1HBH and smaller racquet heads

[EliteNinja]

Everyone says that smaller racquet heads are more maneuverable for the 1hbh.

Is this true, or is it just a myth?

I say myth. And below is my reasoning:

For me, I don't think it's about the maneuverability of the racquet. I think it's about the mechanics of the 1hbh. The 1hbh requires a longer swing path. This means that the acceleration is slower to maintain control compared to a 2hbh and therefore more reliance on the momentum of the racquet for stability.

I think that it is just that racquets with smaller heads in general are heavier and provide more momentum and stability during a longer swing. What I mean by stability is that the racquet lags behind the hand more than a lighter racquet does, and it is easier to maintain racquet head angle because of this.

What do you think?

 

[AndrewD]

Do a search and you'll find that there's already been a poll on this topic complete with a multi-page discussion/argument.

 

[Mugatu]

feels more manoeuvrable to me... either way, i defo prefer the mid with the 1hbh. it needs the control and stability of a mid

 

[EliteNinja]

Do a search and you'll find that there's already been a poll on this topic complete with a multi-page discussion/argument.

o rly?
I tried searching, but my search skills suck.

It'd be nice to post some links to those in here too.
Thanks.

 

[Ripper]

What do you think?

I think, more than a myth, it's bullcrap. What a 1hbh benefits from is a raquet with higher maneuverability. You get that with headlight balance, less air resistance, lower swingweight, shorter lengths, thinner beams, etc. To some, that means using a Mid, but there are many MP and, even OS raquets out there that offer the same. It all depends, simply, on if you prefer a Mid, a MP or an OS to start with.

 

[jonolau]

o rly?
I tried searching, but my search skills suck.

It'd be nice to post some links to those in here too.
Thanks.

Yes, there was a huge debate about this sometime in Dec'05, if I can recall.

 

[AngeloDS]

It's more manueverable for sure. But is that a good or a bad thing? It depends.

Some people have disgusting one handed backhands where it will help if they have less manuverability so they don't shank or mess up more balls.

If you're atleast a 4.5+, a smaller head will benefit the one handed backhand. Anything lower than 4.5, they would benefit with larger heads (95-105).

 

[thejerk]

I have a problem with bigger rackets on 1handers because I clip my foot alot. The other day I was using a larger racket and hit the ground with it on my 1hander a couple times. I can definately hit a one hander better with a mid. Sometimes I use bigger than mid rackets but when I do I try to use 2hander backhands but I inevitably slip into the 1hander and start clipping my feet and/or the ground.

 

[AngeloDS]

If you're clipping your foot or the ground a lot. That's a problem with your stroke . You need to go back and fix your stroke.

 

[travlerajm]

Everyone says that smaller racquet heads are more maneuverable for the 1hbh.

Is this true, or is it just a myth?

I say myth. And below is my reasoning:

For me, I don't think it's about the maneuverability of the racquet. I think it's about the mechanics of the 1hbh. The 1hbh requires a longer swing path. This means that the acceleration is slower to maintain control compared to a 2hbh and therefore more reliance on the momentum of the racquet for stability.

I think that it is just that racquets with smaller heads in general are heavier and provide more momentum and stability during a longer swing. What I mean by stability is that the racquet lags behind the hand more than a lighter racquet does, and it is easier to maintain racquet head angle because of this.

What do you think?

I agree with you. But there's a lot of stubbornness on this forum, and the myth will live on no matter how logical the argument to the contrary.

 

[thejerk]

If you're clipping your foot or the ground a lot. That's a problem with your stroke . You need to go back and fix your stroke.

You may be right. However, it never happens with my mids. The problem mostly happens when I am on the run.

 

[armand]

Everyone says that smaller racquet heads are more maneuverable for the 1hbh.

Is this true, or is it just a myth?

I say myth. And below is my reasoning:

For me, I don't think it's about the maneuverability of the racquet. I think it's about the mechanics of the 1hbh. The 1hbh requires a longer swing path. This means that the acceleration is slower to maintain control compared to a 2hbh and therefore more reliance on the momentum of the racquet for stability.

I think that it is just that racquets with smaller heads in general are heavier and provide more momentum and stability during a longer swing. What I mean by stability is that the racquet lags behind the hand more than a lighter racquet does, and it is easier to maintain racquet head angle because of this.

What do you think?

I'll agree. If the racquet is too light or perhaps too low of a SW, I cannot hit my BH(1 hander) to save my life.

It's like when I do a BH, I don't swing all the way through so I need more mass to carry the momentum of my initial motion.

 

[EliteNinja]

Yeah, I forgot about the fact that you can hit the sweetspot on lower balls since the frame doesn't get in the way.

Edit: I mean, since the distance from the ground to the sweetspot is smaller, you can dig lower balls up and still hit the sweetspot.

 

[ta11geese3]

I think stability really is a lurking variable as eliteninja says. I recently leaded up my tweener some more, and my 1hb is just so much easier to hit now (105 sq in head). On the other hand, players racquets start off very stable (compared to lightweight hh racquets).

Although mids really might be more manueverable (don't have much knowledge on this)

 

[arnz]

Where's Breakpoint when you need him? :mrgreen: