I've played with 90", 95", and 100" frames.
I believe smaller heads are probably better for rec players, especially low level rec players for the following reasons:
1. Our shots tend to be lower velocity so any "sweet spot" advantage of larger frames doesn't matter much
2. Our games are won with consistency and placement rather than power and smaller heads support that objective better
3. Depth control is difficult for noobs made even more difficult for powerful, larger head frames...small, lower power frames make it easier to comtrol depth.
To control the power of larger heads you need to have great timing and precision in your strokes since any error gets amplified. Pros have that, we rec players don't.
The problem? Nadal and his likes hit amazing spinny shots with their 100" heads and the industry wants to market similar frames to adoring fans eager to buy "Nadal's" frame.
Recently I did a demo for my boys to teach them the importance of placement vs power as a new player. Using an AG 4D 100 and 4D 200 I played with them with my arms and hands down at my sides. We hit balls back and forth in a rally with my hands essentially tied to my sides. Even with these low powered frames I could hit the ball to the opposite baseline with ease. Even low powered modern frames provide enough power that with a flick of the wrist and a little spin of the body "no armed man" can knock a shot to the opposite fence.
Meanwhile, at low-mid level men's rec tennis, you have guys trying to smash the ball with their Nadal-wannabe-frames far beyond their skill resulting in tons of UEs.
Imo smaller heads is not about being elite. Quite the opposite. It's a recognition that I can't consistently hit amazingly hard top spin shots off any ball like Nadal et al. I can do so off a floater but otherwise I need to focus on placement rather than power and smaller heads are far superior to larger heads in that department.
Only on Talk Tennis can you find people who believe
that 10 feet of lead tape has no effect on a frame...