PDA

View Full Version : 90 sq in headsize


quest01
09-10-2006, 07:04 PM
I was just wondering, why do some people prefer using a 90 sq. in. headsize over larger headsizes such as a 95 or 100?

Vixenbergen
09-10-2006, 07:07 PM
It's more manuevarable, easier to swing, provides more control, etc. etc.

Say Chi Sin Lo
09-10-2006, 07:09 PM
some people find the sweetspot of a tiny head far more satisfying than that of a larger head.

anirut
09-10-2006, 07:10 PM
... One man's meat is another man's poison ...

Got it?

OK, it's the STYLE of play. I prefer 90 heads. Tried a 95 (Ti Radical) and didn't get along well with it. Tried a 100 (PD) and it's a no, no.

Got back to 90's ... And even that I had to choose and experiment a lot until I found my current racket. Great stuff! For ME that is.

BreakPoint
09-10-2006, 07:55 PM
I was just wondering, why do some people prefer using a 90 sq. in. headsize over larger headsizes such as a 95 or 100?

Because a tennis ball is only 5 sq. in., so why waste all that extra string? ;)

Will888
09-10-2006, 09:17 PM
some people like the feel of a 90 and its great control. I use the ncode 90 and i have alot of control and feel, but I have tennis elbow and shoulder problems so I'm switching to the flexible yonex rds 001 98. really flexible. But I love the 90 no doubt about it. Hey I have a question, is it just me or do players with 90 or 95 sq inch racquet hit the ball flat or little spin and most with a continental grip? excuse my spelling, i'm tired....

bertrevert
09-10-2006, 10:05 PM
I think perhaps with the larger head size what comes with that has been the more extreme grips. I think it's in this era of mid pluses that the common forehand grip has gone from continental to semi-western. (Sorry I have no hard science to back up this anecdotal thought!)

dacrymn
09-11-2006, 04:07 AM
I've also heard that different head sizes of the same racquet play differently. I wonder why....(non sarcastic)
________
M535i (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_M535i)

spaceman_spiff
09-11-2006, 04:21 AM
I think perhaps with the larger head size what comes with that has been the more extreme grips. I think it's in this era of mid pluses that the common forehand grip has gone from continental to semi-western. (Sorry I have no hard science to back up this anecdotal thought!)

I think the rise of western grips has a bit more to due with the natural feel of these grips and the success of people like Jim Courier (who by the way used a PS 6.0 85). When I was young, my mom tried to teach me a continental forehand, which was the standard style at the time, but it never felt natural to me. Luckily for me, she didn't try to force me to use a style that, in the end, would prove to be less effective than what came naturally.

Up to this day, I have stuck with rackets with 90-95" head sizes, despite the fact that I have a western forehand and heavy topspin.

I think the only reason those grips didn't become popular earlier was because of the number of teaching pros preventing people from doing them and not the small rackets. I know these strokes can be hit with even wood rackets, because I've done so myself. It took the success of a number of pros with heavy spin shots and juniors who didn't have or listen to conventional coaches before the rest of the tennis community accepted these styles as being good, and this came through the late 80's and early 90's. Just look at the more recent switch to teaching pros who don't deride players for hitting off the back foot. That was never allowed when I was a kid; you always got an earful from a teaching pro for that.

People have an idea of certain things being poor until someone proves them otherwise. If only that proof could have come earlier in history, you could have had some of the older legends hitting western forehands off the back foot.

wyutani
09-11-2006, 04:29 AM
seriously, how are you gonna even hit the ball with just a 90 sq inch head?

hadoken
09-11-2006, 07:17 AM
I use 93, similar to POG Mid. I like the total balance of my frame including weight, flex...it just so happens it has a small head. Had Prince made my frame in 98in with the exact same stats, I would play with that as well.

The only place where the small head really hurts the most is on my 2H backhand. I shank a lot of balls if I don't prepare early. Otherwise, small heads are amazingly agile and fun to play with.

a guy
09-11-2006, 07:26 AM
seriously, how are you gonna even hit the ball with just a 90 sq inch head?

:neutral:

Smaller headsizes just 'feel' better to a lot of people.

jackson vile
09-11-2006, 07:53 AM
It's more manuevarable, easier to swing, provides more control, etc. etc.

All this and overall has the most consitent feel/string bed, less tension changes ect also

alan-n
09-11-2006, 09:05 AM
seriously, how are you gonna even hit the ball with just a 90 sq inch head?

I don't see what the big deal with 90" heads are, ppl have been playing with 65" head wood racquets, a 90" head is more than plenty enough a sweet spot.

sureshs
09-11-2006, 09:15 AM
I don't see what the big deal with 90" heads are, ppl have been playing with 65" head wood racquets, a 90" head is more than plenty enough a sweet spot.

Must be a huge deal, because only two pros (Federer and Hewitt) use them.

BreakPoint
09-11-2006, 09:15 AM
seriously, how are you gonna even hit the ball with just a 90 sq inch head?

Why don't you send an e-mail to Federer, Sampras, Courier, Edberg, Becker, Connors, Borg, and Lendl and ask them for an answer? ;) LOL

BreakPoint
09-11-2006, 09:18 AM
Must be a huge deal, because only two pros (Federer and Hewitt) use them.

In addition to the hundreds of pros that use Head Prestige paintjobs, since Head's 93 = 89.5 sq. in.

BreakPoint
09-11-2006, 09:27 AM
Seriously, I think that if you can't hit a 5 sq. in. ball with a 90 sq. in. racquet, then perhaps it would be better to work on your eye-hand coordination or have your vision checked than it is just to switch to a bigger racquet. Imagine how much harder it is to hit a baseball with a bat that's about the same width as the baseball and weighs almost three times as much as a tennis racquet.

sureshs
09-11-2006, 09:33 AM
In addition to the hundreds of pros that use Head Prestige paintjobs, since Head's 93 = 89.5 sq. in.

But the most common headsize is still 98 to 100. I had the stats in another post for the top 100 men and women players. If 90 was so good, then players would be asking for a 90 underneath whatever PJ they use. You would see Roddick and Clisters and Nadal with a Babolat 90 painted to look like the Pure Drive (and most casual users would not even know it is a PJ). But they don't.

Ball_boy
09-11-2006, 09:36 AM
"The Size doesn't matter, its how you use it."
-Austin Power's Father(forgot name)

BreakPoint
09-11-2006, 09:55 AM
"The Size doesn't matter, its how you use it."
-Austin Power's Father(forgot name)

Nigel. :D

Regulator
09-11-2006, 10:17 AM
some people find the sweetspot of a tiny head far more satisfying than that of a larger head.

;)

Regulator
09-11-2006, 10:18 AM
"The Size doesn't matter, its how you use it."
-Austin Power's Father(forgot name)


"OH BEHAAAAAAAAAVE!" ;)

jackson vile
09-11-2006, 10:43 AM
But the most common headsize is still 98 to 100. I had the stats in another post for the top 100 men and women players. If 90 was so good, then players would be asking for a 90 underneath whatever PJ they use. You would see Roddick and Clisters and Nadal with a Babolat 90 painted to look like the Pure Drive (and most casual users would not even know it is a PJ). But they don't.


It is not as simple as that, a lot has to do with what racket they started out with as kids, or what their sponsors were, ect

But also you have to condsider the use of poly strings, all the players that use rackets in the 100 below range use poly and at high tensions unless they use a ton of spin.

So they are seeking the same effect a more controlled consistent string bed but for what ever personal reasons did not change rackets rather kept the same one and just increase tension and/or when to a poly.

onehandbh
09-11-2006, 10:56 AM
I think one of the main reasons is that a lot more pros are using
western and semi-western grips now. Try hitting a western forhand with
a wood racquet. The more extreme your grip, the more the effective
sweetspot of your racquet is reduced during the stroke.

sureshs
09-11-2006, 12:12 PM
I think one of the main reasons is that a lot more pros are using
western and semi-western grips now. Try hitting a western forhand with
a wood racquet. The more extreme your grip, the more the effective
sweetspot of your racquet is reduced during the stroke.

That is a brilliant analysis. Also, lighter racquets are better with the extreme grips due to the stress on the wrists. But given that no one hits a FH with a continental anymore, and even Federer uses a SW, it only proves that larger heads are needed in today's game.

skuludo
09-11-2006, 12:27 PM
I am considering stringing up my 88 square inchs racket because I don't like cutting strings out and getting the racket restrung. Less stringing maintenance compared to a midplus racket.

AngeloDS
09-11-2006, 01:29 PM
The difference in size between an 85 sq. in. head and a 100 sq. in. head is not that big of a difference and even so with a 90 sq. in. head.

Take a Babolat Pure Drive + and a Wilson Pro Staff 6.0 85, lay the 85 on top of the 100. It's only bigger by less than half of an inch around the whole racquet.

neo
09-11-2006, 02:44 PM
If 90 was so good, then players would be asking for a 90 underneath whatever PJ they use.

No, that would only happen if 90 was best for everyone. And smaller head size has it's advantages as well as disadvantages. So, yes, it is "so good" for some players and not "so good" for others.

sureshs
09-11-2006, 04:37 PM
No, that would only happen if 90 was best for everyone. And smaller head size has it's advantages as well as disadvantages. So, yes, it is "so good" for some players and not "so good" for others.

Point is it seems to be good for only 2 players (other than the 93 which Breakpont pointed out). If it had such advantages, I woud think many more pros would be using them. We all know that they go to great lengths to get the equipment they want - special molds, customization by RPNY, etc. Darwinian struggle for the fittest would predict that many would migrate towards a 90 si if it held even the slightest competitive advantage.

neo
09-11-2006, 05:25 PM
Point is it seems to be good for only 2 players (other than the 93 which Breakpont pointed out).

Yep, only 2 other then 100 BreakPoint pointed out. Like he said, Head measures size differently. Head's 93 is Wilson's 90.

But you are right, today more players choose 98 frames then 90. Still, there are both advantages and disadvantages to larger head size. You just need to decide which characteristics are more important for your game. There is no universal head size which is "best" for everyone.

skuludo
09-12-2006, 08:03 PM
I use strings that are 2 or 1 months old. On a midplus racket it would become a rocket launcher. If I restring the midplus every week or 2 then playing with a PD+ would not be a problem.

w00gy
09-13-2006, 05:25 AM
seriously, how are you gonna even hit the ball with just a 90 sq inch head?

You do it the same as with a 125 sq in head. Hit it in the middle of the racquet face!!

SFrazeur
09-13-2006, 05:39 AM
You do it the same as with a 125 sq in head. Hit it in the middle of the racquet face!!

Reminding us that the simplest answer, is the best answer.

alan-n
09-13-2006, 07:44 AM
Must be a huge deal, because only two pros (Federer and Hewitt) use them.

And what did all the other pro's grow up playing with?

Sampras grew up playing with wood racquets, Federer with the 85 the rest used modern oversized racquets and have always been used to it. That says nothing about 90 head size being at a disadvantage.

jmsx521
09-13-2006, 08:21 AM
seriously, how are you gonna even hit the ball with just a 90 sq inch head?
How did Sampras, Lendl and Federer hit the ball?

wyutani
09-13-2006, 08:28 AM
How did Sampras, Lendl and Federer hit the ball?

i can only express puzzlement that borders on alarm.

i dunno. the minimum head size for me is a 100 or more. you think i should change, no?

Zets147
09-13-2006, 08:43 AM
I want to try a 130 sq in racquet.. XXXOS lol

varuscelli
09-13-2006, 08:46 AM
I don't see what the big deal with 90" heads are, ppl have been playing with 65" head wood racquets, a 90" head is more than plenty enough a sweet spot.

You're right. It's all pretty well relative. I grew up playing with racquets from 65 to 70 square inch head size, so from that perspective everything made today is oversize (in a relative sense). The racquet that I owned (and used) up until the early 1990's was a Wilson T2000 at 70 square inches. Even a 90 square inch racquet is almost a 30 percent increase in size over that. A 90 square inch racquet head is HUGE. ;)

But I happen to prefer racquets even bigger than that these days at anywhere from 100 to 110 square inches.

To me, it doesn't make a difference what size racquet you use, as long as you're comfortable hitting with it. Personally, I think it's fun to vary racquets once in a while just to see what different ones play like. (I'm having a lot of fun doing that now.)

Fortunately, there seem to be great racquets available in nearly all head sizes to suit a huge variety of player skills and playing styles. There isn't any one racquet that will work for everyone, but if there was only ONE size and type of racquet available, every tennis player out there would figure out how to use it. And they'd probably have fun doing it. ;)

varuscelli
09-13-2006, 08:53 AM
I want to try a 130 sq in racquet.. XXXOS lol

I hit some practice serves the other day with a 135 sq. in. racquet.

It was interesting, except for the ones I whiffed. :p

Actually, it WAS kind of fun but felt (and sounded) very different from anything I've ever hit before.

sureshs
09-13-2006, 10:35 AM
And what did all the other pro's grow up playing with?

Sampras grew up playing with wood racquets, Federer with the 85 the rest used modern oversized racquets and have always been used to it. That says nothing about 90 head size being at a disadvantage.

I have seen Agassi's childhood pics with a wooden racquet. He used a 107 head till retirement. Why didn't he go with a 90 si?

JMac played with wood and now uses a 98 on the senior tour and the ATP doubles he played earlier this year. Why didn't he go with a 90 si?

In fact, most players on the senior tour seem to be using > 90 si head but they grew up on wood racquets.

Why did Martina use a big head till retirement?

It goes on and on. Given a choice, players are moving to bigger heads (but not more than 100).

anirut
09-13-2006, 11:03 AM
If you like and can play well with < 90 head ... use it.

If you like and can play well with > 90 head ... use it.

So, what's the problem?

Let's stop stuffing things that what one personally prefers down other people's throat. And don't say this pro uses this and that pro uses that.

Just let the pros use whatever they want.

Supposedly, if there's suddenly a pro who really likes to eat junk food, has big belly, gets drunk before a match, uses a BigBubba and could still beat the crap out of Fed or Nadal or anybody for the matter, does it mean we should follow the example to be a good player?

(And if a pro likes a fat girlfriend, does it mean we must all have fat girlfriends to be like a pro? :) )

Let's go out there and just enjoy our tennis the way we like.

Makes more sense?

Janne
09-13-2006, 11:10 AM
This forum needs more Anirut kind of people.

BreakPoint
09-13-2006, 11:12 AM
i dunno. the minimum head size for me is a 100 or more. you think i should change, no?

Can't hurt to try. The size of the ball doesn't change, after all. ;)

alan-n
09-13-2006, 11:52 AM
I have seen Agassi's childhood pics with a wooden racquet. He used a 107 head till retirement. Why didn't he go with a 90 si?

JMac played with wood and now uses a 98 on the senior tour and the ATP doubles he played earlier this year. Why didn't he go with a 90 si?

In fact, most players on the senior tour seem to be using > 90 si head but they grew up on wood racquets.

Why did Martina use a big head till retirement?

It goes on and on. Given a choice, players are moving to bigger heads (but not more than 100).

You'll notice that all the pro tennis players used the racquet blueprint they used during their amateur - pro development years. Agassi was always the type that like to switched racquets and try out different things, if he didn't use Luxilon it would have never been popular.

Martina has her reasons, getting older, need more power from the baseline, losing a bit of swing speed from the baseline. She has her reasons, and business reasons (sponsorship and sales).... or the placebo effect that having a larger face racquet = more technology = makes her better player.

McEnroe is still trying to learn how to hit a 90+ mph winner off his back foot. It couldn't hurt him to try larger racquets I suppose.

Safin, Hewitt, Federer. Different stokes for different folks and racquets. Fortunately racquet companies still make these 85-93" racquet since there are pros on top of the game with them.

sureshs
09-13-2006, 11:57 AM
Martina has her reasons, getting older, need more power from the baseline, losing a bit of swing speed from the baseline. She has her reasons, and business reasons (sponsorship and sales).... or the placebo effect that having a larger face racquet = more technology = makes her better player.


Martina wasn't sponsored for anything last few years.

If she (with 59 slam titles and her incredible fitness) needed a bigger racquet, wouldn't it be all the more applicable to recreational players?

alan-n
09-13-2006, 11:59 AM
Point is it seems to be good for only 2 players (other than the 93 which Breakpont pointed out).

Funny how that 93 is smaller 90".

BreakPoint
09-13-2006, 12:00 PM
If she (with 59 slam titles and her incredible fitness) needed a bigger racquet, wouldn't it be all the more applicable to recreational players?

No, because we don't play against other pros. We'll never have to return a 130mph serve, nor a 100mph forehand, nor deal with spin that kicks over our heads (a la Nadal).

alan-n
09-13-2006, 12:01 PM
Martina wasn't sponsored for anything last few years.

If she (with 59 slam titles and her incredible fitness) needed a bigger racquet, wouldn't it be all the more applicable to recreational players?

No because recreational players do not hit like pros and the biggest limiting factor is their own fitness, technique and ability to hit through the ball consistently. Unless of course you are trying to sell that player a new racquet instead of tennis lessons.

anirut
09-13-2006, 12:04 PM
Martina wasn't sponsored for anything last few years.

If she (with 59 slam titles and her incredible fitness) needed a bigger racquet, wouldn't it be all the more applicable to recreational players?

NO! NO! NO!

Because she's a very fit woman, does it mean we, men, must undergo sex change?

And does it mean that lady-players must make themselves looking like her?

Just grap your racket and your balls and go play ...

AlpineCadet
09-13-2006, 12:06 PM
Martina wasn't sponsored for anything last few years.

If she (with 59 slam titles and her incredible fitness) needed a bigger racquet, wouldn't it be all the more applicable to recreational players?

Yes, it would. Beginners as well as recreational players tend to mishit more often than the pros, and an increase in headsize would help ease those problems.

alan-n
09-13-2006, 12:07 PM
Yes, it would. Beginners as well as recreational players tend to mishit more often than the pros, and an increase in headsize would help ease those problems.

Hmm, so better to just grab a 200" racquet than lessons and eye-hand practice? Anyone who doesn't have a couple of hours a week to spare are hopeless no matter what.

sureshs
09-13-2006, 12:09 PM
No, because we don't play against other pros. We'll never have to return a 130mph serve, nor a 100mph forehand, nor deal with spin that kicks over our heads (a la Nadal).

But we play against others who, relative to us, are like what other pros are relative to Martina.

Can you name a single stick produced by any manufacturer which is labeled as intended for intermediate players (i.e., ones which TW does not classify as a player stick), which is 90 si? I would say player is 5.0 and above. If a small head could be used to advantage these days by the 3.0 to 4.5 crowd, there should be at least one such stick available, right?

AlpineCadet
09-13-2006, 12:21 PM
Hmm, so better to just grab a 200" racquet than lessons and eye-hand practice? Anyone who doesn't have a couple of hours a week to spare are hopeless no matter what.

Yeah, lets exaggerate and get a 200" square racket. :rolleyes:

BreakPoint
09-13-2006, 12:22 PM
Can you name a single stick produced by any manufacturer which is labeled as intended for intermediate players (i.e., ones which TW does not classify as a player stick), which is 90 si? I would say player is 5.0 and above. If a small head could be used to advantage these days by the 3.0 to 4.5 crowd, there should be at least one such stick available, right?

The manufactures are stupid and they don't realize the big market that they're missing. They should be putting out lots more 90 sq. in. frames. Most people don't even have that choice since most sporting goods stores and even many pro shops don't even carry any 90 sq. in. frames, not that there's many even being made these days. So people fall into the misconception that they have to use something bigger because that's all they see in the stores and so that's all they have access to.

If the manufactures made slightly lighter versions of 90 sq. in. racquets, like the Asian nCode 90, they would sell like hotcakes! Look at the Redondo Mid (it's really about 90 sq. in., I believe). PK can't even make enough of them and is backordered for months since the demand for them is so high. They're sold out everywhere. I hope other manufacturers will take notice and finally realize that there's strong demand for lighter midsize player's racquets like the PK Redondo Mid and the Asian nCode 90. BTW, the RDX 500 Mid and the RDS 001 Mid are both also extremely popular, and they are both also lighter 90 sq. in. player's racquets.

anirut
09-13-2006, 12:23 PM
Suresh:

I'm probably a 3.5 and I play the 90 well. Any question?

It's about how you learnt to play. Playing well aside, once you learn to play the small head, you can play with anything. Those who can play the small heads will adjust to a big head in about 15 minutes.

The pros you listed all learnt with small heads in the old days.

For my age, I'm also thinking of going a bigger head. Why? Because sometimes I just feel F--KIN' LAZY. But, for me, playing lazy would take the fun out of the game.

So I'm stuck with < 90. And we don't make a living out of playing tennis.

Any question?

Just grab a racket and go play ...

AlpineCadet
09-13-2006, 12:23 PM
Hmm, so better to just grab a 200" racquet than lessons and eye-hand practice? Anyone who doesn't have a couple of hours a week to spare are hopeless no matter what.

I didn't even mention one word about lessons or practice time, so don't even try to prove your point. Re-read what I wrote, before making absurd comments, because I was only talking from an equipment standpoint.

brucie
09-13-2006, 12:26 PM
Must be a huge deal, because only two pros (Federer and Hewitt) use them.
Only 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! errrr no check up on that 1 seriously

sureshs
09-13-2006, 12:31 PM
[QUOTE=anirut]Suresh:

I'm probably a 3.5 and I play the 90 well. Any question?
QUOTE]

Switch to a 98 and you will be a 7.0.

No, I am not hung up on this and don't care. It just fascinates me, that is all.

sureshs
09-13-2006, 12:32 PM
Only 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! errrr no check up on that 1 seriously

Really. I had the stats for the top 100 men in some old thread. But Breakpoint says 93 = 90 for Head, so the number may be more.

anirut
09-13-2006, 12:43 PM
Switch to a 98 and you will be a 7.0.

Nah ... at 7.0 I'd be a world-class player. And that'd mean a lot of travel playing tournaments ...

I'd get homesick.

So I'd better stay a 3.5 as I am now ... and be home ... :mrgreen:

Ten_is
09-13-2006, 01:43 PM
It is not as simple as that, a lot has to do with what racket they started out with as kids, or what their sponsors were, ect

But also you have to condsider the use of poly strings, all the players that use rackets in the 100 below range use poly and at high tensions unless they use a ton of spin.

So they are seeking the same effect a more controlled consistent string bed but for what ever personal reasons did not change rackets rather kept the same one and just increase tension and/or when to a poly.

well said. I agree.
I started out playing with a Wilson Staff 95sq in. and after 9 years of not playing, I bought myself a Prince Hybrid 03 - - couldn't hit a thing in. Exchanged it for my current Head FXP Fire which I'm having a tough time with consistancy. I strung my old one yesterday and I smashed those balls wherever I wanted them to go. Depends on what you prefer and enjoy playing with.

foetz
09-13-2006, 05:14 PM
I was just wondering, why do some people prefer using a 90 sq. in. headsize over larger headsizes such as a 95 or 100?

with a smaller head there's less string left around the ball hence the ball can't 'float' that much inside the stringbed during the contact phase. this gives a 'closer to the ball' feeling and more control etc.
also a smaller head has less power what's prefered by some players.
smaller head can also make the frame more handy etc. but that was said already.

shavenyak
09-13-2006, 05:57 PM
a smaller head has less power what's prefered by some players.

Amen, brother.

Punisha
09-13-2006, 11:48 PM
federer does cos hes leet and hewitt can use it cos he doesnt hit the ball anyway. 90 inches is way easy to use.