Thick beamed rackets... Why???

Discussion in 'Racquets' started by got spin?, May 23, 2011.

  1. got spin?

    got spin? Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Messages:
    469
    Location:
    Dish Pit
    Why would you want to play with a thick beamed racket??? (24mm and higher) As far as im concerned it just makes frames and shanks happen more often. Why not play with a thin beam and reduce frames and shanks. If you like the stiffness then im sure manufacturers can make a thin beam racket with a stiffness of 70 or higher... the speed pro is a PERFECT example! Why don't the manufacturers just make high powered rackets that are stiff with a thin beam??? All thick beamed rackets I've hit with I tend to frame more often, (I.E. Pure Drive, Extreme, APD and others) Than playing with say a Pure Storm LTD or a Six one or even a Donnay! Im just wondering why would you play with a thick beam when all it does is increase frame tendencies!
     
    #1
  2. Bloodshed

    Bloodshed Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,158
    Location:
    Orléans, Canada
    I personnally love thin beams myself and tends to stay away from thick beam frames since the feel is soo much better off a thin frame.
     
    #2
  3. AceServer

    AceServer Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    191
    I don't know what the difference is, anyone care to elaborate on this?
     
    #3
  4. Jaewonnie

    Jaewonnie Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,142
    maybe like 5mm or so?
     
    #4
  5. Ronaldo

    Ronaldo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    14,209
    Get an OS racquet, will not frame as often.
     
    #5
  6. OldButGame

    OldButGame Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,579
    Location:
    To the Court,At The Court, Going home from The Cou
    ...See I'm biased when it comes to racquet beams,....I think thick beams even LOOK ugly:shock:,.....(but thats just one more of my issues,..:neutral: )
     
    #6
  7. Fuji

    Fuji Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,591
    My RQiS 1 Tour's frame is tapered and goes out 25mm in the hoop and down to 19 in the shaft. It's for sure a different frame.

    I love it though! I don't find that my shanking is any more prevalent with it then with lets say my KPS88 which has a super thin beam.

    It's all in your mind! If your really noticing it, then move your wrist over 2-3mm and you won't frame any more then you would with a thin one. :) Doesn't seem like much, hey?

    -Fuji
     
    #7
  8. AceServer

    AceServer Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    191
    I meant how it feels, power, etc.
     
    #8
  9. OldButGame

    OldButGame Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,579
    Location:
    To the Court,At The Court, Going home from The Cou
    Its been shown that 'ugly sticks' are inherently less powerful,............

    .........OK,.....I made that up,.......
     
    #9
  10. Fuji

    Fuji Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,591
    LOL! By that logic the Youtek Prestige Mid should be one of the most powerful rackets ever made! I absolutely LOVE the look of that stick.

    -Fuji
     
    #10
  11. goran_ace

    goran_ace Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,861
    Location:
    At Large
    OP mentioned the PD, Extreme, and APD which like the RQis also have variable thickness/tapered beams, which allow the frame to be more stiff in the head for example and more flexible in the throat. when you rely only on using very stiff materials in a thin, constant beam the stiffness isn't actually constant along the entire length of the racket, it flexes more at the tip. Bab RDC ratings don't take where the frame flexes into account.

    take a look at the super-widebodies of the 80's to see the most extreme examples of using beam shape/profile to influence stiffness. Wilson Profile had a dual tapered beam to be extremely stiff at the throat, Prince CTS Thunderstick was thickest at the tip, Head Genesis had a wavy profile to be thicker at the shoulders and and tip but flex near the sweetspot.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2011
    #11
  12. Fuji

    Fuji Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,591
    Thanks for the info! I think a huge part is where it flexes as to the overall feel of the stick as well.

    -Fuji
     
    #12
  13. TheBoom

    TheBoom Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,341
    Location:
    Kingwood texas
    Depents they feel clunky but my forehand is a rocket with a thick beamed racket so it depends but thin beams tend to feel better imo
     
    #13
  14. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    36,365
    Location:
    East side of San Francisco Bay
    Cheaper for the manufacturer to use thick beams to make stiff rackets.
    If you mishit all the time, roll your shots off the frame, maybe go for bigger heads, like 100's.
     
    #14
  15. Zverev

    Zverev Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    853
    Yes, it's probably cheaper to increase stiffness by increasing thickness of the beam.
     
    #15
  16. tnsanydy

    tnsanydy Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    187
    It's the weight issue. Mostly, and I mean mostly thick beam appeals to beginners because of it's inherent power and lightweight which is what they need while still learning their movements. The contruction of thick beams means less flex hence more power with less material so it's lighter. On the other hand, It takes more material to make say a 17 mm to get it to the stiffness rating of 70 or higher. Good luck finding a 17 mm that weighs less than 10 oz. Of course, during the early days of tennis, everybody have to learn with the heavy wooden racket with the really small head so there goes my analogy out the door! :)
     
    #16
  17. klementine

    klementine Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,118
    Location:
    DcMdVa
    The 'feel' of thick beamed frames is subjective... I had the original MgExtreme filled with about 20g of silicone and it was definately not 'hollow' feeling... very solid.

    My problem with thick beams is how they move through the air... especially on serve... I just can't serve with them... they feel ... 'blind'... for lack of a better adjective... hard to gauge with high swing speeds.
     
    #17
  18. Power Player

    Power Player G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,961
    Location:
    On my iPhone
    I hate thick beams..tried my best to like them..bought them for a while, but I am old school and prefer the thin ones. I get more racquet face on the ball and more control as well. I just can do more to the ball with a thin beam.
     
    #18
  19. vandre

    vandre Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,762
    Location:
    no man's land
    that's what i used in college! the last time i took it out and hit with it, it really felt odd. oh well, i won my match with it! it's kinda like head's fxp stuff, but different than the stick i use now (thinnest at the throat so it flexes there).

    anyway, i remember when widebodies first became popular in the early 90s, part of the hype was that they were more "aerodynamic" than a traditional 19mm racquet, therefore, more racquet head speed. now who really has the numbers and who knows if its significant to we mere mortals, but that was part of the widebody appeal.
     
    #19
  20. tnsanydy

    tnsanydy Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    187
    So true! I've played with my Wilson PSC 6.1 95 for years and never really look back and it's right there inbetween at 22mm beam. I bought a really used Federer's Wilson BLX six.one tour 90 and decided to totally scrape/sanded/remove the entire paint job and spray painted it black- took me a while because the original paint is baked on but the result was awesome! It feels like playing a PS 6.0 85 but lighter so it's much more maneuverable. :)
     
    #20
  21. SFrazeur

    SFrazeur Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,480
    Location:
    Arkansas
    I don't think about the thickness of my PDRGT. It's stable, forgiving and powerful. I have never shanked on the thickest part of the frame on a properly struck shot and I hit a powerful forehand with a load of spin.

    -SF
     
    #21
  22. Ross K

    Ross K Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,232
    This answer.

    R
     
    #22
  23. eidolonshinobi

    eidolonshinobi Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,476
    Location:
    Sunny San Diego
    actually this is a perfect description. I found myself second guessing how hard I've hit a shot with a thicker beam racquet.
     
    #23
  24. Ronaldo

    Ronaldo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    14,209
    Most forgot about the Wilson PS 5.5 Spin with a 15 mm beam. The tuning fork
     
    #24
  25. SFrazeur

    SFrazeur Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,480
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Had one of those for a short time. Even when hitting against a backboard it felt like it could easily snap.

    -SF
     
    #25
  26. Ronaldo

    Ronaldo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    14,209
    Still have a Gamma F 9.5 with a 17 mm beam, nearly as firm as a PS 6.0, damped, sweet. Does not have the feel of the PS though.
     
    #26
  27. alen_david

    alen_david Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    192
    Location:
    NYC/LI
    I concur. Thin beams give the best feel.
     
    #27
  28. tnsanydy

    tnsanydy Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    187
    I'll make one exception on one racket I was "forced" to use when I broke the string on my PSC- it was the old Head Flexpoint 4 which has surprisingly controllable power. It was way up there at 27mm straight beam. I end up winning my match with very few shanked and over the fence shots. :)
     
    #28
  29. user92626

    user92626 Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    6,182
    Light rackets tend to be thick framed so they can be more stable. I'd think that the thick frame on a light racket absorbs and disperses a shot impact much better than otherwise.
     
    #29
  30. goran_ace

    goran_ace Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,861
    Location:
    At Large
    I was not a fan of the Wilson Hammer 5.5 Spin (was not a PS) at all. Felt quick through the air but completely unstable. A little lead didn't help and major customization wasn't worth the time or effort since a stock PSC 6.1 already did everything better.

    One kind of odd thing to add. If you hold your racket by the throat in the ready position with your opposite hand, this one felt really weird in your hand due to the thin beam and completely round shape of the beam (it wasn't just a rounded off rectangle, it felt like a circle).

    pic of the racket on this thread: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=214216
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2011
    #30
  31. PimpMyGame

    PimpMyGame Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,433
    "As far as I'm concerned" - this gives some indication that thick beams are merely a personal issue. I see plenty of weekend warriors with thick beamed rackets having a great time on court - give them a low powered thinner beamed racket and they would be lost. The point has been made before that controlling stiffness by beam width seems to be cost driven, therefore those players who prefer stiffer, more powerful rackets have to use ones with thicker beam widths. It's horses for courses.
     
    #31
  32. Ronaldo

    Ronaldo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    14,209
    Thanks for the correction, been too many years since demoing the 5.5 Spin.
     
    #32
  33. goran_ace

    goran_ace Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,861
    Location:
    At Large
    I like how you nicknamed it 'the tuning fork' - great description!
     
    #33
  34. Praetorian

    Praetorian Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,199
    I look at it this way, if I hit the ball cleanly, all the time, it doesn't matter if the the racket is thin or thick beamed. If I do frame the ball, it's because my timing, or technique is off - and I shouldn't rely on a racket's miniscule propensity to shank the ball or not, as a determinant on ball hitting success. If you have to go onto the court thinking, "shanking with this racket give me a better chance of winning than with a thick beamed racket", I think you have bigger fish to fry. Personally when I shank, it just think my chances of winning the point has pretty much gon down to nil, and if I do win the point, I just chalk that up to luck, rather than skill, or the racket's beam width has anything to do with it.
     
    #34
  35. Yenster

    Yenster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    244
    Doesn't it supposed to provide for stability?
     
    #35
  36. Fuji

    Fuji Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,591
    LOL! I wish! The KPS88 has one of the thinnest beams I've ever played with, I think it's 17mm, and that thing is a ROCK! It's never had one moment in my hand where it's twisted out of place! It has the highest inertia of any frame I've ever had the pleasure to hit with.

    (Btw, is your rating actually 7.5, or are you just kidding? :) I'm just curious, not trying to attack or anything.)

    -Fuji
     
    #36
  37. Ronaldo

    Ronaldo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    14,209
    Do not dismiss all thick beams. Remember the Max 200G, one of the GROAT, was kinda thick.
     
    #37
  38. Cooper_Tecnifibre4

    Cooper_Tecnifibre4 Professional

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,246
    Location:
    Wherever Your Serve Goes
    I'm right there with you man!
     
    #38
  39. tnsanydy

    tnsanydy Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    187
    Thick beam, thin beam, skinny beam, who really cares? What really matters is only my side of the court, if you can beat me with whatever racket you're using, you'll get my respect! Bottom line is, whatever works for you be happy with it.:)
     
    #39
  40. The Baseline

    The Baseline Professional

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,226
    Most tour professionals use a 98 square inch THIN Beam. Feel is everything to the top players in the world. You cannot tell me that a Dunlop Aerogel 500 Tour has the same feel as a Head Youtek Speed Pro. The thin beam is preferred because all of those players hit with a ton of pace and hit the ball solid every time. Thin beams are the way to go on the main tour.
     
    #40
  41. magnut

    magnut Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,737
    There have been a few heavy and flexy wide beams I have really liked but for the most part they usually are just to light and stiff. Wide beams do have a different feel though. I can only describe it as a hollow feeling. Which is not a bad thing...just different. They are ussually good stability wise though. One of my all time favorites is a very flexible and heavy wide beam racquet.
     
    #41
  42. stevewcosta

    stevewcosta Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Thick beams suck and almost ruined tennis. Thankfully, the trend is back to normal, thinner beams. Yes, normal. No need for a fat-assed racquet.
     
    #42
  43. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    36,365
    Location:
    East side of San Francisco Bay
    I think, before we blindly condemn thick beamed, lightweight, big hoops, we should consider that maybe half the market NEEDS them to hit a decent ball.
    Half the market is old men, old women, weak and injured tennis players. A thick beam allows a short stunted swing to hit a decent ball.
    Maybe, possibly, some of YOU are going to get old some day. YOU will be seeking a racket with more power and easier swing by that time. Believe it.
     
    #43
  44. stevewcosta

    stevewcosta Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    I don't mind if cos. make them as long as they continue making decent racquets. I'm old, have 4 herniated discs from a car accident and ligament damage in my knee and will never use a thick beamed racquet. The thick racquet craze for 15+ years saw very few options for those who like more traditional offerings. Hell, every manufacturer already has too many racquets that overlap and most are awful, thick and muted...
     
    #44
  45. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    36,365
    Location:
    East side of San Francisco Bay
    Me me me me me me .......:):)
    What about the 65 year old lady who just started tennis 4 years ago?
     
    #45
  46. Nextman916

    Nextman916 Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,122
    There are tapered beams, that are pretty thick (25mm @ widest point) that hit beautifully, and arguably better than alot of constant/thinner beams. For example Fischer had been doing this with there 98" size since the 90's, many people can attest to their racquets having phenomenal playing characteristics.

    The Yonex RQis tour is another frame with super low power level and the same type of tapered beam worth mentioning. Just goes to show you its never been the thickness of a beam that defines its playing characteristics.
     
    #46
  47. Ronaldo

    Ronaldo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    14,209
    Muted string feel has to be more important than beam width. Name racquets made in the past 20 yrs with good tactile feel off the strings.
     
    #47
  48. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Yes, stiffness and stability!
     
    #48
  49. tnsanydy

    tnsanydy Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    187
    There will always be a market for thick beamed racket. And so is old school thin beamed players racket so I'm fine with that. Nadal's racket of choice is not particulary thin at 23/26/24 mm and guess what, he's no# 1 and hardly shank his shot. Federer's racket of choice, the six.one tour 90 at 17+ mm and guess what, he shank more balls with it! Here's the topper, they're both pros so who are we mere mortals complain about racket thickness!!!:)
     
    #49
  50. OldButGame

    OldButGame Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,579
    Location:
    To the Court,At The Court, Going home from The Cou
    Thanks for that 'note of cheer' Lee,..... :cry:
     
    #50

Share This Page