Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by DownTheLineWith90, Jul 16, 2013.
All of the scientific studies on racquet and string "power" back you up. There is very little difference between a "low" power racquet and "high" power racquet. If two racquets have the same swingweights they will have identical power on shots hit near the center of the strings. If one of the racquets is considerably stiffer it will offer an extra 1-2 mph on shots struck nearer the tip. If one of the racquets is considerably wider or has considerably more mass distributed near the 3&9 o'clock positions (both of which increase twistweight), shots struck left and right of center will be 1-2 mph faster than the other frame.
With strings, the difference is a little greater: a full bed of natural gut might give you 4 extra mph as compared to full kevlar strung at the same tension.
Most of what people experience as greater "power" is perceptual error: An open stringbed or softer strings will result in a higher rebound angle, higher net clearance and greater natural depth. But depth is not speed. Another example: The ball will spend slightly less time on the strings of a racquet that is very stiff - the dwell time will be short. Consequently, the impact will feel sharper, which many people interpret as a more "powerful" impact. But in reality the ball may travel at the same speed as one struck with a more flexible racquet.
Racquet manufacturers have been selling racquets with "power" as the selling point for many years, primarily because they have had little else to advertise with. Anyone who would like to cut through the marketing BS and understand racquet "power" in objective terms might like to read this excellent article by the TW Professor: Racquet Specs and Power.
It was mentioned a while ago that swingweight is the main determinant of power, but both the purported tests involved serving with racquets of unknown swingweight.
With regard to a player versus non-player racquet we have the following:
In fact, many so-called player's racquets are near the top. These are usually characterized by higher weight and swingweight and lower headsize, balance, and stiffness. It is the swingweight that more than makes up the difference to result in higher power potential.
The problem is that this is just what the racquet does and racquets don't hit the ball by themselves.
Why is everyone talking about 'tennis' power. If anyone who doesn't use a Babolat also thought they gave more controllable power then he'd be using a Babolat... I'm just talking about power in the most simple sense: take a Babolat and a prostaff 90, and the Babolat will knock a ball hit at 45 degrees without spin farther. Providing results from tests in which any sort of accuracy element is required (serving, groundstrokes, every shot hit in a match) will not convince me otherwise. That's why I think Babolat's are more powerful but don't use one.
It RESEMBLES a Blade, but it's not. He would most likely be using a new model that Wilson plans on releasing later.
I think both sides of this argument are correct in their own way. Switching frames often leads to changes and/or improvements. Are these “perceived” differences minor … yes, of course they are. Are they insignificant … of course not. If they were we would not be on this site talking about how brand X racquet has more power, control, spin etc. than brand B. The frame we use is a small part of the equation, while mechanics and skill are a HUGE part of the equation. Swinging different frames will not improve your mechanics or in this case, your power-generating ability. It will however, add (or subtract) a little … enough that it is noticeable to the user, and that is all it takes. I know some talk about 4 mph due to the frame and another 4 mph due to strings as “minor” … and it is, somewhat. But from a user’s perspective it might be a major improvement. I know personally, I would gladly welcome an additional 8-10 mph on my serve.
I would also ask that conditions be given some thought as well … meaning that serving 110 mph as a part of a test and serving 110 mph consistently during a match are two totally different things. Players use certain set-ups to get additional power consistently, not just additional power they cannot control. Based on my own personal experience, I can tell you that I have hit 110 mph with a specific frame … but my avg. speed during a three game stretch with the same frame was around 95 mph. Quite a drop off, and not worth the switch without the accuracy & consistency.
In these tests are the balls being struck flat or do they have rotation on them?
Anyone have any ideas about what his frame might be?
Federer's Big Racket Gamble
The 17-Time Grand Slam Winner Is Experimenting With a New Frame
Thanks for the link, MH.
Here's a relevant quote:
"Muir said the racket is not a Wilson Blade 98, as some online gear gurus have guessed. It was made in Wilson's Chicago lab. "It's not something we are currently producing and selling to customers," Muir said."
I looked at all pro stock and retail racquet pictures I took in the past few years. My best guess would be Wilson H22 16x19 like some folks here mentioned. Federer's new frame looks very much like H22 in certain details such as the point where shafts meet the handle, while the string pattern is very similar to the retail Donnay Pro One 16x19. The last cross string is closer to the bridge, and there are 3 mains meeting 3 crosses at 2,4,8,10 o'clock positions. Head, Technifibre and Blade 16x19 frames have 2 mains meeting 2 crosses, and the bottom cross string is far away from the bridge.
When looking at the Pro Staff 90 racquet, there are 3 main strings meeting 3 cross strings at 2,4,8,10 o'clock as well. This may be something that doesn't change the feel/control/ball trajectory of new racquet from his old Pro Staff too much.
Wilson would say that, wouldn't they.
The only thing that people have ever been able to say is that what it most resembles in Wilson's line up is the Blade 98 16/19.
That remains true and if they want to play the whole 'top secret' prototype racquet palaver, then why would anyone be interested?
Technically its not a lie if the layup and specs are completely different though from one of the blade moulds..
That said, being that the results reflect many other "tests" such as the one with Flipper, and also Sampras from years back (wood vs his ps85), and other similar findings, I would conclude they are a much closer reflection of the truth than what manufacturers want to acknowledge and are marketing.
What racquet company, if any, has ever marketed and/or stated, based on their own "tests", that "X" racquet will provide a numerical value of how much more power their racquet will provide? For example, the Pure Drive will provide you with 20 more mph on your serve than other racquets on the market? Or, give you 10 mph more on groundies?
The reason they have never provided this, is because at the end of the day, they know the frame doesn't really provide any more/less than any other frame they are competing with.
Drakulie is saying I told you so after this semifinal loss today. but Roger will have adjustment period where he has some bad days like this. but once he makes the adjustments, he will be playing like Novak is playing with his new frame.
I still think a 98 was too much, a 95 or 96 should of done it. Well anyways they can call it the "2014 Wilson FED Factor 98 Tour" their slogan should be, "If Federer can change why can't you?"
Or "Wilson, cause bigger is better, ask Federer."
The thing is that power varies with swingweight and up until the current model the pure drive has had a highish swingweight, lightish weight, stiff frame for off centre hits with a lively stringbed due to woofer grommets.
Its also a widebody so all that is a recipe for a racquet that could make for easily produced power, but in principle any racquet with the same swingweight will produce roughly the same amount of power.
Djokovic plays 98 if I'm not mistaking..
Conclusion: Roger will back to PS 90???
Like Rog, I have given in to popular public opinion.....I have recognized that I am older now and have gone to the oversize, old man racquet. No more 22 mm flat beam PS 100, I am now happily swinging the venerable Hyper Hammer OS. And lovin it....Rogi, are you listening? Hyper Hammer OS
Nice!! Thanks for the info!
You are mistaken. Djokovic uses a 95.
You're wrong! ... 96" !
A MP in either case, not a mid.
96? Really? And is it a HEAD radical mould like the HEAD liquidmetal radical tour that he uses in the past?
The racket TW has him using is the Graphene Speed Pro which is 100. I'm not saying he's actually using that racket though. So you might be right, but I don't know, based on what seeing him play; His racket headsize looks pretty big, so I'd say it can't be any less than 98.
Nice job, excellent stuff putting this together
Anyone else think they went a little crazy with the drilling outside of the first 8 mains? I mean, look at how much spacing there is there. Seems to me that if he was to hit anything just slightly out of dead center, that additional spacing would introduce some unexpected degrees of trajectory change.
If you ask me, Wilson should pull a 93 kBlade frame, drill it 16x19 and hand it to him. Here... try this and see if you like it? It's about the closest to his 90 that there is and gives him a bit more room to play with if he absolutely wants to go bigger. For his precision shots a 98 may be too big. What he needs is the precision of the 90 with the defense and counterpunch power of a bigger and wider frame.
^^ Federer looks smaller now
In some ways I think it may have been an easier transition for Fed to start his first time with a 98 using an 18x20 pattern. I was watching some of his recent matches from Germany and he was spraying balls wide and long. The 18x20 would tame it down a bit, but he may not have wanted to sacrifice the spin of a 16x19. I'm sure he will adjust if he sticks with it.
Take a look at the size of the ball on his strings compared to the size of his stringbed. Does Djokovic's stringbed look much bigger than Federer's?
To be frank, in relation to the size of the ball on the strings, Federer's Tour 90 stringbed looks slightly larger than Djokovic's pro stock custom Head stringbed.
Yea, werent the older pro staffs and the Prince POG tighter in the center too? I hated that, I always like the HPS 5.0 16x20 pattern and a few Fischers that had 16x20....
hopefully he play with willson 99 s steam
I think you have mistaken Federer for a 3.5 recreational player.
There's a part of me that wants Federer to get this paintjob... then Wilson will have trolled so many TT users.
He already does play with a Steam. It gives him more spin than the wheels on his pick'em-up truck.
You got it backwards. 3.5 recreational players think federal is as good AS them... :twisted:
why doesn't he just take a ps 95 and customize it to same weight, balance and swing weight as his old 90. Then tighten the tension 2-3 lbs and the transition should be minimized while getting a slightly bigger head/sweet spot.
His problem is not the racquet.... The best racquet for him is PS 90, which gave him 17 Grand Slams.
Maybe Federer should switch to the 50 sq. in. racquet that Pancho Gonzales used to use? Some people consider Pancho to be the true GOAT.
stop living in the past old man
It has been definitively proven that if you want to be considered the GOAT, you have to use a tiny racquet.
Gonzales, Laver, Sampras, Federer, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Emerson, Rosewall, Nastase, Vilas, Edberg, Smith, Newcombe, Hoad, Kramer, etc. Need I say more?
Stop forgetting about the past, young boy.
It's a best seller "exclusively at Tennis Warehouse!"
Yes, it is. So why do so many still people buy a racquet that no pro has used for over 12 years?
As a user of a 'midsize' tennis racquet, I am a player who enjoys the maneuverability, precision, feel and power offered by this small frame and the way it enhances both my ability and enjoyment of my recreational pursuit of Lawn Tennis.
I also know that you are an 'enthusiastic' user of such frames and that you promote their superiority and benefits with both dignity and tact. Further you do this whilst never coming across as arrogant, small minded, insecure, naive or even nostalgic; I'm much impressed.
Your Biggest Fan.
P.S Are absolutely delusional? Would you kindly stop making all of us 90 and below users look like a bunch of old hacks stuck in the past. Pretty, pretty please?!
I dont think the frame size is as significant as frame shape. Ive use both a thin beam 98" babolat and the 95" pro staff back and forth and the 98 cuts into the wind much better and you can get significantly better head speed. The pro staff is more stable and volleys better and plays better for a level stroke but the 98 definitely give a livelier groundstroke. Alot more unforced errors from opponents from the 98. I like both rackets but the 98 gives me a better chance to win points.
Hate to break this to you: try put your Babolat "98" (Pure Storm? Aero Storm?) side by side with a Head "98" which we all now know it's actually a 95, and see what you get
-- Yep, it's just another 95 (true hitting area not including the frame itself), unlike the Wilson or Prince 98s
If it's an Aero Storm, it cuts through the air faster more because of the aerodynamic beam.
Well I'll be damned..
Yeah Aerostorm. Thats what I am saying basically. Its the frame design more than the size.
Separate names with a comma.