Players rackets are too demanding for the modern game! Granny sticks will make your arm fall off! Etc. What's too heavy? What's too light? What's too small a hitting area? Who's to say? Everyone has there own opinion. If only someone could define an appropriate range... What if someone sampled the specs from, oh say - 103 rackets currently for sale on TW? What if someone took those specs and used them to define a "normal" range for each spec (where "normal" means +/- one standard deviation relative to the average)? What are the normal ranges in this set of 103 rackets, anyway? Here: Headsize: 94.6-105.6 sq in Length: 26.9-27.4 in Mass: 295.5-341.6 g Points: -0.3-9 Swingweight: 312-332.3 Stiffness: 60.8-68.3 C.O.P.: 52.8-55.1 cm Let's call this "Step 1." What if someone then attempted to define the Little Red Riding Hood frame - not too much or too little of anything, just right. What if just right actually meant within the "normal" range of +/- 1 SD? Nothing out of balance. Some limits mean more than others, of course. Who cares about the length limit? Can you ever be too flexible? Assuming no lower bound on flex or any bound on length, if you went through the exercise, you'd find these rackets would fit within all the ranges described above, in order of weight from high to low: fxp radical tour m speed 98 tour 10 gen II lm prestige mp tour 10 mp v m speed 105 ki5 rdx 500 hd rdx 500 mp ki5x o3 tour ki15 pse ki10 pse tfight 315 warrior mp laver type sx aeropro drive o3 white maxply lm radical mp fxp instinct lm instinct fxp radical mp shark mp bb 10 pure control zylon pure control zylon plus nTour o3 red Let's call this result "Step 2." You'll notice that's a pretty playable range of frames. All specs in normal range will do that. Because you read the TW boards, you are one picky mofo. You hate the fact that I defined the model range in step 1 with the entire set of 103 frames. You want to use only players frames. Or only granny frames. You probably also hate the fact that I elected to use C.O.P as a bounding criteria in step 2. Who cares how high or low the sweetspot is? And yes, you also think there can be such a thing as too flexible, so my list stinks. Maybe there's no such thing as too much hitting area in your mind, or too little swingweight. Fine. Make your own list: http://specgeek.50megs.com/RelativeRacketFinder.html Define your own ranges for step 1. Indicate what bounds - high, low, both, neither - you want to use in step 2. Behold: 1) a list of rackets that pass your definition of "normal." 2) a list of rackets that fall outside your "normal" ranges - that also tells you which spec (stiffness, headsize, etc.) caused a particular racket to fail. All relative to what's on the market today. No brand loyalties. No personal biases. Just data.