giving every Spielberg movie thumbs up and 5 stars out of 5. Clearly he's got a conflict of interest and is not being objective in his reviews. :rolleyes:

jonolau
08-29-2006, 09:48 AM
Does anyone else find the above post by jonolau make any sense at all? Or did you laugh until it hurt like I did?

Here's a self-confessed Volkl lover accusing a reviewer of being anti-Volkl and biased against Volkl because he's been giving Volkl racquets the top rating in almost all of his reviews over the past two years. :rolleyes:

What you said in your reviews were definitely different from the views and comments you made in previous threads which were eventually deleted by TW ... for some strange reason it involved flaming by you. :rolleyes:

Your previous posts in this thread were also deleted by TW for good reason, but yet you persist in flaming me with a new post ... grow up. :rolleyes:

NoBadMojo
08-29-2006, 09:51 AM
Hey, we got out once...why are we back?

May I respectfully suggest that you make a bigger deal out of BP than he actually is. Yes, I can see how he might get under your skin. But, he didn't follow you into this thread. And, you mentioned him several times in your early posts in this thread without a response from him. Let him have his opinion regarding "player's racquets". It is his opinion and you should recognize it as a valid opinion. I am not suggesting you tolerate insults, just that there might be fewer of them from both of you if you didn't argue over a difference of opinion.

btw, I noticed you got a kick out of one of my shorter posts. Feel free to use it when you deem it appropriate.

see my post 233 and 235.

jonolau
08-29-2006, 09:52 AM
Now, oldguysrule, what were you saying about making a bigger deal out of BP than he actually is?

BreakPoint
08-29-2006, 10:02 AM
jonolau,
Why do you continue to post "without your own conscious knowledge"?

Please think about this carefully before replying.

jonolau
08-29-2006, 10:03 AM
Here's a self-confessed Volkl lover accusing a reviewer of being anti-Volkl and biased against Volkl because he's been giving Volkl racquets the top rating in almost all of his reviews over the past two years. :rolleyes:

That's like saying that movie critic must be anti-Spielberg because he's been giving every Spielberg movie thumbs up and 5 stars out of 5. Clearly he's got a conflict of interest and is not being objective in his reviews. :rolleyes:
How ironic. You go about giving your so called top ratings to certain Volkl models in those reviews, but in the TT forum, you state your strong dislike for the brand. I find this rather hypocritical. Your ego has blinded you to this obvious fact.

I already stated that I like Volkl for its comfort and feel, but does not mean I only use and own Volkl. As I stated in a previous post which you have conveniently chosen not to quote, I own many other brands and will be buying new non-Volkl racquets. So, once again your emotions have blinded you to more obvious facts.

jonolau
08-29-2006, 10:04 AM
jonolau,
Why do you continue to post "without your own conscious knowledge"?

Please think about this carefully before replying.
So, you like it so much that you had to plagiarise it?

Please feel free to do so.

By the way, you're most welcome. ;)

BreakPoint
08-29-2006, 10:05 AM
"If only you could see yourself from an outsiders point of view, jonolau."

jonolau
08-29-2006, 10:08 AM
Ha ha, you crack me up! Thanks for the laughs.

andrew_b
08-29-2006, 10:08 AM
after trying out many frames i think im going to be going with a tweener (a 100 in or so). but im wondering that if so many of you guys use player's rackets that are demanding and that every shot you hit has to be perfect form or else it will not be the shot you want. when instead you could use an easy to use tweener or forgiving frame and not have to be as precise but still get good results (?).


I'm not sure if a 200G is considered a demanding frame, but I use it because I like the balance, weight, and feel of correctly struck shots.

Do I like the fact that if a volley is slightly mis-hit the ball goes *nowhere*? Of course not. But those times are rendered insignificant compared to how it feels for me the rest of the time.

It's about what works for me, what feels good and what I like. Pride has nothing to do with it.

cabernetjunkie
08-29-2006, 10:13 AM
"If only you could see yourself from an outsiders point of view, jonolau."


I'm looking from an "outsiders point of view" and it looks to me he is spot on.

BreakPoint
08-29-2006, 10:14 AM
...but in the TT forum, you state your strong dislike for the brand.
Where have I EVER said I "strongly dislike" Volkls? Show me. I dislike certain racquets, like everyone else does, I do not dislike brands.

I already stated that I like Volkl for its comfort and feel, but does not mean I only use and own Volkl. As I stated in a previous post which you have conveniently chosen not to quote, I own many other brands and will be buying new non-Volkl racquets.
So you're flaming me because I do not happen to like the "Volkl feel"? You don't play with other brands on a regular basis and I've seen your strong disdain for the Head FXP Radical. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but doesn't that make you hypocritical to flame me because I don't use a Volkl on a regular basis? And what does that have to do with my reviews?

Since you hate the Head FXP Radical, does that mean you would be incapable of writing a comparative review of several racquets which includes a Head racquet? :confused:

jonolau
08-29-2006, 10:20 AM
Where have I EVER said I "strongly dislike" Volkls? Show me. I dislike certain racquets, like everyone else does, I do not dislike brands.

So you're flaming me because I do not happen to like the "Volkl feel"? You don't play with other brands on a regular basis and I've seen your strong disdain for the Head FXP Radical. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but doesn't that make you hypocritical to flame me because I don't use a Volkl on a regular basis? And what does that have to do with my reviews?

Since you hate the Head FXP Radical, does that mean you would be incapable of writing a comparative review of several racquets which includes a Head racquet? :confused:
I'm not going to be drawn into another senseless argument with you. Just note that I haven't flamed you, but you have been doing so in previous posts which have been deleted.

Nice try with the strong words on the FXP Rad Tour. Unlike you, I'm not interested in writing comparative reviews. That's what sets it apart.