In defense of Babolat and the "Modern Game"....

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by El Zed, Oct 2, 2012.

  1. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,472
    Heavier static weight racquets are more stable and absorb more shock and vibration. Research has shown (someone linked to one above) that the worst racquets for arm injuries are light, stiff, head heavy (or less headlight) racquets, e.g., Babolat APDGT. The best racquets for arm health are heavy, flexy, more headlight racquets.
     
    #51
  2. El Zed

    El Zed Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    331
    Thank you for being the perfect foil to my argument.

    You are right - use of the APDGT represents an abandonment of hard-work for the petty endeavor of a "free lunch." You see, I just show up to the court, and the APDGT magically attaches itself to my hand in a manner affording me heavy shots with topspin at notably improved pace with absolutely no effort on my end. The only evident down-side being, given your posts, the lack of an "arm...orgasm."

    Opinions of the quality that you have provided are exactly what has troubled me to the point of posting the initial message. A racquet is a tool, nothing more, and nothing less. But through technological development, tools can be improved over time. The use of improved tools is not "cheating," a free lunch, nor some "Faustian" pact that you referenced.

    The APDGT is not for everyone. Contrary to popular belief, a short swing with the raquet will not render a shot with pace sufficient to be an offensive weapon in match play. The racquet does not play itself. Furthermore, wild and uncontrolled (read, improper) swings will indeed result in a shot that is over the court and into the parking lot - a common complaint with this stick. Controlled pace takes - gasp - work. But once that is provided and the results are obtained, you are left with a racquet able to provide significant spin, strong punch AND accuracy (to a degree better than any of the racquets I have previously used). But again, to the likes of you, this will likely fall on deaf ears eliciting a response that either my arm will fall off or that I am a Nadal-wannabe playing with a grannie stick. Again to each his own, but your comments have done nothing to give pause to my belief that the APDGT is unjustly disparaged here.
     
    #52
  3. SFrazeur

    SFrazeur Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,482
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Some people are just racquet snobs. Not much too it really.

    -SF
     
    #53
  4. Ross K

    Ross K Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,232
    "Arm orgasm"?! :lol:... I look forward to the thread: 'Best arm orgasm frame', haha.
     
    #54
  5. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,472
    You mean like how a car with an automatic transmission drives itself?

    That's why I also prefer to drive stick shifts. More feel, more control, less cheating, no free lunch, more hard work, etc. :) LOL
     
    #55
  6. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,472
    That would be the Dunlop Max 200G, followed by the PS 6.0 85 and the Prestige Classic 600. That's why they are timeless classics. Orgasms never go out of style. :) LOL
     
    #56
  7. lawrencejin

    lawrencejin Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    127
    Location:
    NY
    I think your original post is rather thoughtful. If you find that with Babolat frames, you get all the benefits of more 'prestigious' frames plus added spin and power, you found your perfect weapon. It doesn't matter what others say because, at the end of the day, the racket is your weapon.

    What lacks in this forum is an understanding that everyone's different. People cite many generalizations and rules of thumb, e.g. light and stiff rackets tend to worsen tennis elbow and lack feel. I believe there is truth to these generalizations. But they're what they are: generalizations, and nothing more. If A plays extremely well with Babolat sticks without elbow problems, then the generalization is no longer relevant. The problem is that many on this forum recite these rules of thumb as if they're indisputable laws of physics and try to impose them on everyone.

    There is definitely an anti-Babolat tendency here on TW. But keep in mind that TW is a biased sample of all recreational tennis players out there. From my experience, many recreational and even competitive players (college level) have favorable opinions towards Babolats.

    On that note, I should also point out that nostalgia and "feel" are all very legitimate reasons for choosing a racket. Like BP, I would also not choose a racket that feels bad, even if I play awesome with it. I would rather choose a racket that I play less awesome with, but feels fantastic. I can make this trade-off because I'm a recreational player.
     
    #57
  8. KenC

    KenC Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,430
    Location:
    Knowhere
    Actually, I think the Pure Drive and the APD are great racquets, it's the idiots that seem to migrate to them that bother me. Let's attempt to classify them:

    Type 1: Pusher. No regard for technique, just hope to outlast your opponent physically and mentally with junk balls.

    Type 2: Hackers. No regard for proper technique, they try to crush every ball as hard as they can and hope one or two go in so they can talk about how great those two shots were for hours afterwards.

    Type 3: Spin junkies. They are more interested in generating as much spin as possible than actually playing the point. It's OK to play bad as long as there is max spin on the ball. They are the "Look at me, I use a full western grip and generate more spin than Nadal." Ironically, they are not really putting that much spin on anyway.

    Type 4: Nadal fan. Yep, you got it, they show up with the latest PJ, as well as the latest outfit right down to the bandana and then try to emulate Nadal. Of course, they come no where close.

    If it weren't for the fact that we see so many bad players hitting with those two racquets I bet they would be much more popular. But as it stands, when serious players see their opponent show up with a PD or an APD they groan hoping that he isn't one of the above 4 types.
     
    #58
  9. UCSF2012

    UCSF2012 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,922
    Don't be a narcissist. Other people don't have to use your racket or your racket spec. Pay attention to your own game. Use what you want, and let others use what they want.

    It's what you can do with a tennis ball that counts, not the tool you use. Brag about your wins, not the bow on your fancy new racket.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
    #59
  10. UCSF2012

    UCSF2012 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,922
    The only time it matters what racket your opponent uses is formulation of a battle strategy. If they're using a Pure Drive of Aero Pro, chances are they're power hungry, so make them overhit. If they're using the 90, take off all pace and make them generate everything themselves. Then, watch them hit hte ball into the net.
     
    #60
  11. OHBH

    OHBH Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2009
    Messages:
    590
    I don't know about you guys, but I never played I racket that improved my overall game where the shots themselves had bad feel or worse feel than a racket that plays worse. The two pretty much go hand in hand.
     
    #61
  12. Hi I'm Ray

    Hi I'm Ray Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,504
    Haha, some ppl are so passionate about their equipment preferences. To me it doesn't really matter what I use or what my opponent uses, its about winning, results, and enjoying the game. Who really cares what Fed, Djoker, Nadal, Murray, etc., are using, its about their results.

    The guy who said arm orgasms matter more that where the ball ends up sounds pretty weird, lol. The part about racket feel being better than sex is just plain over-the-top crazy talk. But I guess we should just let ppl enjoy the game however they want to - It doesn't matter if he just bageled himself hitting the ball into the net, he just got some! :)

    Agree.

    --------------------------------

    These kind of threads pop up there pretty often and the topic seems to be mostly about tweeners vs classic frames. When I see ppl singling out Babs and saying only Babs suck, it seems like it has more to do with Fed fans being anti-Nadal.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2012
    #62
  13. syke

    syke Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,356
    I have played with a PD 12, and I admit it is a fun racquet to play with. But I reckon it will be damming on the arm in the long run.

    Or you can simply pick up a Yonex Vcore 100S. My poly strings had more than 20 hours of play and my arm is still feeling great...
     
    #63
  14. dje31

    dje31 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    767
    It's probably helpful to compare & contrast the modern game to the classic / traditional game:

    Classic / Traditional:

    All-court game, mix of spins (top, flat, side, slice), gain advantage, close out points, net strategy, S&V;

    Modern: Baseline-oriented, game of attrition, topspin-dominant, wear down opponent, force / wait for errors, minimal net play;

    Now the types of strokes:

    Classic / Traditional: Hit through the ball (pressuring, grinding), stepping into the ball, Eastern / Continental grips, 1HBH (predominantly);

    Modern: Brushing the ball, open stance, hit off back foot, Western / Semi-Western grips, 2HBH, lots of arm / joint motion (shoulder, elbow, wrist);

    And the types of racquets associated with each:

    Classic / Traditional: Smaller heads (95 and lower), heavier static weights, more flexible, lower SW, more HL;

    Modern: Bigger heads (98+), lower static weights, stiffer, higher SW, more even-HH;

    You gotta pick the right tool for the job.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2012
    #64
  15. dje31

    dje31 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    767
    Continuing on the above, knowing I'm making sweeping generalizations, you can, if you have the ability, play either type of game with either type of racquet.

    Further, I believe some of the joint issues with the modern game / racquets is related, but perhaps for different reasons than people suspect.

    If you hit with a brushing motion, I contend you don't feel the stiffness of the racquet or strings...you'd feel that more with a traditional stroke (pressuring / grinding) on a modern racquet.

    I believe the bigger issue is people taking crazy windshield wiper, exaggerated hyper strokes with the lighter sticks...that, and less mass means your body absorbs the shock, not the racquet.

    But boy howdy, you can swing like a lunatic, and get crazy spin!

    Conversely, playing the modern game with a more classic / traditional racquet, you'd probably have a harder time generating the kind of racquet head speed needed for that style of play...but it / might / be easier on the joints...maybe.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2012
    #65
  16. El Zed

    El Zed Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    331
    Your rationale makes sense, however, I believe that as one's "modern" stroke improves the exaggerated "windshield wiper" motion begins to become far less pronounced to where a player is - just - over the ball. This, I believe, speaks to your point about the swing being more of a deflection rather than a force through the ball, and therefore potentially less harmful. If people are truly playing with that exaggerated motion, while not bringing it down to capture topspin at more acceptable levels, then I can see the amount of concern regarding injury when coupled with stiffness. Particularly, if such shots are attempted at higher pace.

    This leads me to the point that, hand-in-hand with the modern game's focus upon the baseline is the fact that the pace of shots have increased - whether it be in terms of serves, groundstrokes, etc. A corollary to this point is, essentially, the classic racquet's (in)ability to keep up in an absolute sense. While I love my classic racquets and while the PT280/630 is perhaps the most forgiving in a sense comparable to the APDGT, it's quite clear (even when adjusting for the use of different strings at different tensions) that the PT280/630 or PC600 just do not have that extra gear relative to the APDGT. While it's peak may be "good enough" when factoring in their numerous other qualities, this is nonetheless a notable deficiency on the part of the classics and indeed a selling point for the APDGT.

    I hope my posts have not come across as slams against the classics. I feel they have obvious charm and merit in certain aspects of the game. Moreover, I believe they are more aesthetically pleasing (largely due to their more subdued colourways) and indeed have a bit of unique cachet relative to a racquet that can be picked up literally at any major sporting goods store. While I truly wish I could have remained with these racquets, I can't help but think that racquets such as the APDGT are indeed more suited to modern tennis and simply have a higher ceiling in terms of controlled power and access to spin. At the very least, they are undeserving of the "junk" status so commonly given to them.
     
    #66
  17. pattenww

    pattenww Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Messages:
    263
    Racket Power %

    on the tw site it says that for the head microgel rad (notroiously low powered) that power potential at center of string bed at 38.5% Vs Babo Pure Drive 39.9% (Does not seem like much of a difference to me). In the sweet spot are rackets really that much more or less powerfull or is it all back to feel again? - the feeling of power..
     
    #67
  18. TimothyO

    TimothyO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    3,592
    Location:
    Baseline
    Those weight values are correct but many frames in the mid to high 11 oz range seem almost intended for use as platforms for customization with respect to total static weight, balance, and SW, all of which can only be modified by adding weight. Often the result is about 12oz or higher when you add a heavier grip, overgrip, and some lead in the head. 3 grams is about 0.1 oz so several grams can quickly push an 11.5 oz frame towards 12 oz.
     
    #68
  19. sargeinaz

    sargeinaz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,537
    I just play with what I like and thats usually thinner beamed rackets at 98in2 and lower that are 11.5oz strung or higher. I play for fun and I enjoy how those rackets feel and play with my eastern grips and all court game. I hate how the pure drive feels, it just feels like a tin can to me. But if someone wants to use one, I got no problems with that. Hit with whatever you like whether it's because your favorite player has it or because you like it or because you win with it. No difference to me.
     
    #69
  20. El Zed

    El Zed Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    331

    Perhaps my understanding is incorrect, but isn't "swingweight" still subject to variance by way of - amongst other things - the velocity of the swing. Thus, when measuring "swingweight," I appreciate that it's a function of a certain, unitary force (kept uniform during the test of all racquets), racquet (static) weight, and composition (as reflected by such things as "flex"). To this end, however, the very velocity of the swing is clearly affected by static weight and (to even a small degree) certain design properties (whether it is a consideration of aerodynamic properties or otherwise). Thus, isn't it correct that while we know the relative swingweights of racquets at the aforementioned uniform rate, we are ultimately unable to determine peak swingweight since this variable is highly player dependent? To this end, however, doesn't it make sense that the racquet with higher static weight and less aerodynamic properties would have a lower ceiling in this regard relative to - all other things being kept equal - a racquet with lower static weight and aerodynamic properties?
     
    #70
  21. bugeyed

    bugeyed Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Messages:
    543
    Location:
    Tx
    IMO Aerodynamics are not a factor with the racquet head speed normally encountered on court. The manufacturers will have you believe that aerodynamics will make a huge difference in racquet swing speed, but I don't buy it. I also believe that swingweight can be viewed as a constant from player to player & swing to swing.

    Cheers,
    kev
     
    #71
  22. TennisMD

    TennisMD Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    762
    This exactly correct another example the Volkl C10 pro a daunted and honored here at TW ( and I like the stick also) has at dead center only 0.6mph less speed than the maligned and often called" rocket launcher" PDR 2012 furthermore even as you get to the periphery of the rkts the PDR only offers 1.1 mph difference.
    So as I have often stated there is an ideal rkt for everyone and that's the one that allows you to maximize your timing that rkt will produce an infinitely better feel, power and winner even if less powered or if it is more powered. A frequent comment here is the rkt is too powerful this in reality means poor technique a lesser talented player can sky ball out of the court with a 65 inch old wood rkt yet a Nadal or Roddick both very powerful individuals can keep their rocket launchers under control.
    So my advice is find that perfect swing weight that allows you and your unique talent to maximize his/her timing to give you the best results.
    I also agree that injuries are the result of many factors the least of which is the label Babolat, the most of which is poor technique. I have years ago developed medial epicondylitis when I was transitioning from triathlons to tennis so technique far below where I am now, now I can hit
    With a PDR2012 all day long strung with Wilson champion series ( mix lux and gut) at sane lbs strung and no issues. The injury period was purely technique as I was 20 yrs younger, fitter, faster but not tennis skilled also rkt was a yonex with stiffness 60 95 sq inch and 12.5 oz way above my then skill level hence injury
     
    #72
  23. KenC

    KenC Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,430
    Location:
    Knowhere
    Has anyone ever looked at the APDGT next to another thin beam racquet, say the K90? Just look at the throat area. It is anything but aerodynamic. It is huge and probably much less aerodynamic than any thin beam racquet. But since Babolat markets it as the ultimate in aerodynamic design, the masses believe everything hook line and sinker.

    Words to the wise: Don't religiously believe what companies say. They firmly embrace profits before people.
     
    #73
  24. El Zed

    El Zed Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    331
    Funny enough, if you keep the racquet head flat (parallel) to the ground it does very well in cutting through. Smoothest feel in this regard with the exception of the Fischer Vacuum Pro 90. Perhaps you have more of a pronounced perpedincular stroke, where the thinner beam would be preferable.
     
    #74
  25. galain

    galain Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,007
    As far as I'm concerned this says it all.

    There are some members on this board who can and do play at a very high level. I suspect that there are many more weekend warriors who really don't need to concern themselves all that much with 'getting pushed around' by the bigger modern game of their opponents. My opponents may hit the ball beyond my reach, whereupon they win the point. Or I'll hit the ball out or into the net, whereupon they win the point.

    I honestly don't know that I've lost points because I wasn't able to put the ball away, or because my shot fluttered weakly back over the net due to the power coming from the other side. If I can't get to a ball, it's because the point was set up to take advantage of my bad position. This used to happen in the 1980's when I was playing as well. The only time I've ever felt totally overwhelmed was hitting against a former tour player (who used a Liquid Metal Prestige) who had such great control I felt like a puppet on a string. He was several orders better at the game than I will ever be, though, and I know I don't play regularly against former tour players like him.

    At my level - weekend fixtures and the odd tournament - I can't see an enormous difference between today and 10 years ago.

    If you're skilled enough to use a frame like the Pure Drive, good for you. If you prefer something with more feel, good for you. At the level I suspect most of here perform at regularly, it's not such a significant issue.
     
    #75
  26. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,472
    How do you hit the ball over the net by keeping the racquet face parallel to the ground? :confused: By hitting the ball with the edge of the frame? LOL
     
    #76
  27. dje31

    dje31 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    767
    Now THAT is a small sweetspot.
     
    #77
  28. bugeyed

    bugeyed Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Messages:
    543
    Location:
    Tx
    If the aerodynamics play a part, it would be during a serve motion. That's when the racquet would be traveling edge-on.

    cheers,
    kev
     
    #78
  29. El Zed

    El Zed Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    331
    Yes, it's definitely involved during the serve but I also believe it's applicable during ground strokes as well.

    To the other poster(s) that appears befuddled over keeping the racquet head closed during a portion/majority of the stroke, I believe that say's quite a bit about his preference for racquets, his interesting view on "feel," and apparent disregard if the ball goes straight into the net.
     
    #79
  30. D-money

    D-money Rookie

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    161
    Location:
    Northern CA
    I personally like to spout off my opinions and try to pass them off as science and facts. So this is a perfect thread for me to join in for a debate but I'll pass. As a Bab user I might sound biased.
     
    #80
  31. Rozroz

    Rozroz Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2011
    Messages:
    9,218
    oh, come on! :twisted:
     
    #81
  32. JohnB

    JohnB Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    197
    It's true I believe. I once "altered" a BLX Six-One 95 to an Aero design by making the throat area triangular with pieces of paper. It was defenitely easier to whip upward, but it was tougher to hit straight thru. The beauty of this test was that I could alter the shape back and forth between a rectangular shape and a triangular shape. If I made it rectangular, it was more suited for flatter strokes.
     
    #82
  33. bugeyed

    bugeyed Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Messages:
    543
    Location:
    Tx
    I propose that a flat/square beam racquet, because of it's poor aerodynamic characteristics, is stabilized by the drag as it passes through the air. The racquet head is more stable on off center hits, because essentially it's polar moment of inertia is higher than if it had an aero design. The faster the swing, the more stable the racquet.

    Cheers,
    kev
     
    #83
  34. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,472
    Yes, I swing my racquet face perpendicular to the ground rather than parallel to the ground because I prefer to hit the ball with my stringbed rather than the edge of my frame. LOL

    Does it matter where the ball goes if the "feel" comes from when the ball impacts your stringbed? If experiencing this incredible "feel" is what you're after, all you want to do is to hit the ball as many times as possible. Where the ball goes does not change the incredible "feel" you get on impact. Like I mentioned earlier, to some people, tennis is all about the "feel" you get to a bodily appendage, just like with sex. :)
     
    #84
  35. TennisCJC

    TennisCJC Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,362
    Me too ^^^^

    I have demo apdgt, demo wilson pro open, and have owned a prince 03 white and and older wilson wide body in the past. I get tempted by the call of extra power in lighter weight, but I usually return to thin beam 22 mm or less, 95-98in2, weight around 12 oz, and SW around 335.

    The apdgt was a bad demo for me. I felt like it crushed groundstrokes when all setup but thought everything else - serves, volleys, touch, feel, and slices - were not good. I think the apdgt is basically suited to the pro who uses the older version of it - Nadal.

    But, I am an oldster - 55 years young - so I grew up playing thin beam, flexible rackets with a fair amount of weight.

    One thing I find unusual is if you count the top 20 ATP players, thin beamed heavy rackets under 100in2 still dominate.
     
    #85
  36. anubis

    anubis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,013
    +10internets

    For me, its all about results. I also don't care what racquet someone uses. Games at the rec level, from 3.0 all the way up to 5.0 are won by keeping the ball in play. If you can't hit the ball in, then you can't win games -- simple as that. Therefore, you should choose the equipment that best allows you to keep the ball in.

    Frankly, I don't understand why everyone thinks a "powerful racquet" is a big deal. IMO, you generate power through appropriate form and technique. I can hit the ball just as deep with a Babolat or a low-powered Head Prestige, just by adjusting the technique. In fact, my entire setup is low powered: Head Radical MP with low-powered syn gut strung @ 62 lbs. I have no difficulties hitting it deep when its necessary to do so.

    Therefore, I think its wrong to choose a racquet solely on power alone, since you can get just as much power from any racquet. Your first order of business should be "can I keep the ball in?". If you can't, then you need to look at a lot of factors (in this order): 1. technique 2. string tension 3. racquet

    Just my .02.
     
    #86
  37. El Zed

    El Zed Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    331
    Your concluding set of points are a bit of a non sequitur, which I don't think anyone really disputes. Of course, it doesn't matter if you hit a ball at twice the pace if you can't keep it in. That's not in dispute, it's fully accepted. My point is that the premise that you can't keep the ball in play with the APDGT while hitting with pace is false. Does it take "work" to do so consistently, yes. Does it take "work" to generate acceptable power levels with the PT280 or PC600, the answer there is also a yes. The question of which type/amount of work is more beneficial/preferable is subjective and what helps develop one's preference for a specific frame. For me, it's easier to control the APDGT than it is to hit the PC600/PT280 with equal power. This, however, does not render one racquet as being crap - which the often maligned APDGT is commonly regarded as.

    Also, I believe there is some confusion about what I term as "power." A presumption in my point is that you are hitting equally deep shots with both racquets - therefore, I'm not discussing depth. What I am discussing is the pace of the shots (for instance, to the corners). Perhaps this helps you understand that, from my experience, the APDGT can hit the far corners at noticeable higher velocity than the classic raquets that I have used. In fact, just had a hitting session yesterday with a Prestige 600, Pro Tour 280 and a APDGT and again came to same conclusion. Finally, if you don't believe there is a variance in terms of racquet "power," I invite you to try an old Fischer Vacuum Pro 90 - with which you need considerably faster swings to approach the PC600/PT280 much less the APDGT. To me, trying to hit the Vacuum Pro 90 in a mannerer generating the pace incumbent to the APDGT is more potentially injury inducing than the tennis elbow issues discussed.
     
    #87
  38. El Zed

    El Zed Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    331
    Again, good luck with that. I wish you and your racquet the best...
     
    #88
  39. El Zed

    El Zed Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    331
    I hear what you are saying and agree that there is apparently an element of drag at play (however, small) with the beam frames. After all, isn't this one of the ways how the "modern" Prestige variants are (slightly) more user friendly than the classics - namely, in terms of softer/rounder edges?

    That being said, not so sure that I'm with you as to the latter point regarding stability. To this end, I believe your last point is a bit of a contradiction in that the aero design can in fact lead to a faster swing, if the requisite stroke is used. Moreover, if you extrapolated your point, would't this lead to the premise that an aircraft is more stable with higher drag (which, I don't believe is the case and is counter intuitive to efforts to reduce drag)?
     
    #89
  40. jaydog23

    jaydog23 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    115
    Here is my two cents on what I believe the difference to be:

    I myself have just started using the Prestige Classic 600 and am enjoying it thoroughly. You said that you were not getting enough power from you "classic" frame. Obviously, it would then behoove you to look for a racquet with more power, despite the arm injuries it may or may not cause in the future. I, on the other hand, find myself bombing shots out of the court with my "weak" prestige classic 600 strung at 56lbs. I have absolutely no reason to switch to a racquet that I can rip because 1) I don't play with huge topspin 2) I would have to use tighter string tension (further stiffening the whole setup) and 3) I can spin my left-handed serve out wide into the net separating two courts 75% of the time. Why would I choose to move anywhere from where I currently am?
     
    #90
  41. El Zed

    El Zed Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    331
    Congrats, it's nice to be content with a stick isn't?

    Funny this old topic should come up again, as I just played with the APDgt for the first time in a while since yesterday. I have it leaded up and blu-tack'd (in the handle) to a weight of about 13 oz. It's a beast of a stick, and frankly I was hitting some shots with pace that I don't believe I ever achieved before. But..... the stick isn't for me after all, and I'm back to the PT280. My original point still holds, however; the performance/ceiling of the stick merits greater respect than that largely afforded to it on here - it's a solid stick, and appropriately used by (admittedly, arguably) the top player in the world. If I was on the tour, I'd seriously consider making it my main stick - unless of course I was offerred more money by another company. :)
     
    #91
  42. jaydog23

    jaydog23 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    115
    That is fair. I think the bias stems in part from the fact that people who use so-called "players' racquets" generally speaking have a more relaxed-looking game: you don't see Federer looking like he's just finished a 12-rep set of 50 lb. curls.... By the way, was it by any chance arm pain that made you switch? :)

    Even more by the way, I noticed you have some posts regarding PC600's for sale. Are those still accurate because I'm interested!
     
    #92
  43. El Zed

    El Zed Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    331
    The only Prestige I have left is a Prestige 600 - the silver/grey/green one that immediately followed the Prestige Pro 600/Prestige Pro model (predating the PC600).

    No, the switch had absolutely nothing to do with arm pain - actually never felt the APDgt was problematic in that regard (but then again, I do employ a WW stroke and a full western grip). Simply put, the PT280 provides the impression that I'm absolutely thumping the ball (with great accuracy), and I noticed I'm able to deliver an insanely heavy ball (moreso than the APDgt).
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2013
    #93
  44. THESEXPISTOL

    THESEXPISTOL Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    3,008
    Location:
    Europe
    I second that, it's also true at my club.
    As Rozroz said the fault is also from the poly strings at high tensions.
    Many, and i mean lots of them, use polys at high tensions to tame the power of the racquet.

    IMO nothing like an oldschool graphite racquet with a co-poly/multi stringjob at low-mid tensions. It feels like heaven.
     
    #94
  45. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,268
    This quote from the OP's opening post, Paragraph 4:

    Aha! there's the rub. Differences in racquets don't typically account account for +5 to +10 differences in MPH. Even if you were to edge all possible parameters... head size, flex, mass, swingweight, length, string type, string tension, into the power friendly zone you'd be hard pressed to create a 10 mph difference in ball velocity.

    Here is a Riddle : How fast does the tip of the racquet the need to be traveling in order to hit a 100 mph serve?

    Hint: If the answer is about 60 mph, then we can say the players arm gets the racquet to 60, the racquet does the rest, and there is much to gain or loose with careful racquet selection. However if the answer is closer to 90 mph, then we can say that most of the speed of the serve comes directly from the players arm, and there is very little room for improvement with regards to max mph and careful racquet selection. Any guesses?

    -Jack
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2013
    #95
  46. El Zed

    El Zed Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    331
    Jack - are you really saying an APD or PD doesn't afford you more shot velocity, on a consistent basis, relative to some beloved classics - for instance the Vacuum Pro 90? I'm not talking about the seemingly rare perfect swing where the stars align, but normal "stressed" shots that are common place if not the norm during a match. Anecdotal perhaps, but a greater margin for error and a more lively stringed simply has an effect in my game. Now whether its 1 additional mph or 10, it's all relative and subject to how you want to delineate it relative to other factors. But if you wanted to win, and aren't forced to sacrifice control, added pace is surely an advantage.

    Where the APD falls flat, to me, is that you never have this sensation of absolutely crushing a ball from the baseline - unlike say the PT280.
     
    #96
  47. equinox

    equinox Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,223
    Location:
    Cocos Islands, WA
    I haven't hit a ball since mid 2010.

    A light weight babolat racquet and poor service technique killed my shoulder.

    As BP said There's no free lunch, eventually the damage a babolat racquet does will catch up.
     
    #97
  48. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,268
    Any guesses on that riddle? The answer puts this whole conversation into perspective right quick.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2013
    #98
  49. Roforot

    Roforot Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,198
    This is perplexing to me. I tried using a Pro1 and felt it had as much pop as my my PureDrive roddick from the baseline... felt a little less depth w/ my volleys (but close)... however I felt my serves did not have the same pace. 2nd serves were sitting up and ripped.

    Now, here's where it gets interesting, I added 4g of lead at 12' o clock and my serves are pretty much on spot w/ the PDR!

    Granted I don't have a radar gun, but I'm basing my assessment on what my opponents tell me and results (how many errors/short returns my serves produce). By my cheap radar gun (practice serves hitting the back fence) I find the modified Donnay to make a difference.

    4grams is not a lot. What is it about 4g that makes a difference between my 2nd serve being serviceable and even forcing errors vs. sitting up to be punished?
     
    #99
  50. El Zed

    El Zed Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    331
    You almost sound like LeeD...

    Here is the problem - you don't want to accept anecdotal evidence and that's all I have to offer. My post wasn't intended as an assertion that the APDgt results in an increase of 10 mph. on every shot, rather than inquiry as to why a racquet would be so reviled if it has the ability to improve one's game.

    I accept the "feel" argument - frankly, that's why I've gone back to the PT280s. But I don't accept your argument of... well it's a small increase in speed/power, so it doesn't matter. If you were a professional, and you could increase velocity by 1/10th of a mph with no adverse effect, you would. Before you claim that no such difference exists, which I don't believe you will, I'll draw your attention to TW's own power level comparison utility...

    Now time for my "riddle" - my last time out, I used a PT280 and APDgt spec'd out similarly (in terms of lead placement, balance, etc.) to nearly 13 oz. and both utilizing a full bed of BHB7 in 17. Rather consistently, the APDgt resulted in a faster ball, whereas the PT280 resulted in a heavier ball with greater spin. I use a full, WW stroke and western grip. Love the feel of the PT280, and can tolerate the APDgt - would love to get a ball just as fast with my PT280, but just can't. So explain that... and please understand that any answer other than "it's my imagination" or that "my perception is exaggerated" directly mitigates your point as the result comes from the same player with the same form/stroke.

    Presuming that spin generation is "all technique" (a commonly regurgitated group thought on this board) your point regarding power therefore renders the evaluation of a racquet simply to terms of its feel/comfort and aesthetic appeal - frankly, just can't buy into that.
     

Share This Page