Discussion in 'Racquets' started by doriancito, May 21, 2005.
this is a interesting question. ill put a poll on this one
i would have to make some reasearch when playing to answer this question....its very hard....ill try playing with diferent raqcuets
ah sos boliviano, sabes castellano, que bueno, me estoy volviendo loco con el ingles.... mira mi opinion es que tanta tecnologia hace perder la esencia del tenis, que es el talento de un jugador y lo que mas me preocupa es que en un futuro ya casi van a ser imposibles conseguir raquetas "tradicionales", ya vienen con agujeros y cuello en V y la verdad mucho no me agrada... salu2
loko! tienes razon pero en cierta manera estas technologias mejoran el juego de los jugadores profesionales? o lo jugadores profesionales se acostumbran a las etchnoligias.....veras yo ***** una flexpoint y me agrada mucho.,...es una raketa dura por lo que la convierte al estilo antiguo...talvez algo de pro staff
I Dont Speak Spanish!!!!
Might as well see what my Spanish III class does for me; I'll attempt to translate it. lol
Crazy, you have reason but do these technologies improve the professional game? Or are the professional players accustomed to the technologies? (I'm not too sure what the asterisks are replacing) Somethign about a Flexpoint and how it pleases the user, doriancity, a lot. It's a stiff racquet compared to the past (Not sure about this one - seems I got it way off).
Anyways, I'll have to say that the players are definitely adapting to the technologies, yet at the same time, the technologies are also adapting somewhat to the players, as well. Players find new technology and it improves their game sometimes, but the newer technology is also geared more towards certain types of players (explanation for the general trend in lighter racquets nowadays)
The racquet companies are essentially forcing the tennis playing public to adapt to the racquets they put on the market. They are certainly not responding to the demand of players. I don't recall anyone demanding feather light, stiff as can be frames - yet they've been with us for years. Because the racquet companies decided that this was what they were going to offer us - en masse. Every year or so, they come up with new names - new gimmicks - but, other than the graphics and the phony gimmicks, the racquets change very little, unfortunately.
Make no mistake - all tennis players are under the thumbs of the racquet companies, because there is very little alternative. And the racquet companies know that. Some of us circumvent this by finding old frames to play with - but we're very much the minority.
technoloy is trying to become used to players, but some of us, like myself, will never leave old racquets behind.
I have a Prostaff 6.0 85 and a Wilson Sting SC!!!!!
I would have to agree with Deuce here, in that we as the general tennis playing community do not have much of a choice.
But if we look at the top pros ... from what I can tell by reading these message boards is that most are still using the old versions of racquets. This would hint at technologies not really helping the players, its more players are adapting to technologies.
This poll is useless because that phrasing on top is very vague.
Technology could be applied in good or bad fashion, definitively in infinite ways.
Players often use the frames which they are used to since the first time they start to play.
Some day, when they buy or try a new racquet or a newer version of theirs, they often do the mistake to judge the things too subjectively... especially trying to play and approach with the newer as would be with the older.
Sure there will always be good and bad frames, but if technology is well spent there is always margin for more stable, responsive and still controlled results.
A racquet borns from a concept, that "concept" is directly dependant from the way in which tennis is meant to be played.
Still customers give many concept ways to play tennis and everyone could choice which one suits more perfectly.
From PS Tour 90 to Pure Drive, from Prestige to RDX, from 200G to POG OS...
I'm not entirely certain you can separate the two elements, i.e., self/technology, too much cross-breeding.
Your dry/clinical translation of what seems to be pronographic material is either the most heroic dry wit I ever seen or just plain, simple, pure innocence. Either way -- kudos.
Separate names with a comma.