Serving and Head Size

[Rabbit]

Moving around with my string set up has me thinking about serving. And, along those lines, and doing some reading, I think it's finally settled in my head why midsize rackets and even standard sized rackets serve better for most of the population.

A few years ago, one of my breaks from the C10 was a 6 month dalliance with the Wilson N90. During that time, and playing with VS gut, my serve was really, really strong. There was also the 12 - 14 months I played with the old Head Vilas. BTW, I took some measurements on one of my Vilas'. The head size comes up to 70 sq in. A T2000 by comparison is 68 sq in.

I reigned in my first serves because serving with a wooden frame, second serves are a whole different proposition. But when confident and going for the ball, I could hit first serves as hard with the Vilas as with the N90.

My serve isn't as good with the C10. But, the rest of my game is so much better with it that my overall results are much better with the C10. It's just a better fit.

A long time ago, I played with the Prince Original Graphite OS. The one thing I really remember about that frame was how hard it was for me to serve with it. I just couldn't get any stick on my serves.

OK, enough background now for the revelation. In doing the reading and relating that to normal folks (those of us under 6 foot), one thing has become apparent. When you serve, where does the ball strike the racket? I think the vast majority of us attempt to center the ball in the stringbed when serving.

If that is the case, and it is for everyone I know, with which frame, standard, mid, midplus, or oversize is the point of contact futher from the hand? If all the frames are of equal length, then it's the standard sized frame. The point is that your point of contact (no pun intended) is higher by probably an inch to an inch and a half with a standard sized frame, or an inch with a mid-sized frame.

To a normal sized guy, again under 6 foot, this is a lot of angle. The other big difference between these frame sizes relates to leverage. The further away from the hand that the center of the stringbed is, the greater the leverage you'll have. This comes into play when serving as well. It also comes into play more at net where the additional leverage gives you easier access to angles.

I invite y'all to throw rocks at it. But, it makes perfect sense to me and has been born out in my experience playing recently with wood and everything but an OS as I ruled them out long ago.

 

[J011yroger]

Most everyone I know hits serves esp flatter serves near the very top of the stringbed.

J

 

[Kevin T]

I'm no physicist like you Rabbit , so I don't know the reasons, but I completely agree that smaller head sizes produce better serves. Like you, I now choose to play a midplus (98) because it's better for my all-around game but I don't hit the same bombs on serve. Also like you, I can't for the life of me hit decent serves with an OS frame. For me, it's all about swing speed and resistance. I also use smaller head frames in squash and have never been able to connect with oversize head drivers in golf...still swing an OG Callaway Big bertha...1/3 the size of some clubs these days. Here's my roundup of all-time best serving racquets:

1. Rossignol FT 5.80-I've never found it's equal-11oz, even to slightly head heavy withi an 85in head and open string pattern. Not since Kevin Curren served his way to the Wimby final has a man so heavily relied on his serve-this baby got me to State's in high school-I didn't even need to break the other guy, if I was serving well, I was GOLD!
2. Volkl Tournament Pro (think that was the name)-one of the first Volkls I saw in the USA, red with yellow accents, like a McDonald's sign, that frame was sweet as cotton candy, 12+oz and <93in head
3. Head Astral Pro-90in, Head's first widebody design, that strange double power wedge with CAP grommets, the frame was white with pink accents and I put in purple string to look even more like a dandy!!
4. Head Prestige series-speaks for itself
5. Fischer Vac Pro 90-old school purple fish scale Stich model, a frame made for serving (and nothing else with me-couldn't hit a one hand topspin backhand to save my life)

 

[Deleted member 25923]

i got serves in with a 95 racket, but shanked a few with the 98. maybe its cuz the RDX 500 midplus is a full oz heavier than the wilson ncode ntour, but i'm not sure. i'm still somewhat of a beginner, but still.

 

[J011yroger]

Don't worry about it, I am pretty far from a beginner, but when I get tired I can shank a serve with the best of em.

J

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Don't worry about it, I am pretty far from a beginner, but when I get tired I can shank a serve with the best of em.

J

cool. its good to know i'm not alone. btw, i have another q, do you have to put a shock dampener below all of the cross strings?

 

[NoBadMojo]

I dont think headsize has any more to do with it than flex, beamwidth, balance, etc. i've played against really big/good servers over the years using wood, mids like the Ultra2(which was the choice that many better servers chose over the ps85), and oversized Prince frames. In fact the biggest/best server I ever played used a Prince oversize and was clocked around 140.
As far as the sweetspot theory goes, while it may be located slightly farther from the hand on a small headed frame, the sweetzone is also smaller, so i think of that as a wash.
I do agree that better servers hit the ball higher in the stringbed and you do get more lever that way on the serve...to that end, i think frames with a thoughtful design which extends the sweetzone up higher are the better choices for serving <and volleying> and this is a reason i'm not big on the pancake flipper Yonex headshape...i just dont think the frames are very solid and strong up high...i think their strength is in the groundstroking

 

[J011yroger]

cool. its good to know i'm not alone. btw, i have another q, do you have to put a shock dampener below all of the cross strings?

Yes.

J

 

[cadfael_tex]

NoBadMojo, not sure what it adds to the theory but I concur with the Yonex analysis. I loved the Yonex's I've had but for one thing, the serve. My serve goes away when I use those frames - both now and 20 years ago.

Best frames for me since coming back for serving (in order): Head Vilas, PS 6.0 95, Slaz Pro X1 - worst = Prince 03 Tour MP

 

[bad_call]

Rabbit - when i had a C10, i served almost as big with the C10 as the T10V mid. with any racquet there is an adjustment and tweaking of technique. never tried the OS racquets. maybe a mental thing but just didnt appeal to my game.

 

[bad_call]

I dont think headsize has any more to do with it than flex, beamwidth, balance, etc. i've played against really big/good servers over the years using wood, mids like the Ultra2(which was the choice that many better servers chose over the ps85), and oversized Prince frames. In fact the biggest/best server I ever played used a Prince oversize and was clocked around 140.
As far as the sweetspot theory goes, while it may be located slightly farther from the hand on a small headed frame, the sweetzone is also smaller, so i think of that as a wash.
I do agree that better servers hit the ball higher in the stringbed and you do get more lever that way on the serve...to that end, i think frames with a thoughtful design which extends the sweetzone up higher are the better choices for serving <and volleying> and this is a reason i'm not big on the pancake flipper Yonex headshape...i just dont think the frames are very solid and strong up high...i think their strength is in the groundstroking

if i get a chance to serve up some with a Yonex, will post results. however knew a few players using the early Yonex racquets (metal and a shade of green come to mind) that served pretty well.

 

[dacrymn]

Yeah, it's perfectly plausible. It makes sense, doesn't it? As you swing faster, the sweetspot (of momentum, not necessarily feel) shifts upwards. Centrifugal force?

 

[J011yroger]

^^Not exactly how it works

J

 

[Hedges]

Rabbit, is your C10 a 93 or 98 headsize?

 

[Rabbit]

98

And the the yonex theory doesnt hold. I served like a banshee when I used the RD Tour 90 and the RQ 260. The RD 90 was great throughout its hoop and was great at s/v tennis.

 

[Alafter]

From my experience, OS doesnt serve any worse than anything smaller headed.

It's probably just your personal experience that you couldnt serve well with some racquets, but that's about it.

 

[ohplease]

There are likely several things contributing to Rabbit's (true) observations. He's already touched on one: the distance to the sweetspot and the resulting leverage. One of the reasons oversize heads make the game easier is that in addition to making the sweetspot bigger, it also brings it closer to the hand. Anyone who's observed the difference in competence per unit time between tennis and something like racquetball or paddle tennis or ping pong can see there's a real effect there.

Secondly, in the same way that wider heads provide both more room for error and more torsional stability, that same stability also makes it more difficult for servers to rotate those racquets along their length (as seen when pronating the wrist on serve). Not only does the ball have a harder time torquing the face, but you do, too.

 

[BreakPoint]

Rabbit,

I totally agree with your analysis. I have always served better with smaller racquets than with bigger racquets. In fact, when I used my Dunlop Maxply Fort 65 sq. in. wood racquet back in the day, I had a monster serve and used to hit aces like they were going out of style. I can't hit that many aces with ANY modern racquet today. Today, though, I serve better with Mids than I do with larger racquets. I get great serves with my AG100, K90, nCode 90, Vantage 90, etc. I used to also serve great with the Prestige Classic. There's a very good reason why the PS 6.0 85 is well known to be one of the best, if not THE best, serving racquet of all time.

I've subscribed to the "hand being further away from the contact point the smaller a racquet head is" theory for a long time. It essentially makes you an inch or two taller and allows you to hit down more and gives you better angles on the serve. As you mentioned, this is also the reason why you can get better angles on volleys with a smaller racquet.

Another factor which you didn't mention, is that it's also easier to get topspin on serves with a smaller head. The reason being that the service motion for a topspin serve is essentially an arc that you first make with your shoulder then with your elbow and forearm to your hand. Well, the tip of your racquet travels at a faster angular velocity than the handle of your racquet does when you swing it in an arc, so the further the contact point is away from your hand, the faster the stringbed is moving for the same swing. Thus, the higher on the stringbed that you strike the ball, the more spin you can impart on the ball since the stringbed is moving faster (angular velocity) higher up in the stringbed than lower in the stringbed. I hope you understand what I mean.

 

[Rabbit]

Yep, I do. You get more racket head speed toward the top of the frame. A pro I took from reminded me of this when working on my kick serve. He said the further up the stringbed you take the ball, the more "torque" you can put on the ball.

The only downside to a smaller racket, pardon the pun, is the margin of error decreases, especially on second serves. I think I mentioned in this thread that while I could serve really big with the Vilas, I reigned it in because I knew if I missed a 1st serve, I had to hit a second serve and the prospects there are somewhat less than with a midplus. If I was feeling really good and serving well, then I'd let 'er rip, but if not, I played percentages.

If anyone wants to learn percentage tennis, they should commit to playing with a wood racket for a year.

 

[A.J. Sim]

Moving around with my string set up has me thinking about serving. And, along those lines, and doing some reading, I think it's finally settled in my head why midsize rackets and even standard sized rackets serve better for most of the population.

A few years ago, one of my breaks from the C10 was a 6 month dalliance with the Wilson N90. During that time, and playing with VS gut, my serve was really, really strong. There was also the 12 - 14 months I played with the old Head Vilas. BTW, I took some measurements on one of my Vilas'. The head size comes up to 70 sq in. A T2000 by comparison is 68 sq in.

I reigned in my first serves because serving with a wooden frame, second serves are a whole different proposition. But when confident and going for the ball, I could hit first serves as hard with the Vilas as with the N90.

My serve isn't as good with the C10. But, the rest of my game is so much better with it that my overall results are much better with the C10. It's just a better fit.

A long time ago, I played with the Prince Original Graphite OS. The one thing I really remember about that frame was how hard it was for me to serve with it. I just couldn't get any stick on my serves.

OK, enough background now for the revelation. In doing the reading and relating that to normal folks (those of us under 6 foot), one thing has become apparent. When you serve, where does the ball strike the racket? I think the vast majority of us attempt to center the ball in the stringbed when serving.

If that is the case, and it is for everyone I know, with which frame, standard, mid, midplus, or oversize is the point of contact futher from the hand? If all the frames are of equal length, then it's the standard sized frame. The point is that your point of contact (no pun intended) is higher by probably an inch to an inch and a half with a standard sized frame, or an inch with a mid-sized frame.

To a normal sized guy, again under 6 foot, this is a lot of angle. The other big difference between these frame sizes relates to leverage. The further away from the hand that the center of the stringbed is, the greater the leverage you'll have. This comes into play when serving as well. It also comes into play more at net where the additional leverage gives you easier access to angles.

I invite y'all to throw rocks at it. But, it makes perfect sense to me and has been born out in my experience playing recently with wood and everything but an OS as I ruled them out long ago.

Rabbit, that is an interesting analysis. Right now, I am hitting with one of my older POG OS's and have found the exact same thing on serves. I've become more used to mids/mp's lately and when I used the POG to serve, I couldn't hit my first serve as hard as when I was hitting with the aerogel 200 or the RDS 001 mid (with which I could really nail first serves). Something about the OS made hitting the big flat bombs much more difficult. I could hit second serves with lots of spin but I had trouble generating the racket speed needed to hit a big serve with the OS. Your leverage argument might be it, because it certainly isn't the weight of the frame.

 

[JackSkellington]

It just depends on where the sweet spot is. Once you adjust to any racket, it's no different.

 

[Alafter]

It just depends on where the sweet spot is. Once you adjust to any racket, it's no different.

NO. It's that one inch of somthingamagik difference.

NO. It's that aero dynamic difference b/w OS and mid.

NO. It's that...heck what's the point in arguing pointless speculation made into theory based on personal observations.

NO. Are you ready for more theoratical defense?

 

[drakulie]

I don't feel I get the same racquet head speed with an oversize. The smaller headsize feels much easier to maneuver. Also, I don't think I hit the ball on the top of the string bed. I would say I'm in the middle.

 

[retrowagen]

This exact argument is one I've been making for over 20 years...

Recently, in another thread, I explained it :

I tend to think that, all things being otherwise equal, more topspin was required to effectively use larger-headed rackets back when they were developed because the longer mains and crosses (and larger, more open string grids) "trampolined" balls as a matter of course. This was the primary setback of the oversized racket; mids were thought to be a compromise. However, some extra power from the trampoline effect, if it could be controlled, was desirable to offset the loss of applied leverage on striking the ball, as the sweetspot of an Oversize was rather closer to the hand than that of a Standard (meaning effectively that the player is playing with a shorter bat).

Obviously, there are numerous factors going on here. But take two standard-length rackets, let's say a Prince Graphite 110 and a Kneissl White Star Pro Masters (75 sq-in or so), and, identically weighted, the smaller-headed racket will have an advantage in the angle the ball trajectory takes (relative to the flat court surface and clearance over the net), and the force applied to the ball (as, if swung at identical speed [radians per second], the sweetspot's increased distance from the fulcrum point will be moving faster than the other racket's, and the mass concentrated in the plane of the sweet spot further away from the fulcrum will help too. This places more force on the object (the ball). Newton's Second Law in the flesh).

Obviously, the big IF is whether the racket operator can connect decently with the ball on the smaller head. That requires more skill, I suppose. Interesting that many racket manufacturers started making >27" long frames in the 90's... maybe to add leverage? It's not that tennis players have shorter arms nowadays...

Re: Hitting shots nearer the top of the head: strictly depends on the player, I'd say. Historically some racket manufacturers conducted studies which suggested players tend to hit lower on the head (Kneissl themselves publicized this in the 80's), and thus designed the head shapes to exploit this (look at the shape of old Kneissls, Voelkls, the Dunlop XLT series, et al). I discovered that I tend to hit nearer the top of the strings, which is a boon for serving, and adds more punch to groundies, if the racket can be made a bit sweeter up high to offset the "dead zone." The custom tuning I do on my rackets does shift the sweet spot up a tiny bit to help: I add weight at the 10 and 2 o'clock positions; in the case of my racket it expands the sweet spot and moves it up roughly 1" closer to the top of the hoop. But that's just me.

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

I do agree that better servers hit the ball higher in the stringbed and you do get more lever that way on the serve...to that end, i think frames with a thoughtful design which extends the sweetzone up higher are the better choices for serving <and volleying> and this is a reason i'm not big on the pancake flipper Yonex headshape...i just dont think the frames are very solid and strong up high...i think their strength is in the groundstroking

I can serve reasonably well w/ most any frame........EXCEPT the Yonex. Don't know why, just NO 'umph'. CC

 

[ledor]

I can serve reasonably well w/ most any frame........EXCEPT the Yonex. Don't know why, just NO 'umph'. CC

i hated serving with yonex (RD-1 Tour, and something RD-70 I think) after coming from longbody prince graphite racquets.

 

[matchmaker]

I dont think headsize has any more to do with it than flex, beamwidth, balance, etc. i've played against really big/good servers over the years using wood, mids like the Ultra2(which was the choice that many better servers chose over the ps85), and oversized Prince frames. In fact the biggest/best server I ever played used a Prince oversize and was clocked around 140.
As far as the sweetspot theory goes, while it may be located slightly farther from the hand on a small headed frame, the sweetzone is also smaller, so i think of that as a wash.
I do agree that better servers hit the ball higher in the stringbed and you do get more lever that way on the serve...to that end, i think frames with a thoughtful design which extends the sweetzone up higher are the better choices for serving <and volleying> and this is a reason i'm not big on the pancake flipper Yonex headshape...i just dont think the frames are very solid and strong up high...i think their strength is in the groundstroking

I do not agree with the statement about Yonex racquets, although I have never played with one. Maybe you will remember a certain Richard Krajicek who won a certain tournament called Wimbledon and is far too often overlooked as one of the best servers of all times, although he did more than serving when he went all the way to the Wimbledon title, especially knocking a certain 5-times winner out of the tournament with stunning passings.

If anything the Yonex head shape should help with serving by stretching the sweetspot out to the upper hoop. Similarly the Volkl VE Tour 10 has a squarish upper hoop giving it a lot of action and service potential there whereas the C10pro has a rather dead upper hoop because it is rounder at the top.

I think it is rather a complicated sum total of the lay-up, the frame shape, headsize and beam with that determines the serve power. If it were all so simple forums like this one wouldn't exist. And off course you have to ad to that one key factor: TECHNIQUE. This being said I do share the OP's experience of serving better with mids.

 

[Rabbit]

Kraijcek also held the record for most aces in one match, 51(?), against Kafelnikov at the US Open. A match Kraijcek also lost.

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

I do not agree with the statement about Yonex racquets, although I have never played with one. Maybe you will remember a certain Richard Krajicek who won a certain tournament called Wimbledon and is far too often overlooked as one of the best servers of all times,QUOTE]

Hey, I can't serve with Yonexes. Doesn't mean no one can! CC

 

[Anton]

In fact, when I used my Dunlop Maxply Fort 65 sq. in. wood racquet back in the day, I had a monster serve and used to hit aces like they were going out of style. I can't hit that many aces with ANY modern racquet today.

Maybe the returning got better?

I don't notice much difference in the serving itself, other then bigger head sizes having a looser stringbed response

 

[BreakPoint]

Maybe the returning got better?

I don't notice much difference in the serving itself, other then bigger head sizes having a looser stringbed response

Yes, that is probably also true since the bigger racquets make it easier to return these days. That would explain the fewer service winners in which the returner touched the ball but was unable to put it into play. However, I'm not sure if this explains the clean aces in which the returner could not even touch the ball. I just think I could get better angles on my serves with the smaller head and the extra weight allowed me to hit a heavier serve.

 

[Anton]

Yes, that is probably also true since the bigger racquets make it easier to return these days. That would explain the fewer service winners in which the returner touched the ball but was unable to put it into play. However, I'm not sure if this explains the clean aces in which the returner could not even touch the ball. I just think I could get better angles on my serves with the smaller head and the extra weight allowed me to hit a heavier serve.

well the frames are also lighter - that would help getting the racket on the ball too