View Single Post
Old 04-21-2012, 10:50 AM   #20
UCSF2012
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceroberts13 View Post
My point was: I think everyone commenting prior to you fully realizes the effects a thinner or thicker beam can have. You just kind of unnecessarily stated the obvious and it really wasn't even completely true. You could have a racquet with a thicker beam and it be more flexible or less stable upon ball impact than a similar frame with a thinner beam and vice versa.

Geez Sherlock, what an epiphany! Hit the ball harder, and you get a more powerful shot. Perhaps you could teach us about how stepping in with your weight creates more power, or using more powerful strings to generate more pace, or using a racket with a bigger head to generate pace, or any multitude of things to increase power. I don't think any of us know that at all. No need to consult Dr. Watson on this one.

My point was...no they don't. This is an engineering design matter, and they don't have the slightest clue what beam width does. They just rant on about how they love the 16mm beam of the PS85, how they love the box beam design, why don't they come out with a thin beam Blade, etc, etc etc. They don't have the slightest clue that these beam designs HINDER a racket's performance. Thus the blind suggestion returning to the KFActor thin beam design.
UCSF2012 is offline   Reply With Quote